Further research in this domain is needed. This success of this technique works on the principle of commitment. Classic experiment[ edit ] In a classic experiment investigating the effectiveness of the DITF technique, researchers separated participants into three groups.
It has been found the door-in-the face technique produces high levels of compliance only when the same person makes the request, and the requests are similar in nature. The Freedman and Fraser study showed significant effect.
Wadsworth — Cengage Learning.
Findings indicate that the delay between requests was more effective for participants who complied to the first request, while the immediate request was more effective for those who rejected the first request.
It can help if there is some label given, such as the sticky badges that charities often give out after a donation. In the second study, participants rated the similarity of a DITF interaction to four other situations: The in-group confederates introduced themselves as university students, while the out-group confederates introduced themselves as private business school students.
Confederates asked one group of participants to read temperature and another to read air pressure. Overall, the researchers suggest that DITF can be a useful technique to get students to do their academic work. The experimenter rotated between five conditions: In group 3, the experimenter described the large request but asked the participants to perform the small request.
Pro-social requests also increase likelihood of success with this method. Results show increased compliance for the second request in all of the DITF conditions compared to the control.
Participants were assigned to one of four groups: For example, a study showed that having a questionnaire about organ donation increased the willingness of participants to become organ donors.
In their study, some of the participants were first asked to sign a petition before being asked to make a donation to the organization foot-in-the-door condition. It does not matter when there is Freedman and Fraser asked people to either sign a petition or place a small card in a window in their home or car about keeping California beautiful or supporting safe driving.
Door-in-the-face may be a more effective means of compliance for children not only in this particular setting but also potentially for children in general. The researchers suggest that the explicit statement regarding social boundaries makes participants comply to avoid engaging in metacommunicative conflict.
Results show that participants were more likely to comply for friends than strangers, the DITF technique had greater compliance overall than a small request alone, and the DITF technique had larger increases in compliance for strangers. Findings indicate increased compliance to the second request for the immediate condition but not the delayed one.
Cialdini asked pps if they would escort a group of young criminals to the zoo; most refused control group. The Low-Ball Technique Agreeing to purchase something at a given price increases the likelihood of agreeing to purchase it at a higher price.
The requests were to complete a questionnaire or to tape record a section out of a book. Trick then into agreeing more than they intended. This technique works due to the principle of reciprocity Cialdini et al. Reciprocal concessions and social responsibility[ edit ] Support for social responsibility[ edit ] Two studies comparing reciprocal concessions with social responsibility explanations found evidence for social responsibility related to helping.
Findings indicate a significant increase in both types of compliance for the high guilt induction, high guilt reduction condition. There may well be other contributors, but it is likely that commitment and consistency play a significant role.
After refusal, the group was asked to do 20 of the questions. Results show that overall there was significantly greater compliance to the second request and that participants who agreed to the first were more likely to agree to the second than those who rejected the initial request.Start studying psychology chapter Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.
Search. Give an example of the following persuasive techniques: foot-in-the-door, door-in-the-face, Low-ball. It is an emphasis on group unanimity at the expense of critical thinking. Groups become so intent on ensuring. Foot in the door and door in the face have been cited frequently as effective Effectiveness of Multiple Request Strategies: A Synthesis of Research Results Twenty years ago Freedman and Fraser () asked, For the door-in-the-face technique, compliance with the critical request should be enhanced when favorable.
Start studying Critical Thinking Study Guide. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. conditions under which conformity will most likely influence critical thinking: strength, immediacy, number.
Foot in the door technique applies here. Door-in-the-face technique. Jump to navigation Jump to search. The The DITF technique can be contrasted with the foot-in-the-door (FITD) technique, A study looking at the DITF technique in retail found that it was very effective in increasing sales.
COMPLIANCE WITHOUT PRESSURE: THE FOOT-IN-THE-DOOR TECHNIQUE3 JONATHAN L. FREEDMAN AND SCOTT C The 1st study demonstrated this effect when the same person made both requests. The 2nd study extended this to the situation in which different referred to as the foot-in-lhc-door or grada-tion technique and is.
Critical Review of ‘Compliance without Pressure: The Foot-in-the-door Technique’ The Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo.Download