Introduction
In social psychology has established effective compliance techniques such as the foot-in-the-door phenomenon. This strategy states simply that, “agreeing to a small request increases the likelihood of agreeing to a second, larger request”(McLeod, pp4, 2014). The original experiment on the foot-in-the-door phenomenon was done by Freedman and Fraser in 1966. In the original study, the prediction was that if a small request was asked first and the person agrees to the smaller request, the person is more likely to agree to a larger request after. This prediction was supported in their data which showed that, “Over 50% of the subjects in the Performance condition agreed to the larger request, while less than 25% of the One-Contact condition agreed to it. Thus it appears that obtaining compliance with a small request does tend to increase subsequent compliance” (Freedman and Fraser, 198, 1966). This is important because this significant data supports that the foot-in-the-door strategy is effective in increasing compliance. After conducting their initial experiment Freedman and Fraser conducted a second and similar experiment where the requests were asked by two different people also at different times. They found similar results in that, “The second study showed that this effect was quite strong even when a different person made the larger request, and the two requests were quite dissimilar”(Freedman and Fraser, 201, 1966). By conducting two experiments showing fairly the same results further supports the effectiveness of this phenomenon. After looking at the Freedman and Fraser experiment, it is clear that the strategy is clearly more effective than chance, but in these experiments the participants were all approached by strangers. Does this phenomenon work on people whom one has a relationship with? Can we increase compliance from our friends and family using the foot-in-the-door phenomenon? The hypothesis of this study is that using the foot-in-the-door phenomenon on friends and family will work no better than chance. This is because, one would think that if you are friends with someone they will be willing to help without the aid of compliance strategies.
Methods
Participants
In this study, it is crucial that the experimenter knew the participants personally. In turn, the participants are all college students, in turn all participants are ages 18-22 years old. Participants vary in socioeconomic status, race, and gender. The only requirement to participate in the study is a personal or work related relationship with the experimenter. Every participant must have known the experimenter for at least one year or more.
Procedure
The experiment is intended to explore the foot-in-the-door phenomenon in social psychology. This study is looking into whether the foot-in-the-door phenomenon works better than chance, when used on someone the person has a relationship with.
The participants are randomly assigned into two groups. The experimental group, which received a small request first, before the main request of the experimenter. This is done to demonstrate the foot-in-the-door phenomenon. In order to compare results of the experiment there is also a control group. In the control group, participants were only asked the main request of the experimenter. In order to reduce variability, all participants were asked the same intended request, which is if the participant would help the experimenter study for an exam. In the experimental group each participant was also asked the same initial smaller request which was, to quickly explain how to do a problem that will be found on said exam. While conducting the experimental group procedures, it is important to follow the foot-in-the-door phenomenon by asking the simple or easy request first, before asking the request you actually want accepted. Following procedure from the original Freedman and Fraser study the second, larger request was asked three days after the first one. After the requests were asked to each group, the experimenter records the acceptance of the request or the dismissal of the request in order to compare.
Comments
Post a Comment