The foot-in-the-door technique involves persuading the people to agree to a large request by making them agree to a series of small requests. Self-perception theory helps in determining the effectiveness of the foot-in-the-door technique. It makes customers maintain consistency and help to determine their behavior and attitudes.
What is the foot in the door technique?
Freedman and Fraser: Why Foot-in-the-Door Works. The foot-in-the-door technique was first studied by Jonathan Freedman and Scott Fraser in 1966. The idea is to get the targeted person to say 'yes' to a simple, small request right before asking for a big 'yes.'.
Why does foot-in-the-door technique work?
Freedman and Fraser: Why Foot-in-the-Door Works. The foot-in-the-door technique was first studied by Jonathan Freedman and Scott Fraser in 1966. The idea is to get the targeted person to say 'yes' to a simple, small request right before asking for a big 'yes.' Freedman and Fraser found that once a person agrees to a small request,...
What is the self-perception theory?
The self-perception theory was developed by Daryl Bem, a social psychologist and retired professor from Cornell University, and claims two things: One is that people come to their beliefs and attitudes based on what they enjoy doing and if there is a positive or negative outcome on an experience.
Do you have your foot in the door with a small request?
Freedman and Fraser found that once a person agrees to a small request, they are more likely to agree to a larger request than they would be if you didn't already have your 'foot in the door' with the small request.
What is the foot-in-the-door theory?
The foot in the door technique is a compliance tactic that assumes agreeing to a small request increases the likelihood of agreeing to a second, larger request. So, initially you make a small request and once the person agrees to this they find it more difficult to refuse a bigger one (Freedman & Fraser, 1966).
What is the foot-in-the-door technique example?
The foot-in-the-door technique is when a small request is initially made in order to get a person to later agree to a bigger request. An example of this is when a friend asks to borrow a small amount of money, then later asks to borrow a larger amount.
How is foot-in-the-door effective?
Even when proposed as a psychological concept in 1966 by Freedman and Fraser, the phrase “foot in the door” had been commonplace for decades. According to the FITD technique, if you start with a modest request then follow up later with a larger request, you increase your chances of succeeding with the larger request.
Why is the foot-in-the-door technique effective quizlet?
Why does the foot in the door technique work? After first replying "yes" to a simple request that anyone would do, the person begins to feel like a helpful person and thus want to help again once you ask for something harder.
Who uses foot-in-the-door technique?
salespeopleThe foot-in-the-door technique is one of numerous tactics used by salespeople to persuade sceptical customers.
Is foot in the door or door-in-the-face more effective?
Foot-in-the-door technique proved to be slightly more effective compared to Door-in-the-face technique. However, both techniques exhibited increased effectiveness from control as expected (see table 1 and 2).
How do you do foot in the door?
Foot-in-the-door (FITD) technique is a compliance tactic that aims at getting a person to agree to a large request by having them agree to a modest request first.
How does the door-in-the-face technique promote compliance?
In the door-in-the-face procedure, compliance is increased by first making an extremely hard request and following this with a target request, the one actually desired.
What is the difference between foot in the door and door in the face?
In the foot-in-the-door (FITD) technique smaller requests are asked in order to gain compliance with larger requests, while door-in-the-face (DITF) works in the opposite direction, where larger requests are asked, with the expectation that it will be rejected, in order to gain compliance for smaller requests.
What is one reason why the door in the face technique works?
Thus, the door-in-the-face does two things: It invokes the rule of reciprocity (when the requestor moves from a large request to a smaller request, we feel a reciprocal obligation to move from “no” to “yes”), and it creates a contrast effect (the size of the large request makes the smaller request seem even smaller in ...
What is the lowball technique?
Low-balling is a technique designed to gain compliance by making a very attractive initial offer to induce a person to accept the offer and then making the terms less favorable. Studies have shown that this approach is more successful than when the less favorable request is made directly.
Who discovered the door in the face technique?
How was the Door in the Face Technique Invented? Robert Cialdini arranged three experiments to show how effective the door in the face technique is when you need to make someone accept your request.
What is an example of foot-in-the-door technique?
The foot-in-the-door technique is used by average people in everyday life, from children asking their parents to complete a school project after as...
How effective is the foot-in-the-door technique?
The foot-in-the-door technique was first discovered and researched by Jonathan Freedman and Scott Fraser in 1966. During their experimentation, the...
What is the foot in the door phenomenon in social psychology?
The foot-in-the-door phenomenon, or foot-in-the-door technique, is a psychological persuasion tactic, whereby an individual is requested to complet...
