The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure: A multiple-process analysis and review

Personality and Social Psychology Review

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 303-325

  Burger, Jerry M ^a  

^a SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033270818     PISSN: 10888683     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0304_2     Document Type: Review

References (99)

1. * Allen, C. T., Schewe, C. D., & Wijk, G. (1980). More on self-perception theory's foot technique in the pre-call/mail survey setting. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 498-502.
2. American Psychological Association (1974-present). PsycLIT [CD-ROM]. Wellesley Hills, MA: SilverPlatter Information Services [Producer and Distributor].
3. Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp. 177-190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie.
4. Baer, R., & Goldman, M. (1978). Compliance as a function of prior compliance, familiarization, effort and benefits: The foot-in-the-door technique extended. Psychological Reports, 43, 887-893.
5. Batson, C. D., Harris, A. C., McCaul, K. D., Davis, M., & Schmidt, T. (1979). Compassion or compliance: Alternative dispositional attributions for one's helping behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 405-409.
6. Beaman, A. L., Cole, C. M., Preston, M., Klentz, B., & Steblay, N. M. (1983). Fifteen years of foot-in-the-door research: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 181-196.
7. * Beaman, A. L., Steblay, N. M., Preston, M., & Klentz, B. (1988). Compliance as a function of elapsed time between first and second requests. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 233-243.
8. * Bell, R. A., Cholerton, M., Fraczek, G. S. R., & Smith, B. A. (1994). Encouraging donations to charity: A field study of competing and complementary factors in tactic sequencing. Western Journal of Communication, 58, 98-115.
9. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). New York: Academic.
10. Berkowitz, L. (1972). Social norms, feelings, and other factors affecting helping and altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 63-108). New York: Academic.
11. Berkowitz, L., & Devine, P. G. (1989). Research traditions, analysis, and synthesis in social psychological theories: The case of dissonance theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 493-507.
12. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic.
13. Brehm, J. W., & Cole, A. H. (1966). Effect of a favor which reduces freedom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 420-426.
14. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic.
15. * Brownstein, R. J., & Katzev, R. D. (1985). The relative effectiveness of three compliance techniques in eliciting donations to a cultural organization. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 564-574.
16. Burger, J. M., Horita, M., Kinoshita, L., Roberts, K., & Vera, C. (1997). The effects of time on the norm of reciprocity. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 91-100.
17. * Burger, J. M., & Petty, R. E. (1981). The low-ball compliance technique: Task or person commitment? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 492-500.
18. * Cann, A., Sherman, S. J., & Elkes, R. (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.
19. * Chartrand, T., Pinckert, S., & Burger, J. M. (1999). The effects of time delay and requester on the foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 211-221.
20. Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: Science and practice (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
21. * Cialdini, R. B.,& Ascani, K. (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.
22. * Cialdini, R. B., Cacioppo, J. T., Bassett, R., & Miller, J. A. (1978). The low-ball procedure for producing compliance: Commitment then cost. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 463-476.
23. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201-234). San Diego, CA: Academic.
24. * Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R., & Newsom, J. T. (1995). Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and discovery of surprising behavioral implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 318-328.
25. Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J. E., Lewis, S. K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & Darby, B. L. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206-215.
26. * Crano, W. D., & Sivacek, J. (1982). Social reinforcement, self-attribution, and the foot-in-the-door phenomenon. Social Cognition, 1, 110-125.
27. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
28. DeJong, W. (1979). An examination of self-perception mediation of the foot-in-the-door effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2221-2239.
29. * DeJong, W. (1981). Consensus information and the foot-in-the-door effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 423-430.
30. * DeJong, W., & Funder, D. (1977). Effect of payment for initial compliance: Unanswered questions about the foot-in-the-door phenomenon. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 662-665.
31. * DeJong, W., & Musilli, L. (1982). External pressure to comply: Handicapped versus nonhandicapped requesters and the foot-in-the-door phenomenon. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 522-527.
