In the first experimental demonstration of the foot-in-the-door (FITD) procedure, a group of housewives received a phone call asking if they would answer a few questions about household products they used. The women who had received that phone call were much more likely to agree, some weeks later, to a 2-hour enumeration of household products by five or six men going through their cupboards, unlike a control group of housewives who had not received a prior phone call. The FITD theory states that people who first agree with a small request are much more likely to agree to a larger request at a later time.
Most research reviews regarding FITD focus on two basic questions. The first, does the FITD manipulation reliably increase the probability that a participant will agree to the second request? And second, if the FITD procedure does increase compliance, how can we account for this effect? To date, the answer to the first question seems to be ‘yes’, even though some studies actually found a decrease in compliance with the FITD technique. The generally accepted explanation for the effectiveness of the FITD is that participants engage in an attitude-change process similar to that outlined in self-perception theory. However, many reviewers suggest that this theory is only a partial explanation.
There are six psychological processes that the authors of this review assume have an effect on FITD:
- Self-Perception -> Enhances effect
- Reciprocity Rules and Reactance -> Reduces effect
- Conformity to Norm -> Reduces or enhances effect
- Consistency Needs -> Enhances effect
- Attributions -> Reduces or enhances effect
- Commitment -> Enhances effect
The procedures used to initiate and carry out the FITD technique have the potential to set several psychological processes in motion. Some of these processes increase the likelihood that the requests recipient will agree to the target request, whereas others are likely to decrease that likelihood. The FITD manipulation (time between requests, relative size of requests etc.) also affects the presence and strength of each of the processes. Not every process is present in every manipulation, for example conformity to norm can only be present if the participants obtain information about the normative response. Which processes are set in motion more or less strongly, or at all, is a deciding factor for whether the FITD technique increases or decreases compliance in participants.
Self-perception theory states that people sometimes infer their attitudes by examining their own behavior. Applied to FITD, this means people would change their attitudes as a result of seeing themselves agree to the initial request. When they receive the second request, people ask themselves if they are the kind of person who engages in these kinds of actions. The most recent and salient example is their response to the initial request. They will assume they are that kind of person, because they agreed to a similar request just the other day.
Hypotheses to investigate the role of self-perception
If self-perception theory operates in the typical FITD study, participants are expected to be more likely to comply with the target request when agreeing to the initial request requires additional involvement and, hence, is presumably more salient. Another way of predicting the involvement of self-perception theory is to see whether participants actually perform the initial request. Looking back at actual behavior should provide much more salient information about one’s attitude than a simple verbal promise. The size of the initial request also matters. If the request is not small enough, more participants will decline it. This is what they reflect back on when deciding whether to comply with the target request, so compliance with the target request will decrease if the initial request is too large. Finally, the target request needs to be as similar to the initial request as possible to increase the likelihood of compliance with the target request. These hypotheses were confirmed by the authors of this review, indicating that a self-perception process is indeed operating in the typical FITD manipulation.
The contact between requester and participant in an FITD experiment is a social encounter, and is therefore subject to the rules and norms of social interaction in society. Behavior, whether appropriate or inappropriate, by the requester can trigger a reaction in the participant that may influence their compliance with the target request.
Norm of reciprocity
There are two concepts that are relevant for understanding this reaction in relation to FITD. The norm of reciprocity is a widely accepted social rule that regulates the exchange of favors and requests. It maintains that the give and take in social exchanges should be more or less equal. For example, people are more willing to comply with a request if the requester has earlier given them some small favor, like a soft drink. People also want to be able to pay their debts and are uncomfortable with those who do not allow them to return the good deed
Psychological reactance
This concept is said to occur when people perceive a threat to their sense of personal freedom and choice. Pressure from a salesperson or requester may be perceived as such a threat, which often leads to a participant acting as he pleases. Mostly this means doing the opposite of whatever is being pushed by the requester.
The effect on FITD
If participants feel the requester is making an inappropriate request and thereby pressuring them to comply with that request, the net result may be a decreased likelihood of agreeing with the target request. Although neither time between requests nor number of different requesters seems to have an effect on compliance, both of those together might have an effect. If a participant agrees to a small request and immediately after receives a larger request from the same requester, that requester violates the rules of reciprocity by not returning a favor. Aside from that, the second request may be seen as badgering, possibly causing some form of reactance. Interestingly, the effect of reciprocity wears off when a longer time is allowed to pass before the same requester poses the target request. Allowing time to pass also decreases the chance that the request is seen as badgering, thereby also reducing the chance of reactance.
The concept of norm has been used often by psychologists to account for behavior in social settings. Regarding FITD, the decision to comply with the target request can be influenced by perceived norms. Requesters sometimes tell participants how often other people comply with the initial request, thereby providing a descriptive norm. Depending on the norm data, they can either increase or decrease the likelihood that a participant complies with the target request. When a participant is told very few people comply with the request, he or she will be less likely to comply, and vice versa.
