When Manipulation Backfires: The Effects of Time Delay and Requester on the Foot‐in‐the‐Door Technique

We examined the effects of 2 variables on compliance rates within the foot-in-the-door procedure. Participants who agreed to a small request were presented with a larger request either immediately after the first request or 2 days later. The second request was presented either by the same person or by a different requester. Compared to a control group receiving only the large request, participants were more likely to agree to the second request in all experimental conditions except one. When the same requester presented the second request without delay, participants were less likely than the control group to agree to the target request. This latter condition represents a situation in which typical foot-in-the-door procedures can backfire on the requester.

[1]  Jerry M. Burger,et al.  Effects of time on the norm of reciprocity , 1997 .

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

[3]  M. Ramaekers,et al.  An application of the foot in the door technique to organ donation , 1989 .

[4]  K. Williams,et al.  Impact of Source Strength on Two Compliance Techniques , 1989 .

[5]  A. L. Beaman,et al.  Compliance as a Function of Elapsed Time Between First and Second Requests , 1988 .

[6]  Michael E. Patch,et al.  The Role of Source Legitimacy in Sequential Request Strategies of Compliance , 1986 .

[7]  Kent B. Monroe,et al.  Effectiveness of Multiple Request Strategies: A Synthesis of Research Results , 1986 .

[8]  Morton Goldman.  Compliance Employing a Combined Foot-in-the-Door and Door-in-the-Face Procedure , 1986 .

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

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

[11]  J. Brehm,et al.  Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control , 1981 .

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

[13]  Jerome B. Kernan,et al.  More Evidence on Interpersonal Yielding , 1979 .

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

[15]  R. Cialdini,et al.  Test of a concession procedure for inducing verbal, behavioral, and further compliance with a request to give blood. , 1976, The Journal of applied psychology.

[16]  Clive Seligman,et al.  Relationship between compliance in the foot-in-the-door paradigm and size of first request. , 1976 .

[17]  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.

[18]  Seymour W. Uranowitz.  Helping and self-attributions: A field experiment. , 1975 .

[19]  D. T. Regan,et al.  Effects of a favor and liking on compliance , 1971 .

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

[21]  A. H. Cole,et al.  Effect of a favor which reduces freedom. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[22]  A. Gouldner.  THE NORM OF RECIPROCITY: A PRELIMINARY STATEMENT * , 1960 .