Foot in the door and door in the face have been cited frequently as effective strategies for gaining compliance with behavioral requests. However, research efforts to confirm these two phenomena have produced mixed results. After deriving predictions about how the favorability of available information influences compliance, the authors report a synthesis of research results for both paradigms. Combined effect sizes across research results for several moderating variables are compiled. Implications for theoretical, empirical, and practical application of the syntheses are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeamanArthur L., and Maureen ColeC., and PrestonMarilyn, KlentzBonnel, and SteblayNancy M. (1983), “Fifteen Years of Foot-in-the-Door Research: A Meta Analysis,”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9(June), 181–96.
2.
BowerGordon H. (1972), “Mental Imagery and Associative Learning,” in Cognition in Learning and Memory, GreggL., ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
3.
CialdiniRobert B., and VincentJ. E., and LewisS. K., and CatalanJ., and WheelerD., and DarbyB. L. (1975), “Reciprocal Concessions Procedure for Inducing Compliance: The Door-in-the-Face Technique,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206–15.
4.
CohenJacob (1977), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.New York: Academic Press, Inc.
5.
CooperHarris M. (1984), The Integrative Research Review: A Systematic Approach.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
6.
DeJongWilliam (1979), “An Examination of Self-Perception Mediation of the Foot-in-the-Door Effect,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(12), 2221–39.
7.
DillardJames P., HunterJohn E., and BurgoonMichael (1983), “A Meta-Analysis of Two Sequential-Request Strategies for Gaining Compliance: Foot-in-the-Door and Door-in-the-Face,” paper presented at annual convention of International Communication Association, Dallas, TX (May).
8.
FreedmanJonathan L., and FraserScott C. (1966), “Compliance Without Pressure: The Foot-in-the-Door Technique,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 195–202.
9.
GlassGene V., and McGawBarry, and SmithMary L. (1981), Meta-Analysis in Social Research.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
10.
GreenwaldAnthony (1975), “Consequences of Prejudices Against the Null Hypothesis,”Psychological Bulletin, 82(January), 1–20.
11.
HannahDarlene B., and SternthalBrian (1984), “Detecting and Explaining the Sleeper Effect,”Journal of Consumer Research, 11(September), 632–42.
12.
HedgesLarry V. (1962), “Estimation of Effect Size for a Series of Independent Variables,”Psychological Bulletin, 92(March), 490–9.
13.
HigginsE. Tory, RholesWilliam S., and JonesCarl R. (1977), “Category Accessibility and Impression Formation,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141–54.
14.
MooreBert S., SherrodDrury R., LiuThomas J., and UnderwoodBill (1979), “The Dispositional Shift in Attribution Over Time,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 553–69.
15.
MowenJohn C., and CialdiniRobert B. (1980), “On Implementing the Door-in-the-Face Compliance Technique in a Business Context,”Journal of Marketing Research, 17(May), 253–8.
16.
RosenthalRobert (1984), Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
17.
RosenthalRobert, and RubinDonald B. (1982), “A Simple, General Purpose Display of Magnitude of Experimental Effect,”Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 166–9.
18.
SawyerAlan G., and Dwayne BallA. (1981), “Statistical Power and Effect Size in Marketing Research,”Journal of Marketing Research, 18(August), 279–90.
19.
TyboutAlice M., and SternthalBrian, and CalderBobby J. (1983), “Information Availability as a Determinant of Multiple Request Effectiveness,”Journal of Marketing Research, 20(August), 280–90.
20.
TyboutAlice M., and YalchRichard F. (1980), “The Effect of Experience: A Matter of Salience?”Journal of Consumer Research, 6(March), 406–13.
