Foot in the Door (FITD) Basic Approach: Small initial request followed by a larger (key) request
Basic Procedure of
Study 1?
Results?
1st request = Answer a number of questions about what
household products used;
2nd request = 5/6 men going to home for about 2 hours to
enumerate and classify all the household products present
Foot in the Door (FITD) - Study 2
1st Request = Asked either to put up a small sign or to sign a petition (tasks)
Basic
for one of 2 issues: safe driving or keeping California beautiful (issues)
Procedure? nd
2 Request = To install a very large sign in their front lawn which said
"Drive Carefully"
Results?
All
conditions
improved
compliance
beyond the
control
Foot in the Door (FITD)
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
sufficient
Principle: Commitment (Self-perception)
Door in the Face (DITF)
Basic Approach: Very large 1st request (refused), followed by a smaller request
Procedure?
Results?
DITF not
due to a
perceptual
contrast
effect
1st Request = Work two hours per week for a minimum of two years
in County Juvenile Detention Center --- NO response
2nd Request: Be chaperones for a group of juvenile delinquents on a
two-hour trip to the zoo.
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?
Inclusion of an equivalent request group:
Results?
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
Ineffective
Door in the Face
Key Points:
• Both requests must be made by the same person
• Perception of a concession/negotiation
• Feeling of satisfaction within target
Principle: Reciprocity
That’s Not All
Basic Premise: Improve the Deal
Basic Procedure: Give original price; before target responds,
improve the deal. Two overall ways to do this ---
A) Give original cost, then reduce it before the target
responds Study 1:
Reduce price = 73% compliance vs. 40% control
A) Give original cost, then add something “extra”
before the target responds
Add something (cookies) = 73% vs. 44% control
That’s Not All in Action
That’s Not All
Study 3?
TNA = 85%
No
difference
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
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
No diff
That’s Not All
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 cupcake
Those 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%
Significant
difference
That’s Not All
Study 7?
TNA versus DITF
TNA condition = 50%
(planning to close down soon, so now $1.00
DITF = 35%
Control = 20%
No
difference
No
difference
Strategy
Example
Positive 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 free
Reciprocity
Get 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
Gaining commitment by limiting choice (real or
perceived)
Indicating that there is only 1 item left, that time is
running out (or both)
Psychological
reactance
Low Ball
Scarcity
Principle