Analysis Of Foot In The-Door Technique

1047 Words 5 Pages
It is scientifically proven that people are very good at giving in when they are presented with a small request first before they are asked the bigger request (which would be unlikely for people to comply to). Anything can be used as a request, as long as it is evident to gain a favorable result. This compliance tactics is deployed as the Foot-in-the-Door Technique (Jonathan L. Freedman, 1966). The Foot-in-the-Door technique involves in getting a person to agree to a small request first, and then to the bigger request later on. Due to this tactic, many people (companies, agencies, etc.) throughout the world have used it to get more clients to buy their products. This is one of the reasons why people are so drawn to this tactic because it …show more content…
In the first experiment, the factors that were adapted were: Performance, Agreement, Familiarization, and One-Contact (Jonathan L. Freedman, 1966). The experiment followed through with the following procedure: The subjects first got a telephone call with a small request for some household product information answers. Then if the subjects did concede, the subjects would have to answer only eight questions regarding soap use. Followed by the big request, it consisted of about five to six men to come to the subject’s house and inventory all of the products in their household. Within the performance, the subjects were asked a small request first, and it was completed. This later on opened the door for the experimenters to ask the bigger request. The subject’s agreement inhered in being asked the small request, although time elapsed quickly that the subjects did not have enough time to fulfill the task. In familiarization condition, this was proposed so that the subjects would get a feel of what would be occurring within the environment that they were put in. This primed the subject to become acquainted to the requester. In the final antecedent, this is when the big request was asked of the subjects (Jonathan L. Freedman, 1966). Statistics showed that the small request was not really considered trivial by some of the subjects (Jonathan L. Freedman, 1966). Because mathematically it showed that 52.8% of the subjects within the Performance Condition acceded, it then meant that they were more likely to comply with the larger request. In the One-Contact condition, only 25% of the people in the experimenter agreed. With these numerical numbers, it appears that obtaining compliance with a small request does increase the chances of a postliminary compliance (Jonathan L. Freedman, 1966). In this experiment, it arose many questions as to

Related Documents