The Foot-in-the-Door Paradigm

Abstract

This study examines the impact of second requests on the percentage of donors and on donation size. In the initial stage of the study, half of the subjects were asked to sign a petition for the establishment of a social club for the handicapped. The second stage was conducted on the National Collection Day for the Rehabilitation of the Mentally Handicapped. Petition signers were asked to donate either an amount of money of their own discretion or a predetermined amount (£40,50, or 60) requested by the canvasser. While the foot-in-the-door paradigm alone enhanced the percentage of donors, the present study indicates that donation size can also be elevated by requesting specified amounts.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baron, R. A. The "foot-in-the door" phenomenon: Mediating effects of size of first request and sex of requester . Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973, 2, 113-114.

Bem, D. J. Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6). New York: Academic Press, 1972.

Brown, R. W. Social psychology. New York: Free Press, 1965.

Cialdini, R. B. , & Ascani, K. Test of a concession procedure for inducing verbal, behavioral and further compliance with a request to give blood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61, 295-300.

De Jong, W. An examination of self-perception mediation of the foot-in-the-door effect . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 17, 2221-2239.

Foss, R. D. , & Dempsey, C. B. Blood donation and the foot-in-the-door technique: A limiting case. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 580-590.

Fraser, S. , Gouge, C. , & Billing, M. Risky shifts, cautious shifts and group polarization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1971, 1, 1-29.

Freedman, J. L. , & Fraser. S. Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 195-202.

Helson, H. Adaptation-level as a frame of reference for prediction of psychophysical data . American Journal of Psychology, 1947, 60, 1-29.

10.

Helson, H. Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.

11.

Keppel, G. Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973.

12.

Pliner, P. , Hart, H. , Kohl, J. , & Saari, D. Compliance without pressure: Some further data on the foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1974, 10, 17-22.

13.

Rittle, R. H. Changes in helping behavior: Self-versus situational perception as mediators of the foot-in-the-door effect . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1981, 7, 431-437.

14.

SAS User's Guide 1979 edition, Helwig, J. T. , Concil, K. A. (Eds.) Raleigh, NC: SAS Institute, 1979.

15.

Schwarzwald, J. , Raz, M. , & Zvibel, M. The applicability of the door-in-the-face technique when established behavioral customs exist. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1979, 9, 576-586.

16.

Secord, P. F. , & Backman, C. W. Social psychology (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.

17.

Seligman, C. , Bush, M. , & Kirsch, K. Relationship between compliance in the foot-in-the-door paradigm and size of first request. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 517-520.

18.

Sherif, C. W. , Sherif, M. , & Nebergall, R. E. Attitude and attitude change: The social judgment involvement approach. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1965.

19.

Snyder, M. , & Cunningham, M. R. To comply or not to comply: Testing the self-perception explanation of the foot-in-the-door phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 64-67.

20.

Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.