Comparison of Foot-in-Doorvs. Door-In-Face, Using Recycling Issues, to Determine Best Means of Compliance.

Overview – High-level

Re-cyclogical Group Presentation

DOOR-IN-FACE FOOT-IN-DOORVS

Overview - Presentation• This presentation will contain the following sections:

– Introduction to Compliance Research and it’s application and extension in the Litter experiment and the hypothesis stated.

– Description of the Procedure undertaken to carry out the Experiment

– Reporting of the Results

– Conclusions of the Experiment including Criticisms and Future Research

– Questions and Feedback

Re-cyclogical Group Presentation

Introduction• Compliance: response to direct request

• Conformity: response to indirect pressure due to absence of direct request

• Milgram, 1963 Teacher- Student

• Ability to influence compliance

Re-cyclogical Group Presentation

Introduction• So what elements can affect an individual’s

willingness to comply with requests?• ‘Foot in the Door Technique’ (Freedman & Fraser,

1966). – Agree Small request -> Agree Large request– Why?

• Self Perception– supported by non-compliance

• Labels (Kraut, 1973)

• ‘Door in the Face Effect’ (Ciadini et al, 1975)– Refuse Large request -> agree small request– Why?

• Social Pressure

Re-cyclogical Group Presentation

Introduction• Implications:

– Method of presentation can influence response• Social psychology

• Marketing

• Question:– Which has a greater influence on an individual’s

compliance in response to requests?

• ‘The Foot in the Door Technique’

or • ‘The Door in the Face Technique’?

Re-cyclogical Group Presentation

Hypothesis Stated• Alternative Hypothesis (H1)

– There will be a significant difference between the number of respondents who accept a request to clear litter on given day when asked using FID as compared to being asked using DIF.

Re-cyclogical Group Presentation

Method• Two groups, one for FID, other for DIF, a between

subjects design• Independent Variable: Order of small and large

requests.

• Dependent Variable: Positive or negative responses

• Total Sample Size: 50 people randomly approached in Dublin City Centre. – FID Sample Size: 25 Participants– DIF Sample Size: 25 Participants

Re-cyclogical Group Presentation

Method• Materials Used:

– Instruction sheet– Questionnaire– Petition Sheet– Debriefing Sheet– Contact Details Sheet– Pens– DBS Student ID– Results Sheet– Clipboards– Computer, Printer

Re-cyclogical Group Presentation

Method• Procedure

– DBS interviewers question Participants randomly at locations throughout Dublin

– Two Different Groups• FID

– Asked to sign petition against littering (SMALL)– If an initial positive response, then asked to spend a day at Green

Saturdays helping out. (MEDIUM)

• DIF– Asked to give weekly commitment to help clean litter (LARGE)– If an initial negative response, then asked to spend a day at

Green Saturdays helping out. (MEDIUM)

– Permission, Debriefing, Explanation, Confidentialityand Thanks were provided at the end of the experiment.

Re-cyclogical Group Presentation

FID % Total DIF % Total Count % Total

Yes 7 12% 7 12% 14 24%

No 18 38% 18 38% 36 76%

Total 25 50% 25 50% 50 100%

• Cross-tabulation of Participant Responses

23

23

1

4

0

5

23

23

1

4

1

4

0

5

32

Yes - A No -A Yes - B No - B Yes - C No -C Yes - D No - D Yes - E No - E

Participant Response Per Interviewer

Foot In Door Door In Face

• Participant Response per Compliance per Interviewer

Results

Re-cyclogical Group Presentation

24 %

76 %

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Yes

No

% Response Using Foot In Door

Foot In Door

24 %

76 %

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Yes

No

% Response Using Door In Face

Door In Face

Results

Re-cyclogical Group Presentation

Results

• Pearson Chi-squared result:

X2 = 0.000, d.f. = 1, Significance P > 0.05

• We have failed to reject the Null hypothesis.

There is no difference between the observed and

expected values.

Re-cyclogical Group Presentation

Conclusions• Failed to Reject the Null Hypothesis.

• No difference, but different techniques should produce different results. (Cialdini, 1994)

• However, both have been shown previously to increase compliance.

– Friedman & Frasier

– Pliner et al (1974)

– Schwartzwald (1983)

Re-cyclogical Group Presentation

Criticisms• FID initial request too small, large jump, 2 feet-in-

door

• Field experiments have less control

• Selective personal bias

• Interviewer Reliability

• Halo effect

• Individuals and manner

• Timing of Experiment

• Place of InterviewRe-cyclogical Group Presentation

Future Research and Improvements• More control

• Unbiased random sampling

• Researcher Training

• 2 Feet-in-Door

Re-cyclogical Group Presentation

Questions and Thanks• Thanks for listening

• Any questions or feedback?

Re-cyclogical Group Presentation