The so-called foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face techniques have been generally considered as procedures which may consistently influence others' behavior. This study compared efficiency (in terms of compliance rates with various target requests) of both techniques using meta-analysis. It is based on the accumulated studies directly comparing foot-in-the-door (n = 22, subjects = 1581) and door-in-the-face (n = 22, subjects = 1611) under a similar target request. Analysis indicated no significant differences in efficiency between the paradigms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeamanA. L.ColeC. M.PrestonM.KlentzB.SteblayN. M. (1983) Fifteen years of foot-in-the-door research, a meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 181–196.
2.
BrownsteinR.KatzevR. (1985) The relative effectiveness of three techniques in eliciting donations to a cultural organization. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 564–574.
3.
BurgerJ. M. (1986) Increasing compliance by improving the deal: The that's-not-all-technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 277–283.
4.
BurgerJ. M. (1999) The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure: A multiple-process analysis and review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 303–325.
5.
CannA.ShermanS.ElkesR. (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.
6.
CialdiniR. B.AscaniK. (1976) Test of a concession procedure for inducing verbal, behavioral and further compliance with a request to give blood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 295–300.
7.
CialdiniR. B.CacioppoJ. T.BassetR.MillerJ. A. (1978) Low-ball procedure for producing compliance: Commitment then cost. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 463–476.
8.
CialdiniR. B.SchroederD. A. (1976) Increasing compliance by legitimizing paltry contributions: When even a penny helps. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 599–604.
9.
CialdiniR. B.VincentJ. E.LewisS. K.CatalanJ.WheelerD.DarbyB. L. (1975) A reciprocal concession procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206–215.
10.
DavisB. P.KnowlesE. S. (1999) A disrupt-then-reframe technique of social influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 192–199.
11.
DillardJ. P. (1991) The current status of research on sequential-request compliance techniques. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 283–288.
12.
DillardJ. P.HaleJ. L. (1992) Prosocialness and sequential request compliance techniques: Limits to the foot-in-the-door and the door-in-the-face. Communications Studies, 43, 220–232.
13.
DillardJ. P.HunterJ.BurgoonM. (1984) Sequential-request persuasive strategies meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human Communication Research, 10, 461–488.
14.
DolinskiD.NawratR. (1998) “Fear-then-relief” procedure for producing compliance: Beware when the danger is over. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 27–50.
15.
FernE.MonroeK.AvilaR. (1986) Effectiveness of multiple request strategies: An synthesis of research results. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 144–152.
16.
FleissJ. L. (1994) Measures of effect size for categorical data. In CooperH.HedgesL. V. (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Found. Pp. 245–260.
17.
FoehlJ.GoldmanM. (1983) Increasing altruistic behavior by using compliance technique. Journal of Social Psychology, 119, 21–29.
18.
FreedmanJ. L.FraserS. C. (1966) Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195–202.
19.
GoldmanM. (1986) Compliance employing a combined foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face procedure. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 111–116.
20.
GraceC. R.BellP. A.SugarJ. (1988) Effects of compliance techniques on spontaneous and asked-for helping. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 525–532.
21.
GuéguenN.PascualA. (2000) Evocation of freedom and compliance: The “but you are free of …” technique. Current Research in Social Psychology, 5, 264–270.
22.
HaddockC. K.RindskopfD.ShadishW. R. (1998) Using odds ratios as effect sizes for meta-analysis of dichotomous data: A primer on methods and issues. Psychological Methods, 3, 339–353.
23.
HarrariH.MohrD.HoseyK. (1980) Faculty helpfulness to students: A comparison of compliance techniques. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 373–377.
24.
HayesT. J.DwyerF. R.GreenwaltT. J.CoeN. A. (1984) A comparison of two behavioral influence techniques for improving blood donor recruitment. Transfusion, 24, 399–403.
25.
HowardD. J. (1990) The influence of verbal responses to common greetings on compliance behavior: The foot-in-the-mouth effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(Part 2), 1185–1196.
26.
JouleR. V.GouillouxF.WeberF. (1989) The lure: A new compliance procedure. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 741–749.
27.
MartensB. K.KellyS. Q.DiskinM. T. (1996) The effects of two sequential-request strategies on teacher's acceptability and use of a classroom intervention. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 73, 211–221.
28.
NawratR. (1993) “Könnten Sie 20 Minuten auf mein Fahrrad aufpassen?” Ein Vergleich der Fuß-in-der-Tür Technik und der Technik der zugeschlagenen Tür. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 24, 264–272.
29.
O'KeefeD. J.HaleS. L. (1998) The door-in-the-face influence strategy: A random-effects meta-analytic review. Communication Yearbook, 21, 1–33.
30.
O'KeefeD. J.HaleS. L. (2001) An odds-ratio-based meta-analysis of research on the door-in-the-face influence strategy. Communication Reports, 14, 31–38.
31.
PatchM. (1986) The role of source legitimacy in sequential request strategies of compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 199–205.
32.
PatchM. (1988) Differential perception of source legitimacy in sequential request strategies. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 817–823.
33.
ReingenP.KernanJ. (1978) More evidence on interpersonal yielding. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 588–593.
34.
ReingenP. H. (1978) On inducing compliance with requests. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 96–102.
35.
SantosM. D.LeveC.PratkanisA. R. (1994) Hey buddy, can you spare seventeen cents? Mindful persuasion and the pique technique. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 755–764.
36.
ShanabM. E.O'NeilP. J. (1982) The effects of self-perception and perceptual contrast upon compliance with socially undesirable requests. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 19, 279–281.
37.
TyboutA. (1978) Relative effectiveness of three behavioral influence strategies as supplements to persuasion in a marketing context. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 229–242.
38.
WangT.BrownsteinR.KatzevR. (1989) Promoting charitable behavior with compliance techniques. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38, 165–183.
39.
WilliamsK.WilliamsK. (1989) Impact of source strength on two compliance techniques. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 149–150.
