IB Psychology

Paper 1
Sociocultural level of analysis
2016-01-13
Foot-in-the-door technique

Door-in-the-face technique

Compliance techniques
(10)
Learning outcome:
Discuss the use of compliance techniques
(for example, lowballing, foot-in-the-door, reciprocity).
Course Companion: 116-119
Past exam questions:
SAQ: Explain one compliance technique. SPECIMEN PAPER
ERQ: Discuss the use of two compliance techniques. May 12 TZ 1
SAQ: Explain one compliance technique. Nov 13
ERQ: Examine the use of two compliance techniques. May 15
Videos:
Youtube: the Moriarty study (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXQx2AnDb2M)
Youtube: The Science of Persuasion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdCzN7RYbw)
illustrating different compliance thechniques
UR Play: Medialized Just say yes (http://urplay.se/Produkter/164832-Medialized-Just-sayyes ) (Cialdini) Will not be available after March 2016
Youtube: Det sociala djuret Del 3 Den manipulative mnniskan
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dr3nd-bnqs)

Summary
Compliance techniques = persuasion methods. Ways in which individuals
are influenced to comply with the demands or desires of others.

1. Foot-in-the-door technique = a persuasion technique that involves getting a

person to agree to a large request by first setting them up by having that person agree to a
small request.
The factors that make it work are commitment and consistency. When we ask people to agree to
a small favor, they easily commit to it. Once they have committed they would like to appear
consistent when they are asked the second, larger request.

Moriarty (1975) used a field experiment on a beach to show that people are more likely to
comply to the hidden request
to

of
else

stopping a thief and exposing themselves

danger (=large request) steeling someone
s radio if they are asked to watch the radio
(=small request). 95% ran after the thief
when the technique was used, as
opposed to 20% when it was not used.

Dickerson et al. (1992) used a field experiment to show that students

comply with a large request such as taking shorter showers (=large request) to a greater extent
when they are asked to sign a poster about saving water first (=small request). This is because
once people commit to watching the radio, they want to appear consistent.

2. Door-in-the-face technique = a persuasion technique where a large request

is made which will surely be turned down. A second, more reasonable, request is made
which asks less of someone. People are more likely to accept the second request because
they feel that the person has already lowered the request in order to accommodate them.
The principle or factor that makes this work is the norm of reciprocity. When we turn someone
down, we have a feeling that we owe them something, and therefore accept the second request.

Cialdini et al. (1975) used a field

experiment to show that when students are first
asked to sign up for two years of un-paid work (=a
very large request that they will most likely turn down), they are more likely to agree to chaperone
juvenile delinquents to the zoo for a day (=a smaller request)

WHAT DOES THE QUESTIONS MEAN?

You need to learn at least TWO COMPLIANCE TECHNIQUES as well as STUDIES to support each
technique. It is enough to learn one study for one technique and two studies for the other, in case you are
asked about one technique in an ERQ.
You also need to be able to discuss the USE of those techniques. How and why are they used?
If the command term is explain or examine, you need to explain why it works, what the underlying
assumption is. Look at the factors influencing compliance.

Terminology
Compliance = the result of direct pressure to respond to a request-for
example, when people comply to buy certain products, even though the
direct pressure may not always be apparent to the individual

Compliance techniques = persuasion methods. Ways in which

individuals are influenced to comply with the demands or desires of others.

Factors influencing compliance

Here are a few factors influencing the likelihood that people will comply with a request.
These factors explain WHY the compliance techniques below work. Keep in mind that
there are other compliance techniques (such as lowballing) and other factors (such as
liking or scarcity).
COMMITMENT = being CONSISTENT with previous behavior. Once people have agreed
to something, either by their behavior or by a statement of belief, they are likely to comply
with similar requests. Once we make a choice or take a stand, we will encounter personal
and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that commitment. Once we make
a choice or take a stand (COMMIT TO SOMETHING), we will encounter personal and
interpersonal pressures to behave CONSISTENTLY with that decision. We simply
convince ourselves that we have made the right choice and, no doubt, feel better about
our decision. THE CONSISTENCY PRINCIPLE directs behavior. We want to be
CONSISTENT and therefore we do what we ordinarily would not do.
Example 1: If my child wants me to buy him a certain thing for his birthday (this is the childs request that he wants me to
comply with), he should make me promise to buy it. Once I have committed to buying it, I will feel bad about myself
(personal pressure) and my child will be angry (interpersonal pressure) if I dont buy it later. Everyone wants to appear
consistent. If I have said I will buy it, I should, because a consistent person does not change his mind.
Example 2: Lets say you are at the beach and you feel like taking a bath, but you have some money in your wallet. If
you want someone you dont know to stop a thief taking your valuables at the beach when you are in the water, you
should ask them to watch your things. If they agree, they will be more likely to actually run after a thief because they
have committed to it by agreeing to the request. They will do this because they want to appear consistent, that is, they
want to be viewed as a person who keeps their word.

