Effectiveness of Multiple Request Strategies: A Synthesis of Research Results

Abstract

Foot in the door and door in the face have been cited frequently as effective strategies for gaining compliance with behavioral requests. However, research efforts to confirm these two phenomena have produced mixed results. After deriving predictions about how the favorability of available information influences compliance, the authors report a synthesis of research results for both paradigms. Combined effect sizes across research results for several moderating variables are compiled. Implications for theoretical, empirical, and practical application of the syntheses are discussed.Twenty years ago Freedman and Fraser (1966) asked, "How can a person be induced to do something he would rather not do?" Since then, more than 50 studies have sought the answer through research following one of two paradigms, the foot in the door (FITD) and/or the door in the face (DITF). This research tradition has not been programmatic and as a result some mediating variables and theoretical explanations have been given more research attention than others. Therefore, it is not surprising to fmd little agreement as to what conditions are necessary to produce statistically significant differences in compliance with behavioral request strategies.Both strategies are attempts to obtain behavioral compliance through the use of sequential requests. In the footin-the-door paradigm, the first request is relatively small and all or a large majority of people agree to comply. The small request is followed by a larger request, called the "critical request," which is actually the target behavior. Operationally, the door in the face is the reverse strategy, in that the initial request is relatively very large and all or a large majority of people refuse to comply. The large request is followed by a smaller request, the critical request, which is the target behavior.

The Door-in-the-Face Persuasive Message Strategy: A Meta-Analysis of the First 35 Years

“…However, direct tests of the theory fail to support the self-presentation explanation (Abrahams & Bell, 1994). Fern, Monroe, and Avila (1986) introduced the availability hypothesis to explain DITF effects. The theory suggests favorable information presented to individuals before a compliance request will increase compliance.…”

“…In the case of DITF, the authors suggested larger concessions as a proxy for the amount of favorable information available to message recipients. However, the authors' own meta-analysis (Fern et al, 1986) failed to provide evidence for this contention, and the theory has since been abandoned.…”

“…The foundation of knowledge on DITF effects is largely based upon three metaanalytic reviews published in the communication and marketing literature (Dillard, Hunter, & Burgoon, 1984;Fern et al, 1986;O'Keefe & Hale, 1998). These reviews were instructive in guiding the current analysis and identified five moderating factors that will be replicated in the current analysis.…”

Learning and transfer in dynamic decision environments

“…After the first two offers for each debtor, subjects could enter into a repeating sequence of best-offers (overlined in the figures) that consisted entirely of high and medium offers. The overall pattern of state transitions used in the debtor STDs was derived from foot-in-the-door (FID) and door-in-the-face (DIF) phenomena observed in functioning environments (Cialdini, 1984;Fern et al, 1986). In FID, bargainers get their opponents to accede to a relatively low request and then move them up to levels that they could not have obtained on one request alone.…”

Sequential Requests and Organ Donation

“…Existing evidence suggests that the FITD tactic is effective in producing enhanced compliance in many settings and in response to a wide range of requests (e.g., Beaman, Cole, Preston, Klentz, & Steblay, 1983;Beaman, Steblay, Preston, & Klentz, 1988;Burger, 1999;Fern, Monroe, & Avila, 1986).…”