This essay taught me about the foot in the door as well as the door in the face tactics. These strategies come in handy when dealing with a sales driven environment, such as my workplace. After writing the essay, the quality of the study that is cited was called into question. This would be an example of a paper that doesn't necessarily hold up under scrutiny, but represents my understanding of the concept at the time. I've since gone back over the data and looked at other studies with different perspectives. I stand by this essay as a representation of my understanding of the concepts at the time it was written, but not as an indicator of my present mentality on the subject.
Theory and Tactics
Introduction
There are many subtle things that people do that can gain others compliance. Two of the major tactics that can be used are the foot in the door tactic and the door in the fact tactic. This essay will compare and contrast both of these concepts as well as address what factors influence the success of each tactic.
Foot in the Door
The foot in the door strategy, or as Gass and Seiter (2011) put it, “The ‘give me an inch and I’ll take a mile’ tactic” is a compliance gaining strategy that involves making a small request before making a larger request. Often times these requests are not related to each other. According to Gass and Seiter (2011), “When people comply with a smaller request, it often makes them more likely to comply with a second, larger request.” The most prevalent explanation for the effectiveness of the foot in the door strategy is based on the self-perception theory (Gass & Seiter, 2011). According to the theory, people one comes to know about their attitudes, psychological reactions, and other internal reactions by inferring them from the behavior they themselves exhibit. According to Gass and Seiter, “As an explanation for the FITD effect, self-perception theory says this: When you agree to comply with a small request, you see yourself as an altruistic person who is likely to help.”
The effectiveness of the foot in the door tactic depends greatly on many factors. For example, if the size of the initial request is too small the following larger request will seem like too large a jump and put off the receiver. If the size of the initial request is too large, the initial request may be denied and this defeats the whole concept of foot in the door theory. Another factor that plays a major role is the prosocialness of the request. The tactic becomes imminently more effective when being used for prosocial causes rather than being used for self gain. For instance, if one was to request a large donation to get an air conditioning unit for their building, it is far more likely for them to give the donation to a social group like a school or a museum rather than an individual that is in need (Gass & Seiter, 2011).
Door in the Face
The door in the face tactic is the opposite of the foot in the door strategy. This tactic works by first making a request that is too large to be realistically granted. Following this is a second, smaller request that is much more realistic and likely to be granted. The two tactics are similar in that they use the first request as a distraction to get what they really want with the smaller request (Brehm, S.S., Kassin, S., Fein, S., 2005). One explanation of the effectiveness of the door in the face tactic is reciprocal concessions. Reciprocal concessions occur when someone does a favor the receiving party feels obligated to return the favor. According to Gass and Seiter (2011), “In the real world, negotiations often operate according to this process of reciprocal concessions. That is, negotiators often try to appear more reasonable by starting with a large request so they can make concessions later.”
Another explanation for the effectiveness of the door in the face tactic is the self-presentation explanation (Gass & Seiter, 2011). According to this reckoning, when people reject an initial request, they may become concerned that they will appear negatively to others. This makes them far more likely to comply with the second request in order to make themselves look more favorable. As with foot in the door theory, the size of the initial request becomes important. If the request is too large it will seem comical, but it must also not be so large that it causes anger or hard feelings in the persuadee. Also, the prosocialness of the request is also important. Once again, if the request is self serving, it tends to defeat the purpose of the request (Gass & Seiter, 2011.)
Quantifying the Effectiveness of the Tactics
In 2004, a study measured the effectiveness of both foot in the door and door in the face tactics and tested which method increased compliance. Half the test subjects, students, were asked two small questions regarding racism. Following this they were asked a moderate target request. Alternately, the other half of the students were asked for a large request of attending ten one hour seminars in racism followed by a moderate target request. The study found that the door in the face tactic yielded significantly greater compliance at 75.8%, than the foot in the door tactic at 48.5% (Rodafinos, A., Vucevic, A. & Sideridis, G., 2005).
Conclusion
In conclusion, this essay has highlighted two major tactics for gaining compliance, the foot in the door tactic and the door in the face tactic. The results of the test cited by Rodafinos, Vucevic, and Sideridis, seem to indicate a significantly higher success rate when using the door in the face tactic. That being said, both tactics will continue to be used to varying degrees in the real world. There are times when one tactic would seem to be more effective on a certain group of people rather than another. These tactics offer up the notion that persuasion is constant and dynamic, rather than only occurring once. The psychology of persuasion seems to be constantly growing and changing. As humans change, so will the tactics that influence them the most.
References
Brehm, S.S., Kassin, S., Fein, S. (2005) Social psychology 6th ed. New York
Gass, R. H. & Seiter, J. S., (2011). Persuasion: Social influence and compliance gaining. 4th Edition. Allyn & Bacon.
Rodafinos, A., Vucevic, A., & Sideridis, G. (2005). The effectiveness of compliance techniques: Foot in the door versus door in the face. The Journal of Social Psychology.
No comments:
Post a Comment