When was the Foot in the Door technique invented?
History. The Foot in The Door Technique (FITD) was first coined by Johnathan Freedman and Scott Fraser of Stanford University in 1966, when they conducted a study to try and prove this theory of granting smaller requests can lead to agreeing to larger requests. Their findings supported what they had thought was to be true.
How effective is the foot in the door?
This study found that the FITD technique was more effective than any of the incentive strategies in producing behavioural persistence. This is supported by the self-perception theory, which states that the FITD technique is effective only because internal thoughts are what drive people's behaviour. That is, external pressure (such as indebtedness) for compliance is not as effective in increasing compliance.
Why is the FITD technique so effective?
This is supported by the self-perception theory, which states that the FITD technique is effective only because internal thoughts are what drive people's behaviour.
What did psychologists ask housewives?
In an early study, a team of psychologists telephoned housewives in California and asked if the women would answer a few questions about the household products they used. Three days later, the psychologists called again.
Why do people follow foot in the door?
With all the research supporting that the Foot-In-The-Door Technique is a successful compliance technique, there is a big question as to why humans tend to follow this pattern. The most well-known theory explaining the reasoning behind this is the self-perception theory. When a person has originally agreed to something, he/she will answer a question to themselves about why he/she agreed to these questions and when he/she came to the decision that it was truly their desire and nothing else influenced the answer, he/she will feel the need to stay consistent with their decision and will agree to a larger request. The self-perception theory was developed by Daryl Bem, a social psychologist and retired professor from Cornell University, and claims two things: One is that people come to their beliefs and attitudes based on what they enjoy doing and if there is a positive or negative outcome on an experience. The second is that when people do not enjoy something, there is no reasonable explanation on why they would take an interest in it. This theory is the most well known for explaining self-knowledge.
When someone expresses support for an idea or concept, that person is more likely to then remain consistent with their prior?
When someone expresses support for an idea or concept, that person is more likely to then remain consistent with their prior expression of support by committing to it in a more concrete fashion. A common example undertaken in research studies uses this foot-in-the-door technique: two groups are asked to place a large, very unsightly sign in their front yard reading "Drive Carefully". The members of one group have previously been approached to put a small sign in their front window reading "Be a Safe Driver", and almost all agreed. In one study, in response to the "Drive Carefully" request 76 percent of those who were initially asked to display the small sign complied, in comparison with only 17 percent of those in the other group not exposed to the earlier, less onerous, request.
Is foot in the door effective?
A study by Guéguen showed that the foot-in-the- door-technique is not only effective in person, but also online. In his study, he found that asking students for help saving a document as an RTF file via email increased their willingness to complete an online survey emailed to them by the initial requester. This information coupled ...
Who wrote the book "Self perception as a means of personal influence: the foot in the door technique"?
Brian Sternthal, Carol A. Scott, and Ruby Roy Dholakia (1976) ,"Self-Perception As a Means of Personal Influence: the Foot-In-The-Door Technique", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 03, eds. Beverlee B. Anderson, Cincinnati, OH : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 387-393.
Why is foot in the door effective?
In effect, it is hypothesized that the foot-in-the-door is effective because people use their own behavior as a cue regarding their attitudinal dispositions. Since external pressure for the initial behavior is assumed to be minimal, people infer a positive attitude from their compliant behavior, which in turn guides subsequent action.
How are actions related to prior behavior?
Thus, individuals' actions are causally related to their prior behavior. Further, it has been suggested that individuals incorporate the circumstances in which behavior occurs into the attribution rules they employ in performing causal analysis of their own behavior. Specifically, for behavior to result in belief inferences it must be self-attributed, or perceived to be elicited by the person's disposition toward the stimulus. Circumstantial forces can attenuate the probability of self-attribution of behavior and the resulting belief inferences and behavior. If the behavior is perceived to be elicited by plausible external causal factors present in the situation (e.g., coupon, incentive, high credibility source), the individual should discount internal motivations as the cause of his behavior and no belief inferences should be made (discounting principle, Kelley, 1971). In a field experiment, Uranowitz (1975) tested the self-perception explanation under two different conditions of external justification. Consistent with the self-perception prediction, women asked to watch the experimenter's packages when justification was low (experimenter had to retrieve a dollar) exhibited greater willingness to help a second experimenter than when justification for watching his packages was high (retrieve his wallet) or when there was no initial contact.
How does low credibility affect behavior?