32. * Dillard, J. P. (1990). Self-inference and the foot-in-the-door technique: Quantity of behavior and attitudinal mediation. Human Communication Research, 16, 422-447.
33. Dillard, J. P., Hunter, J. E., & Burgoon, M. (1984). Sequential-request persuasive strategies: Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human Communication Research, 10, 461-488.
34. Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth? American Psychologist, 51, 1153-1166.
35. Fern, E. F., Monroe, K. B., & Avila, R. A. (1986). Effectiveness of multiple request strategies: A synthesis of research results. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 144-152.
36. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
37. * Fish, B., & Kaplan, K. J. (1974). Does a "foot-in-the-door" get you in or out? Psychological Reports, 34, 35-42.
38. * Foss, R. D., & Dempsey, C. B. (1979). Blood donation and the foot-in-the-door technique: A limiting case. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 580-590.
39. * Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195-202.
40. * Furse, D. H., Stewart, D. W., & Rados, D. L. (1981). Effects of foot-in-the-door, cash incentives, and followups on survey response. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 473-478.
41. Gergen, K. J., Ellsworth, P., Maslach, C., & Seipel, M. (1975). Obligation, donor resources, and reactions to aid in three cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 390-400.
42. * Goldman, M. (1986). Compliance employing a combined foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face procedure. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 111-116.
43. Goldman, M., Creason, C. R., & McCall, C. G. (1981). Compliance employing a two-feet-in-the-door procedure. Journal of Social Psychology, 114, 259-265.
44. Goldman, M., Gier, J. A., & Smith, D. E. (1981). Compliance as affected by task difficulty and order of tasks. Journal of Social Psychology, 114, 75-83.
45. * Goldman, M., Seever, M., & Seever, M. (1982). Social labeling and the foot-in-the-door effect. Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 19-23.
46. Gorassini, D. R., & Olson, J. M. (1995). Does self-perception change explain the foot-in-the-door effect? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 91-105.
47. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.
48. Groves, R. M., & Magilavy, L. J. (1981). Increasing response rates to telephone surveys: A door in the face for foot-in-the-door? Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 346-358.
49. * Hansen, R. A., & Robinson, L. M. (1980). Testing the effectiveness of alternative foot-in-the-door manipulations. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 359-364.
50. * Harari, H., Mohr, D., & Hosey, K. (1980). Faculty helpfulness to students: A comparison of compliance techniques. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 373-377.
51. * Harris, M. B. (1972). The effects of performing one altruistic act on the likelihood of performing another. Journal of Social Psychology, 88, 65-73.
52. * Harris, M. B., Liguori, R. A., & Stack, C. (1973). Favors, bribes, and altruism. Journal of Social Psychology, 89, 47-54.
53. * Harris, M. B., & Samerotte, G. C. (1976). The effects of actual and attempted theft, need, and a previous favor on altruism. Journal of Social Psychology, 99, 193-202.
54. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
55. * Hornik, J. (1988). Cognitive thoughts mediating compliance in multiple request situations. Journal of Economic Psychology, 9, 69-79.
56. * Hornik, J., Zaig, T., & Shadmon, D. (1991). Reducing refusals in telephone surveys on sensitive topics. Journal of Advertising Research, 31, 49-56.
57. * Kamins, M. A. (1989). The enhancement of response rates to a mail survey through a labeled probe foot-in-the-door approach. Journal of the Market Research Society, 31, 273-283.
58. * Katzev, R. D., & Johnson, T. R. (1984). Comparing the effects of monetary incentives and foot-in-the-door strategies in promoting residential electricity conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 12-27.
59. Kiesler, C. A. (1971). The psychology of commitment. New York: Academic.
60. * Kilbourne, B. K. (1989). A cross-cultural investigation of the foot-in-the-door compliance induction procedure. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 3-38.
61. * Kilbourne, B. K., & Kilbourne, M. T. (1984). Norms of social conduct and the foot-in-the-door. Journal of Social Psychology, 123, 13-20.
62. Kraut, R. E. (1973). Effects of social labeling on giving to charity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 551-562.
63. * Martens, B. K., Kelly, S. Q., & Diskin, M. T. (1996). The effects of two sequential-request strategies on teachers' acceptability and use of a classroom intervention. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 7, 211-221.
64. Newcomb, T. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychological Review, 60, 393-404.
65. * Patch, M. A. (1986). The role of source legitimacy in sequential request strategies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 199-205.
66. * Patch, M. A. (1988). Differential perception of source legitimacy in sequential request strategies. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 817-823.
67. * Pliner, P., Hart, H., Kohl, J., & Saari, D. (1974). Compliance without pressure: Some further data on the foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 17-22.
