The Foot-in-the-Door Compliance Procedure: A Multiple-Process Analysis and Review

Abstract

Research on the social compliance procedure known as the foot-in-the-door (FITD) technique is reviewed. Several psychological processes that may be set in motion with a FITD manipulation are identified: self-perception, psychological reactance, conformity, consistency, attributions, and commitment. A review of relevant investigations and several meta-analyses support the notion that each of these processes can influence compliance behavior in the FITD situation. I argue that the combined effects of these processes can account for successful FITD demonstrations as well as studies in which the technique was ineffective or led to a decrease in compliance. The experimental conditions most likely to produce an FITD effect are identified.

Preference elicitation under oath

“…17 Five percent refusal rate is standard for commitment experiments (Joule and Beauvois, 1998;Burger, 1999). Note.…”

“…An archetypal example is the panhandler who first asks a passer-by if he knows what time it is, and then asks him if he has any spare change. The usual finding is that people are more likely to agree to given spare change if they have already agreed to give out the time "for free" (see Burger, 1999, for a review). In their seminal experiment on foot-in-the-door devices, Freedman and Fraser (1966a) telephoned housewives in Palo Alto, California.…”

Construct and content validity of the Greek version of the Birth Satisfaction Scale (G-BSS)

“…A final, pleasing observation from the current study was the high return rate. The high return rate was considered to have been achieved through the Foot-In-The-Door (FITD) technique (Burger, 1999), which involves conscripting people through an initial first request followed by a second request to complete the survey.…”

Aggregate Effects of Behavioral Anomalies: A New Research Area

“…A great number of different interventions can be observed to be conducive to this goal. For instance, persons who have fallen for the "foot in the door" selling strategy (e.g., Burger 1999) are to some extent protected by laws allowing them to come back on their decision when they are no longer subject to the direct influence of the seller. A more active approach addresses the loss aversion anomaly.…”