SEQUENTIAL‐REQUEST PERSUASIVE STRATEGIES: Meta‐Analysis of Foot‐in‐the‐Door and Door‐in‐the‐Face

JAMES P. DILLARD, JOHN E. HUNTER, MICHAEL BURGOON

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

157 Scopus citations

Abstract

Meta‐analysis of the foot‐in‐the‐door (FITD) and door‐in‐the‐face (DITF) literatures showed both effects to be small (r = .17, .15 respectively), even under optimal conditions. Both require aprosocial topic in order to work. The amount of time between the first and second requests plays a different role in the operation of each of the two strategies. DITF was effective only when the delay between requests was brief. Effectiveness of FITD was unrelated to delay, but did depend on whether or not an incentive was provided with the first request. The positive relationship between effort and FITD predicted by self‐perception theory was not found. Self‐perception theory and reciprocal concessions theory, the theoretical perspectives usually applied to FITD and DITF respectively are examined in light of the findings and it is concluded that both are flawed seriously. Directions for future research are suggested.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)461-488
Number of pages28
JournalHuman Communication Research
Volume10
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1984

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Communication
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Anthropology
  • Linguistics and Language

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'SEQUENTIAL‐REQUEST PERSUASIVE STRATEGIES: Meta‐Analysis of Foot‐in‐the‐Door and Door‐in‐the‐Face'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this