A requester using the foot-in-the-door (FITD) tactic begins by gaining compliance with a small request and then advances to a related, larger request. Previous work has demonstrated that a strong preference for consistency among targets of the tactic can enhance the FITD effect. Other work has indicated that an inadequate delay between the requests can produce resistance and can significantly reduce the effect. Study 1 found that high levels of preference for consistency (PFC) were sufficient to override this resistance, provided that participants’ prior helpfulness in complying with the initial request was made salient. Study 2 replicated this finding among high-PFC participants and showed that low-PFC participants demonstrated a reverse FITD effect when their prior helpfulness was made salient. The authors conclude that high- and low-PFC individuals are likely to become more or less consistent with an action (respectively) when focused on the personal implications of that action.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bargh, J. A. (1997). The automaticity of everyday life. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Ed.), The automaticity of everyday life: Advances in social cognition (Vol. 10, pp. 1-61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
Bator, R. J. , & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). The nature of consistency motivation: Consistency, aconsistency, and anticonsistency in a dissonance paradigm. Unpublished manuscript, Arizona State University.
3.
Bator, R. J. , Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (1996, August). Behavioral validation of the preference for consistency scale. Poster presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
4.
Beaman, A. L. , Cole, C. M., Klentz, B., & Steblay, N. M. (1983). Fifteen years of the foot-in-the-door research: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 181-196.
5.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). New York: Academic Press.
6.
Burger, J. M. (1999). The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure: A multiple-process analysis and review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 303-325.
7.
Cann, A. , Sherman, S. J., & Elkes, R. (1975). Effects of initial request size and timing of a second request on compliance: The foot in the door and the door in the face. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 774-782.
8.
Cialdini, R. B. , Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human conduct. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201-234). New York: Academic Press.
9.
Cialdini, R. B. , Trost, M. R., & Newsom, J. T. (1995). Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 318-328.
10.
Council, J. R. (2000). [Preference for consistency and trait labels]. Unpublished data.
11.
Council, J. R. , Grant, D. L., Smith, E. J., & Matz, D. C. (1997, August). Preference for consistency and volunteer research participation. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.
12.
Deaux, K. , & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369-389.
13.
DeJong, W. (1979). An examination of self-perception mediation of the foot-in-the-door effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2221-2239.
14.
DeJong, W. (1981). Consensus information and the foot-in-the-door effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 423-430.
15.
Dillard, J. P. (1991). The current status of research on sequential request compliance techniques. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 283-288.
16.
Dillard, J. P. , Hunter, J. E., & Burgoon, M. (1984). Sequential-request persuasive strategies: Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human Communication Research, 10(4), 461-488.
17.
Dolinski, D. (in press). On inferring one’s beliefs from one’s attempts and its consequences for subsequent compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
18.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
19.
Freedman, J. L. , & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195-202.
20.
Gorassini, D. R. , & Olson, J. M. (1995). Does self-perception change explain the foot-in-the-door effect?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 91-105.
21.
Guadagno, R. E. , & Cialdini, R. B. (1996). [Test-retest reliability of the PFC scale]. Unpublished data.
22.
Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107-112.
23.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
John, O. P. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 66-100). New York: Guilford.
25.
McGuire, W. J. (1990). Dynamic operations of thought systems. American Psychologist, 45, 504-512.
26.
Nail, P. R. , MacDonald, G., & Levy, D. A. (in press). Proposal of a four-dimensional model of social response. Psychological Bulletin.
27.
Newcomb, T. M. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychological Review, 60, 393-404.
28.
Smith, E. J. (1998). The influence of positive and negative schema on the consistency of self-description. Unpublished master’s thesis, North Dakota State University.
29.
Synder, M. , & Cunningham, M. 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, 64-67.