Theories of consistency needs state that people have a need to view their behaviors and attitudes as consistent and to appear consistent to others. When made aware of inconsistencies, people take steps to reduce either the apparent inconsistency or their awareness of it. For FITD, this means that if participants are aware that of their earlier agreement with the initial request, they should be motivated to behave in a consistent manner by agreeing to the target request. Therefore, people with a higher need for consistency (this can differ between individuals) will show a stronger FITD effect. Like with self-perception theory, involvement with and therefore salience of the behavior following the initial request is important.
People sometimes ask themselves why they engage in a given behavior (what they attribute the behavior to). The answer to this question, accurate or not, influences how the person responds in subsequent similar situations. With FITD, the response to the initial request is often almost mindless, and afterwards participants will likely enter an attributional process concerning their response. The outcome of this process can either decrease or increase the likelihood of compliance with the target request. For example, a participant can conclude that they believe in worthy causes or they can conclude that they were pressured into complying. This will have different outcomes for the target request.
Labeling
Labeling can help the self-attribution process in FITD. For example, a participant could be asked to fill in a fake personality test, and then be told that the result is that they are helpful people (a label). They are then more likely to comply with the target request. Even though it has not been tested thoroughly, it is reasonable to suggest that labels attributing the behavior to external causes (rather than the helpfulness of the participant) would lead to a decrease in compliance.
Extrinsic rewards
When a participant receives an extrinsic reward for agreeing to the initial request, this undermines any personal attributions for agreeing to the request. That leads to a decreased compliance to the target request, because participants attribute their behavior to the reward rather than to their helpful nature.
Once committed to a decision, individuals often become resistant to altering their movement toward the goal or action to which they are committed. In FITD, under certain conditions participants feel committed to helping the requester and his or her cause. This is most likely to occur when the same person presents both requests, without interruption, and the second request is similar to the initial request. In other words, the target request appears to be a continuation of the same task the participant has already agreed to.
Commitment versus reactance
This ideal situation for commitment seems to clash with the fact that two requests without time in between by the same requester may cause reactance, decreasing compliance. It seems some participants feel their commitment to the requester is complete after the initial task, so if the requester then poses a second unrelated task, reactance occurs. But if the second task seems like a continuation of the first, it appears the participants’ sense of commitment is extended to the second request.
Whether the FITD procedure increases participants’ compliance to the target request is a function of the combined effects from each of the processes discussed in this article. Depending on the specific procedures used to create an FITD manipulation, the technique can either increase, decrease, or have no effect on compliance rates. When successfully implemented, the FITD technique can be an effective procedure for increasing compliance. Knowing the different processes involved in FITD makes it possible to identify conditions under which certain outcomes are most likely to occur.
Anyone wanting to increase compliance with the FITD technique is most likely to do so when they
- Allow individuals to perform the initial request
- Overtly label the person as helpful or as a supporter of these kinds of causes
- Require more than a minimal amount of effort to perform the initial request
- Make the target request essentially a continuation of the initial request
A decrease in compliance is most likely when researchers
- Inform individuals that few people agree to the initial request
- Use the same person to deliver a second request for a different behavior immediately after the first request
- Pay individuals for performing the initial request
- The FITD theory states that people who first agree with a small request are much more likely to agree to a larger request at a later time.
- There are six psychological processes that the authors of this review assume have an effect on FITD: Self-Perception (enhances effect), reciprocity rules and reactance (reduces effect), conformity to norm (reduces or enhances effect), consistency needs (enhances effect), attributions (reduces or enhances effect) and commitment (enhances effect).
- Self-perception theory states that people sometimes infer their attitudes by examining their own behavior. Behavior, whether appropriate or inappropriate, by the requester can trigger a reaction in the participant that may influence their compliance with the target request (reciprocity or reactance). The decision to comply with the target request can be influenced by perceived norms. Theories of consistency needs state that people have a need to view their behaviors and attitudes as consistent and to appear consistent to others. People sometimes ask themselves why they engage in a given behavior (what they attribute the behavior to). The answer to this question, accurate or not, influences how the person responds in subsequent similar situations. Once committed to a decision, individuals often become resistant to altering their movement toward the goal or action to which they are committed.
- Anyone wanting to increase compliance with the FITD technique is most likely to do so when they (1) allow individuals to perform the initial request, (2) overtly label the person as helpful or as a supporter of these kinds of causes, (3) require more than a minimal amount of effort to perform the initial request, or (4) make the target request essentially a continuation of the initial request.
- A decrease in compliance is most likely when researchers (1) inform individuals that few people agree to the initial request, (2) use the same person to deliver a second request for a different behavior immediately after the first request, or (3) pay individuals for performing the initial request.
First, it is important to know what the foot-in-the-door (FITD) technique entails. Also make sure you know which six processes contribute to the technique, whether these processes increase or decrease the effect of FITD, and how. Finally, it is important to be able to explain the practical implications of knowing these processes.
Add new contribution