Foot in the Door (FITD) -Basic Approach: Small initial request followed by a larger

(key) request

Basic Procedure of Study 1?

1st request = Answer a number of questions about whathousehold products used; 2nd request = 5/6 men going to home for about 2 hours to enumerate and classify all the household products presentResults?

Foot in the Door (FITD) - Study 2

Basic Procedure?

1st Request = Asked either to put up a small sign or to sign a petition (tasks) for one of 2 issues: safe driving or keeping California beautiful (issues) 2nd Request = To install a very large sign in their front lawn which said "Drive Carefully"

Results?

All condition

s improve

d complian

ce beyond

the control

Key Points:• 2nd request can be made by a different person• 2nd request can be on a different issue and involve a different task• Performing the 1st request is not essential. Just agreeing to do it is sufficientPrinciple: Commitment (Self-perception)

Foot in the Door (FITD)

Door in the Face (DITF)Basic Approach: Very large 1st request (refused), followed by a smaller request

Procedure?

1st Request = Work two hours per week for a minimum of two years in County Juvenile Detention Center --- NO response2nd Request: Be chaperones for a group of juvenile delinquents on atwo-hour trip to the zoo.Results?

DITF not due to a perceptu

al contrast

effect

Door in the Face --- Study 2

What was the KEY reason for conducting Study #2?

Results?

Ineffective

Door in the Face --- Study 3

What was the KEY reason for conducting Study #3?

1st request = Perform as chaperones for a group of juvenile delinquents on a two-hour trip to the city museum;2nd Request = Be a chaperone a for a group of juvenile delinquents on a two-hour trip to the zoo

Inclusion of an equivalent request group:

Results?

Ineffective

Key Points:• Both requests must be made by the same person • Perception of a concession/negotiation• Feeling of satisfaction within targetPrinciple: Reciprocity

Door in the Face

That’s Not AllBasic Premise: Improve the Deal

A) Give original cost, then reduce it before the target responds Study 1:

Reduce price = 73% compliance vs. 40% control

B) Give original cost, then add something “extra” before the target responds

Add something (cookies) = 73% vs. 44% control

Basic Procedure: Give original price; before target responds, improve the deal. Two overall ways to do this ---

That’s Not All in Action

Study 3?

TNA = 85%

No Negotiation = 70%(I want to leave soon, so I’d be willing to sell them to you for 75 cents)

Control = 50%

So, perception of a negotiation may not be critical to TNA success

That’s Not All

No differen

ce

Study 4?

Selling product (candles) door to door

Negotiation = 57.1% ($3.00 candles but we decided to sell them for $2.00)

No Negotiation = 37.1% (No we sold all of those. These are the $2.00 candles)

Control = 14.3%

As in Study 3 – the perception of personal negotiation is effective, but the TNA technique may work without it

That’s Not All

No diff

Study 5?

Testing adaption level or standard/anchor point

Previously told that the club had been selling cupcakes for either $1.00 or 75 cents

1) Highest amount you’d be willing to pay for a cupcake?

2) What do you believe is an honest amount to charge for a cupcakeThose in the $1.00 condition willing to pay more 51.4 cents vs. 44.6 cents, but not significantly different

Those in the $1.oo condition believed in a higher honest price for cupcake; 66.1 cents vs. 52.4 cent (significant)

That’s Not All

Study 6?

TNA versus a bargain

TNA condition = 55%

Bargain condition = 25%

Control = 20%

That’s Not All

Significant difference

That’s Not All

Study 7?

TNA condition = 50%(planning to close down soon, so now $1.00

DITF = 35%

Control = 20%

TNA versus DITF

No differenc

eNo difference

Strategy Example PrinciplePositive Moods Make a request in a nice setting (e.g., over a

nice dinner); Give feedback (e.g., you got the highest IQ test score)

Ingratiation [Reciprocity]

Say flattering things (‘those earrings are beautiful,” where did you buy those great

shoes?”)

Reciprocity

Favors [Reciprocity]

Offer to carry a heavy object for someone Reciprocity

Foot-in-the-door (FITD)

Follow a small request with a much larger one Commitment

Door-in-the-face (DITF)

Follow a very large request with a smaller, more realistic one

Reciprocity

That’s-Not-All (TNA) Improving the deal

Original cost of item is $2.50 but will sell it now for $ 1.50; Original cost of item is $2.50 and

will add another item for freeReciprocity

Low BallGet a “yes” response to purchase a car at a given price (e.g., $18,000), then come back

with a final total (adding in many smaller costs) of $19,500)

Commitment

ScarcityGaining commitment by limiting choice (real or

perceived)Indicating that there is only 1 item left, that

time is running out (or both)

Psychological reactance