Foot-In-Door Technique: A Narrative Analysis

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…
The Foot-in-the-Door technique is presented in the article, “ Compliance without Pressure: The-Foot-In-Door Technique” (Jonathan L. Freedman, 1966). In this article, it so categorically expands on this psychological concept that us humans are such fond of in many scintillating ways. It proffers that the more pressure that is added on an individual, then it will be more likely for the individual to comply (Jonathan L. Freedman, 1966). The prominency of the person who is pressuring the individual is much higher, and does make a prodigious effect on the overall response of the person. It is one of many critical factors that will distinguish the outcome of the situation. Research by Jonathan and Scott (1966) supports that in previous studies on the foot-in-the-door technique, external pressure can be used to increase the compliance of people. Jonathan and Scott (1966) found “ Once conformity is elicited at all it is more likely to occur in the future” (p. 196); what innuendo does this propose to the experimenter to do in explaining this effect of …show more content…
Freedman, 1966). In this second experiment, a different person ( not the original requester), without knowledge of the outcome of the first experiment, initiated the second inquiry (Jonathan L. Freedman, 1966). The small request asked of the subjects to sign a petition for either safe driving or in keeping California beautiful. The bigger request asked of the subjects to install a large grotesque poster which said “ Drive Carefully” (Jonathan L. Freedman, 1966). The purpose of the second petition was to test for unrelated requests. In this study, the requesters actually went inside the subject’s houses. The results expressed that there was a significant amount of people who agreed to the large request due to complying with the first request first. All of the conditions had higher compliance, regardless of whether a different person made the larger request, and in different time spans ( 2 weeks apart). This brings to say that when someone makes a defenite action to do something, especially when it is something small, then they will seem to draw more to getting involved and serving a