Posted: March 9th, 2022

Critical Review of ‘The Foot-in-the-door Technique’ Study

Study Bay Coursework Assignment Writing Help

Critical Review of ‘Compliance with out Strain: The Foot-in-the-door Method’

The Journal of Persona and Social Psychology
August 1966
Jonathan L. Freedman and Scott C. Fraser

Introduction

Foot-in-the-door phenomenon is a way to get people to conform for a bigger request by first getting them to comply with a a lot smaller request. This system is presently being utilized in many fields of enterprise to get costumers to buy what the shoppers need. There are a lot of studied which have examined this method, nonetheless the research performed by Freedman and Fraser stands out as one of the principle research performed underneath this subject (Myers, 2013)

On this essential Assessment I might be analyzing the research performed by Freedman and Fraser within the 12 months of 1996.

Abstract

The foot-in-the door approach studied by Freedman and Fraser was completed in a method to make sure that topics complied with out strain from the friends or the experiments because the studied performed earlier than recommended that topics usually tend to comply when they’re underneath extra strain. The research was performed in two experiments.

Within the preliminary half of the experiment, the themes have been divided into 4 teams particularly; the Efficiency situation, One-contact situation, Agree-only situation and Familiarization situation. It was hypothesized that topics within the efficiency situation would present greater compliance than topics within the management group: one- contact situation. Within the efficiency situation the themes have been first requested for a easy request and three days later have been requested a bigger however associated request. Within the On-contact situation which because the management group was requested just for the bigger second request. Within the agree-only situation the themes have been requested for the primary request however both agreed or not was not given to hold out the request. Within the ultimate situation the themes got as a lot as time to familiarize with the experimenter as the primary two situations however no request was made. The dependent variable of the research was whether or not or not the topic agreed to the bigger request whereas the impartial variable being whether or not or not the themes have been approached with a smaller request initially (Freedman & Fraser, 1966).

The themes have been all housewives from California who have been chosen randomly and contacted through the morning hours. The preliminary request was made both on Monday or Tuesday whereas the bigger request was made three days later (Freedman & Fraser, 1966).

It was discovered that the themes who didn’t comply for the preliminary small request didn’t comply to the bigger request. Nonetheless the efficiency group had a compliance of 52% whereas the opposite situations being one- contact, agree solely and familiarization had 22.2%, 33.three% and 27.eight% respectively. Thus the speculation was confirmed. Nonetheless, a second research was carried out with a view to eradicate some points equivalent to relevance to the topic, reasoning, similarity between the requests and familiarization (Freedman & Fraser, 1966).

Within the second half of the experiment, the 114 feminine and 13 male topics have been requested to first put up a small signal or signal a petition on the problems of protected driving and conserving California clear. And later have been requested to place up a big signal of their garden. There have been 4 situations that have been outlined based on the dimensions of the request and the dimension of the duty. It was hypothesized that the three situations which has comparable duties for each requests would comply greater than the management group finishing up two completely different, unrelated duties. The themes have been contacted between 1.30-Four.30 on weekdays and have been contacted by each female and male experimenters face-to-face. Topics who complied to the primary request tended to readily comply to the second bigger request within the situations the place the 2 duties have been comparable o related to one another or have been on the identical facet. Nonetheless, even within the fourth situation the place the 2 requests weren’t comparable to one another nonetheless there was extra compliance to the second request when the topic first complied to the preliminary request (Freedman & Fraser, 1966).

Analysis

The primary purpose of the performed research was to check the foot within the door approach in a setting with no strain. Researches argue that within the first experiment completed the themes complied to the second request as a result of familiarization with the experimenter nonetheless contrasting with the familiarization group it was not important sufficient to conclude that the compliance was attributable to familiarization. Furthermore, they argue that the compliance to the bigger request is as a result of obligation the themes have been feeling in the direction of the experimenter after agreeing o the smaller request. Moreover, they recommend because the experimenters recognized themselves as a “non-profit” group the themes would have been extra seemingly to Help them out (Freedman & Fraser, 1966).

In accordance with my level of view these two experiments are fairly standardized and covers virtually all of the elements of reasoning to conform to a request. Nonetheless there are a couple of factors within the research which I assumed might have been extra structured and effectively deliberate. As the themes have been largely females and based on the social psychology rules and studied completed females are seemingly to Help folks out as a result of empathy they really feel in the direction of others, thus the research is quiet gender biased. Although a slight quantity of males are included within the second experiment the quantity of male topics usually are not sufficient to make a big distinction within the outcomes. Furthermore as the themes have been contacted through the morning hours it might have additionally affected the outcomes as most housewives are fairly relaxed after sending their kids to highschool thus having extra time to spend on a cellphone name.

Moreover, because the second research will not be a replication not the primary research and the research design is quiet completely different it isn’t actually attainable to check the 2 studied for the consequences that they have been examined to eradicated the problems of the primary research. Because the second research was additionally face-to-face contact and the themes have been actively concerned they might have been extra obligated to Help than passively agreeing to Help on a name. Furthermore, the second experiment was clearer within the requests that have been made than the primary situation as topic might have suspected that one thing was occurring after they have been requested to Help on the cellphone after which requested a a lot bigger Help three days later. Nonetheless within the second experiment the situation and the requests have been fairly clear and wise.

Conclusion

The above essential Assessment was completed on the experiment performed by Freedman and Fraser on the foot-in-the-door approach. Although the research is sort of standardized and effectively carried out attempting to eradicate some points on the primary research is it not fairly dependable to check the 2 studied because the experiments and its situations are fairly completely different from one another.

Nonetheless, each experiments by itself have been capable of professional e what they have been testing and have been effectively executed. General, though there are minor points within the research as a complete, this analysis clearly reveals the completely different results and elements of complying to the foot-in-the-door approach when strain is eradicated.

References

Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance wt=ithout strain .The foot-in-the-door approach,Four(2), 195-202. doi: http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.mst.edu/10.1037/h0023552

Myers, D. G. (2013).Social psychology. (11th ed., p. 128). New York: MCGraw-Hill.