Self-Concept Clarity and the Foot-in-the-Door Procedure

The deceptively simple foot-in-the-door technique is the oldest and most widely researched of the sequential-request compliance procedures investigated by social psychologists. Since its introduction by Freedman and Fraser (1966), the procedure has been examined in more than a hundred published studies and has been the topic of several reviews and meta-analyses (Beaman, Cole, Preston, Klentz, & Steblay, 1983; Burger, 1999; DeJong, 1979; Dillard, Hunter, & Burgoon, 1984; Fern, Monroe, & Avila, 1986; Weyant, 1996). Briefly, the foot-in-the-door procedure consists of presenting individuals with a small request that virtually all people will agree to. Although researchers have used a number of variations of the basic procedure, typically a different requester contacts the individual at some later time and asks a related, but much larger, request. If successful, the procedure elicits a higher rate of compliance to the larger (target) request than is found in a control condition in which only the target request is presented. For example, when researchers asked participants to put a small sign in a window promoting driver safety, the participants were significantly more likely to agree to a larger request (placing a very large sign promoting driver safety in their front lawn) 2 weeks later than were participants asked only about the large sign (Freedman & Fraser, 1966). Despite the large number of investigations, more than 3 decades of research on the foot-in-the-door procedure has resulted in mixed evidence for the effectiveness of the technique. Although many investigators have demonstrated an increase in compliance with the procedure, many others have failed to find this effect, and a few have found a decrease in compliance when employing the technique. Consistent with this observation, meta-analyses of foot-in-the-door studies find that the effect appears more often than would be expected by chance, but that the combined results of foot-inthe-door studies indicates the size of the effect is small. The inconsistent findings thus suggest the foot-in-the-door procedure may be effective only under certain circumstances. In a recent review, Burger (1999) identified several procedural differences in foot-in-the-door studies that help to explain when the procedure will be effective and when it is likely to be ineffective. Another explanation for the inconsistent findings is that the foot-in-the-door procedure may not work with all people. Recently, researchers have begun to examine the role personality variables play in the effectiveness of the foot-in-thedoor procedure. For example, Cialdini, Trost, and Newsom (1995) examined individual differences in preference for consistency. They found a significant foot-in-the-door effect BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 25(1), 79–86 Copyright © 2003, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.