foot in the door (fitd) -
DESCRIPTION
Foot in the Door (FITD) - Basic Approach: Small initial request followed by a larger (key) request. 1 st request = Answer a number of questions about what household products used; - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Foot in the Door (FITD) -Basic Approach: Small initial request followed by a larger
(key) request
Basic Procedure of Study 1?
1st request = Answer a number of questions about whathousehold products used; 2nd request = 5/6 men going to home for about 2 hours to enumerate and classify all the household products presentResults?
Foot in the Door (FITD) - Study 2
Basic Procedure?
1st Request = Asked either to put up a small sign or to sign a petition (tasks) for one of 2 issues: safe driving or keeping California beautiful (issues) 2nd Request = To install a very large sign in their front lawn which said "Drive Carefully"
Results?
All condition
s improve
d complian
ce beyond
the control
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 sufficientPrinciple: Commitment (Self-perception)
Foot in the Door (FITD)
Door in the Face (DITF)Basic Approach: Very large 1st request (refused), followed by a smaller request
Procedure?
1st Request = Work two hours per week for a minimum of two years in County Juvenile Detention Center --- NO response2nd Request: Be chaperones for a group of juvenile delinquents on atwo-hour trip to the zoo.Results?
DITF not due to a perceptu
al contrast
effect
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?
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
Inclusion of an equivalent request group:
Results?
Ineffective
Key Points:• Both requests must be made by the same person • Perception of a concession/negotiation• Feeling of satisfaction within targetPrinciple: Reciprocity
Door in the Face
That’s Not AllBasic Premise: Improve the Deal
A) Give original cost, then reduce it before the target responds Study 1:
Reduce price = 73% compliance vs. 40% control
B) Give original cost, then add something “extra” before the target responds
Add something (cookies) = 73% vs. 44% control
Basic Procedure: Give original price; before target responds, improve the deal. Two overall ways to do this ---
That’s Not All in Action
Study 3?
TNA = 85%
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
No differen
ce
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
That’s Not All
No diff
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 cupcakeThose 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%
That’s Not All
Significant difference
That’s Not All
Study 7?
TNA condition = 50%(planning to close down soon, so now $1.00
DITF = 35%
Control = 20%
TNA versus DITF
No differenc
eNo difference
Strategy Example PrinciplePositive 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 freeReciprocity
Low BallGet 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
ScarcityGaining commitment by limiting choice (real or
perceived)Indicating that there is only 1 item left, that
time is running out (or both)
Psychological reactance