A field experiment conducted in Sweden compared the effectiveness of two types of telephone pre-calls in influencing response rates in a mail survey. Response rates for a questioning foot-in-the-door manipulation were evaluated against responses produced by a simple solicitation call and a blind mailing control. The results demonstrate that pre-calling in general enhances response rate. However, the results furnish, at best, qualified support for a self-perception theory prediction. Alternative explanations for the lack of the self-perception foot effect are offered. Conclusions are drawn for the practitioner and academic researcher.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BernDaryl J. (1972), “Self-Perception Theory,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, BerkowitzL., ed. New York: Academic Press, 1–62.
2.
BoorMyron (1976), “Relationship of Internal-External Control and National Suicide Rates,” Journal of Social Psychology, 100 (October), 143–4.
3.
BrunnerAllen G. and CarrollStephen J.Jr. (1969), “The Effect of Prior Notification on the Refusal Rate in Fixed Address Surveys,” Journal of Advertising Research, 9 (March), 42–4.
4.
CollinsBarry E. (1974), “Four Components of the Rotter Internal-External Scale,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29 (March), 381–91.
5.
FreedmanJonathan L. and FraserScott C. (1966), “Compliance Without Pressure: The Foot-in-the-Door Technique,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 (October), 195–202.
6.
HansenRobert A. and RobinsonLarry M. (1980), “Testing the Effectiveness of Alternative Foot-in-the-Door Manipulations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (August), 359–64.
7.
HeberleinThomas A. and BaumgartnerRobert (1978), “Factors Affecting Response Rates to Mailed Questionnaires: A Quantitative Analysis of the Published Literature,” American Sociological Review, 43 (August), 447–62.
8.
KanukLeslie and BerensonConrad (1975), “Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (November), 440–53.
9.
LefcourtHerbert M. (1966), “Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement: A Review,” Psychological Bulletin, 65 (April), 206–20.
10.
LinskyArnold S. (1975), “Stimulating Responses to Mailed Questionnaires: A Review,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 29 (Spring), 82–101.
11.
McGinniesElliott, NordholmLena A., WardCharles D., and BlanthumnavinDuangduen L. (1974), “Sex and Cultural Differences in Perceived Locus of Control Among Students in Five Countries,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42 (June), 451–5.
12.
PetersonRobert A. (1975), “An Experimental Investigation of Mail Survey Responses,” Journal of Business Research, 3 (July), 199–210.
13.
SeligmanClive, BushMalcolm, and KirschKenneth (1976), “Relationship Between Compliance in the Foot-in-the-Door Paradigm and Size of First Request,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33 (May), 517–20.
14.
SnyderMark and CunninghamMichael R. (1975), “To Comply or Not Comply: Testing the Self-Perception Explanation of the Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31 (January), 64–7.
15.
SternthalBrian, ScottCarol A., and DholakiaRuby Roy (1976), “Self-Perception as a Means of Personal Influence: The Foot-in-the-Door Technique,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 3, AndersonB., ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: Association for Consumer Research, 387–93.
16.
SwinyardWilliam R. and RayMichael L. (1977), “Advertising-Selling Interactions: An Attribution Theory Experiment,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (November), 509–16.
17.
TyboutAlice M. and YalchRichard F. (1980), “The Effect of Experience: A Matter of Salience?” Journal of Consumer Research, 6 (March), 406–13.