68. Regan, R. T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 627-639.
69. * Reingen, P. H. (1978). On inducing compliance with requests. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 96-102.
70. * Reingen, P. H., & Kernan, J. B. (1977). Compliance with an interview request: A foot-in-the-door, self-perception interpretation. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 365-369.
71. * Reingen, P. H., & Kernan, J. B. (1979). More evidence on interpersonal yielding. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 588-593.
72. Rind, B., & Benjamin, D. (1994). Effects of public image concerns and self-image on compliance. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 19-25.
73. * Rittle, R. H. (1981). Changes in helping behavior: Self-versus situational perceptions as mediators of the foot-in-the-door effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 431-437.
74. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (2nd ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
75. Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221-279). New York: Academic.
76. * Schwarzwald, J., Bizman, A., & Raz, M. (1983). The foot-in-the-door paradigm: Effects of second request size on donation probability and donor generosity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 443-450.
77. * Scott, C. A. (1976). The effects of trial and incentives on repeat purchase behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 13, 263-269.
78. * Scott, C. A. (1977). Modifying socially-conscious behavior: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 156-164.
79. * Seligman, C., Bush, M., & Kirsch, K. (1976). Relationship between compliance in the foot-in-the-door paradigm and size of first request. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 517-520.
80. * Seligman, C., Miller, R., Goldberg, G., Gelberd, L., Clark, N., & Bush, M. (1976). Compliance in the foot-in-the-door technique as a function of issue similarity and persuasion. Social Behavior and Personality, 4, 267-271.
81. * Shanab, M. I., & Isonio, S. A. (1982). The effects of contrast upon compliance with socially undesirable requests in the foot-in-the-door paradigm. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 20, 180-182.
82. * Shanab, M. I., & O'Neill, P. J. (1982). The effects of self-perception and perceptual contrast upon compliance with socially undesirable requests. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 19, 279-281.
83. Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.
84. * Snyder, M., & Cunningham, M. R. (1975). To comply or not comply: Testing the self-perception explanation of the "foot-in-the-door" phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 64-67.
85. *Stimpson, D. V., & Waranusuntikule, S. (1987). Mediating effects of material payment, social reinforcement, and familiarity on foot-in-the-door phenomena in Thailand. Journal of Psychology, 121, 515-520.
86. Strenta, A., & DeJong, W. (1981). The effect of a prosocial label on helping behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 142-147.
87. *Swanson, E. B., Sherman, M. F., & Sherman, N. C. (1982). Anxiety and the foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Social Psychology, 118, 269-275.
88. Thomas, G., & Batson, C. D. (1981). Effect of helping under normative pressure on self-perceived altruism. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 127-131.
89. * Tybout, A. M. (1978). Relative effectiveness of three behavioral influence strategies as supplements to persuasion in a marketing context. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 229-242.
90. Uranowitz, S. W. (1975). Helping and self-attributions: A field experiment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 852-854.
91. Vokey, J. R. (1997). Collapsing multiway contingency tables: Simpson's paradox and homogenization. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 29, 210-215.
92. * Wagener, J. J., & Laird, J. D. (1980). The experimenter's foot-in-the-door: Self-perception, body weight, and volunteering. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 441-446.
93. * Wang, T., Brownstein, R., & Katzev, R. (1989). Promoting charitable behaviour with compliance techniques. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38, 165-183.
94. Weiner, B. (1985). "Spontaneous" causal thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 74-84.
95. Weyant, J. M. (1996). Application of compliance techniques to direct-mail requests for charitable donations. Psychology and Marketing, 13, 157-170.
96. * Williams, K. D., & Williams, K. B. (1989). Impact of source strength on two compliance techniques. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 149-159.
97. * Wynn, G. W., & McDaniel, S. W. (1985). The effect of alternative foot-in-the-door manipulations on mailed questionnaire response rate and quality. Journal of the Market Research Society, 27, 15-26.
98. Yu, J., & Cooper, H. M. (1983). A quantitative review of research design effects on response rates to questionnaires. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 36-44.
99. * Zuckerman, M., Lazzaro, M. M., & Waldgeir, D. (1979). Undermining effects of the foot-in-the-door technique with extrinsic rewards. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 292-296.