Chapter 14 of PSYCHOMarketing by Roger Nichols
(foot-in-the-door technique)
Before I delve into this topic, let’s take a quick look at what compliance means, for better understanding. Breckler, Olson, and Wiggins (2006, p. 307), et al. described it as “a change in behavior that is requested by another person or group.” According to them, the individual acted in some way because others asked him to, even though it was possible for him to refuse or decline the request. In 1966, two researchers, Jonathan Freedman and Scott Fraser, conducted two experiments to investigate the intention of people and how they handled requests. It was discovered that, once a person approves a minor request, it is possible for them to oblige a larger request, if asked. The first experiment established the effect of compliance when the same person handled both requests. In the second experiment, one stretched out the nature of the compliant to a circumstance in which diverse individuals made the two demands.
In the first experiment, Freedman and Fraser tested four conditions, which formed their opinion. One hundred and fifty-six housewives, who were contacted by telephone, were divided into four groups. The first group was asked to perform a small request that was completed. Afterward, they followed up with a bigger request. The second group was asked a small request, which was withdrawn and replaced by the asking for a much bigger request. The subjects of the third group were adapted to the requester (no small request), and, only later, a bigger request. The forth and last group were only asked a big request.
The results gotten from each group for the experiments were: Group 1 (52.8%), Group 2
(33.3%), Group 3 (27.8%), and Group 4 (22.2%). This shows the percentage of those who agreed to the request in the fourth group was much smaller than the others, and that is because they were asked a big request directly, instead of being presented at the beginning with a small one or none at all.
What the experiment proved is that pressure and consistency can be quite instrumental in influencing compliance. Put simply, when a previous request granted is similar to a new one, it is possible for the person to grant the request. The adage of people going a mile when all you ask of them is an inch aptly describes compliance. For example, a friend asked you to lend her $10, and you obliged. If a week after refunding the money, she asked for $50, you would be inclined to oblige her, since the last transaction went well. However, if your friend asked you for $500 when he or she never asked you for money before, and there is no history of such an exchange between the two of you, you will most likely decline the request because you have no prior history of any exchange with him or her, and you don’t want to lose such an amount.
In the second experiment, 112 subjects were visited in their homes by a researcher. The first request required urging the subjects to put a small sign in the windows of their homes or cars that promoted safe driving or keeping California clean. The second request involved telling them to put a large and ugly billboard in their yard. As with the first experiment, they were divided into groups. Some groups were asked the second request before the first, while others were asked the first before the second. The result showed that most of them agreed to the two requests, even when the billboard request was in no way related to any social issue or sensitization.
What this second experiment established is that, once someone agrees to a first request, they are inclined to agree to a second one to maintain their self-image. This might be because the person feels that, since they are already involved, they have to follow through. Freedman and Fraser’s compliance experiment is also known as the “foot-in-the-door” technique in advertising—which manufacturers and producers have managed to use to their advantage.