Observing that they have complied despite the presence of a low credibility source should augment the attribution of behavior to internal causes. If their behavior is not available to subjects as a cue regarding their attitudes, then the situation entails a persuasion paradigm where it has been repeatedly observed that low credibility sources induce relatively little attitude change. On the other hand, if the appeal is attributed to a highly credible source, subjects will be uncertain about the underlying causes of their compliance. It may be attributable to either some personal feeling about the issue (i.e., an internal cause) or to the fact that the message was presented by a highly credible source. As a result, subjects should exhibit a less positive attitude toward the issue in this situation than when the attitudinal posttest precedes behavior.
How does self perception affect attitudes?
From a theoretical perspective, investigations reported in the paper support the self-perception proposition that behavior, and the circumstances in which it occurs, are important determinants of the attitudes people acquire and that these attitudes, in turn, guide subsequent action. On this basis, it may be hypothesized that people will exhibit attitude-behavior consistency when they have had substantial experience with the attitude object that can be attributed to personal dispositions. Operationally, individuals' confidence in their attitude can serve as a measure of the extent to which behavior has been attributed to a positive disposition toward the object. Indeed, Sample and Warland (1973) observed that factors other than subjects' attitudes did not account for the variance in their behavior when they were highly confident in these judgments.
Why is interpersonal influence neglected?
In part, the relative neglect of individual influence contexts reflects the lack of appropriate experimental paradigms to study the phenomenon. In part too, the neglect is attributable to the belief that strategies demonstrated to be effective in mass communication settings will also be appropriate in personal contact situations . However, in light of the unique attributes of personal contact, such as the availability of immediate feedback from message recipients, it may well be that certain influence strategies which fail in mass communication contexts will be successful in individual influence situations.
Does overjustification undermine performance?
Overjustification is operationalized as behavior which is both intrinsically attractive and externally rewarded. The consistent finding of these studies is that the provision of a reward or incentive for performing an enjoyable behavior results in a decrease in intrinsic interest in subsequently engaging in that behavior.
Overview
History
The Foot in The Door Technique (FITD) was first coined by Johnathan Freedman and Scott Fraser of Stanford University in 1966, when they conducted a study to try and prove this theory of granting smaller requests can lead to agreeing to larger requests. Their findings supported what they had thought was to be true. There was controversy over whether the same process that is involved in the self-perception theory, was similar to that of FITD. Researchers thought that beca…
Classic experiments
In an early study, a team of psychologists telephoned housewives in California and asked if the women would answer a few questions about the household products they used. Three days later, the psychologists called again. This time, they asked if they could send five or six men into the house to go through cupboards and storage places as part of a 2-hour enumeration of household products. The investigators found these women were more than twice as likely to agree to the 2 …
Enhancing the technique
The foot-in-the-door technique is also used in many commercial settings and can be illustrated using the door-to-door salesperson who eventually builds up their requests to a final purchase request. In an experiment, subjects were initially asked to have signs in their windows to promote recycling along with varying amounts of incentives ($0, $1, $3) for doing so. This study found that the FITD technique was more effective than any of the incentive strategies in producing behavio…
Examples
When someone expresses support for an idea or concept, that person is more likely to then remain consistent with their prior expression of support by committing to it in a more concrete fashion. A common example undertaken in research studies uses this foot-in-the-door technique: two groups are asked to place a large, very unsightly sign in their front yard reading "Drive Carefully". The members of one group have previously been approached to put a small sign in th…
Applications to everyday life
There are a number of studies concerning the foot-in-the door technique and charitable donations. For example, Schwarzwald, Bizman, and Raz (1983) investigated the effectiveness of the FITD technique for door-to-door fundraising. In their study, some of the participants were first asked to sign a petition before being asked to make a donation to the organization (foot-in-the-door condition). Others were not asked to sign a petition before making a donation (control condition…
Psychology
With all the research supporting that the Foot-In-The-Door Technique is a successful compliance technique, there is a big question as to why humans tend to follow this pattern. The most well-known theory explaining the reasoning behind this is the self-perception theory. When a person has originally agreed to something, he/she will answer a question to themselves about why he/she agreed to these questions and when he/she came to the decision that it was truly their desire an…
Alternatives
In the foot-in-the-door (FITD) technique smaller requests are asked in order to gain compliance with larger requests, while door-in-the-face (DITF) works in the opposite direction, where larger requests are asked, with the expectation that it will be rejected, in order to gain compliance for smaller requests.
An alternative postulated by Dolinski (2011) is the foot-in-the-face (FITF) technique: compliance …