When Saying Yes Leads to Saying No: Preference for Consistency and the Reverse Foot-in-the-Door Effect

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.

[1]  F. Heider.  Attitudes and cognitive organization. , 1946, The Journal of psychology.

[2]  T. Newcomb.  An approach to the study of communicative acts. , 1953, Psychological review.

[3]  L. Festinger,et al.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 2017 .

[4]  F. Heider.  The psychology of interpersonal relations , 1958 .

[5]  J. Freedman,et al.  Compliance without pressure: the foot-in-the-door technique. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  M. Harrison.  Foot in the door. , 1968, The Canadian nurse.

[7]  D. Bem.  Self-Perception Theory , 1972 .

[8]  M. Cunningham,et al.  To comply or not comply: testing the self-perception explanation of the "foot-in-the-door" phenomenon. , 1975, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  S. Sherman,et al.  Effects of initial request size and timing of a second request on compliance: the foot in the door and the door in the face. , 1975, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[10]  W. DeJong.  An examination of self-perception mediation of the foot-in-the-door effect. , 1979 .

[11]  W. DeJong.  Consensus Information and the Foot-in-the-Door-Effect , 1981 .

[12]  A. L. Beaman,et al.  Fifteen Years of Foot-in-the Door Research , 1983 .

[13]  John E. Hunter,et al.  Sequential-request persuasive strategies: Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. , 1984 .

[14]  K. Deaux,et al.  Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. , 1987 .

[15]  W. Mcguire.  Dynamic operations of thought systems. , 1990, The American psychologist.

[16]  J. Dillard.  The Current Status of Research on Sequential-Request Compliance Techniques , 1991 .

[17]  Carl A. Kallgren,et al.  A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: A Theoretical Refinement and Reevaluation of the Role of Norms in Human Behavior , 1991 .

[18]  L. A. Pervin.  Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research , 1992 .

[19]  D. Gorassini,et al.  Does self-perception change explain the foot-in-the-door effect? , 1995 .

[20]  R. Cialdini,et al.  Preference for Consistency: The Development of a Valid Measure and the Discovery of Surprising Behavioral Implications , 1995 .

[21]  J. Bargh.  The automaticity of everyday life. , 1997 .

[22]  J. Burger.  The Foot-in-the-Door Compliance Procedure: A Multiple-Process Analysis and Review , 1999, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[23]  G. Macdonald,et al.  Proposal of a four-dimensional model of social response. , 2000, Psychological bulletin.

[24]  D. Doliński.  On inferring one's beliefs from one's attempt and consequences for subsequent compliance. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.