RECIPROCITY People feel the need to return a favor (An example of using this tactic is
offering food/coffee to customers, free estimates for a job, offering free samples/free
travel/free time in hotel./3 free magazines). One study showed that people tip more at a
restaurant where they are given mints with the bill. This means that, if the waitress gives
you something, you feel the need to give something back.

Examples: People feel the need to return a favor (offering food/coffee to customers, free estimates for a job, offering
free samples/free travel/free time in hotel./3 free magazines/compromises)

Compliance techniques:
1.

Foot-in-the-door technique = a persuasion technique that involves getting a person to

agree to a large request by first setting them up by having that person agree to a small request.

The factors that make it work are commitment and consistency. When we ask people to agree to a small
favor, they easily commit to it. Once they have committed they would like to appear consistent when they are
asked the second, larger request.

Moriarty (1975) showed evidence of the foot-in-the-door-technique by showing that we can use
peoples desire to be consistent and make them commit to something small first in order to later
commit to something larger (He showed evidence of the FITD technique)
Aim: to investigate whether onlookers would risk personal harm (large request) to stop a crime if they are
first asked to watch someones belongings at a beach (small request).
Method: field experiment (a staged theft on the beach),
IV: whether the stooge asked the participant to watch his things or not (small request)
DV: whether the participant ran after and try to stop a thief from stealing the belongings
Design: independent samples design
Participants: 40 individuals on a beach (20 in the experimental condition and 20 in the control condition)
Procedure:
- A stooge put a beach blanket down five feet from the blanket of a randomly chosen individual the
participant.
- After several minutes of relaxing on the blanket and listening to music from a portable radio, the stooge
would stand up and leave the blanket to stroll down the beach.
- Soon after a researcher, pretending to be a thief, approaches, grabs the radio, and tries to hurry away with
it.
- The procedure was repeated 20 times where the stooge just left the blanket and 20 times where the stooge
asked the participant to watch the things.
Results:
- When they had not been asked to watch the radio (in the control condition), only 4/20 (20%) put
themselves in danger by challenging the thief.
- In the experimental condition, where the stooge asked the participant to watch the things, 19/20 (95%)
ran after and stopped the thief, demanding an explanation, often restraining the thief physically or snatching
the radio away.
Conclusion: We tend to comply with large demands of other people if we are asked something small first.
Due to the desire to be consistent with the agreement to watch the things (which was a small request), the
participants felt that they wanted to be consistent with this first decision and put themselves in danger (which
is the large request) when running after the thief.
Explanations: Consistency is usually valued and adaptive (a desirable personality trait). The person
whose beliefs, words, and deeds dont match is seen as confused, two-faced and even mentally ill. A high
degree of consistency is normally associated with personal and intellectual strength. It is highly valued in our
culture. Usually we are better off because of it but we fall into the habit of being consistent even in situations
where it is not the sensible way to be. It is a form of automatic responding that offers a shortcut through the
complexities of modern life. We dont have to think hard about an issue once we have made up our mind. It
is a way to save mental effort.
(+) Cause and effect (using the technique makes more people comply)
(+) High ecological validity (natural environment of the participants, no demand characteristics)
(-) All ethical guidelines were not followed. No informed consent, deception, participants were
exposed to possible physical harm since the researchers could not know exactly how the participants
would stop the thief/stooge. Each of these needs to be explained.

(-) Since an independent samples design was used and since the sample was quite small, participant
variables might have affected the results, meaning that since the participants in the conditions were different
people, their personality characteristics could have affected their willingness to comply, as opposed to the IV.

How this principle can be used as a sales tactic since automatic consistency
functions as a shield against thought, it can also be used by those who would prefer that we respond to their
requests without thinking. For example, companies want us to buy their products and may use the foot-in-the
-door technique to make us comply to this request. Unthinking mechanical reactions to their requests is the
goal. OUR NEED TO BE CONSISTENT LEADS DIRECTLY TO THEIR BENEFIT.
1. Toy manufacturers use such an approach to make parents buy toys after Christmas. Reduced prices and
advertising campaigns usually dont work. This is what they do (and it works because it is supported by the
research above.)
- They advertise a product
- Parents promise the product to their children as a Christmas gift
- They undersupply the stores with the toys they have gotten the parents to promise
- The children say You promised
- The parents buy the product after Christmas since they want to be consistent with their promise.
2. Car salesmen make the customer agree to buy on paper, get the money up front,
3. Collecting donations for charities is done this was as well (see foot-in-the-door on wikipedia)
4. signing petitions at street corners (will more likely support the cause in upcoming election)
5. Examples in real life:
- "Can I go over to Suzy's house for an hour?" They answer would probably be Yes.. It is then followed by
the actual request: "Can I stay the night?" A parent is more likely to agree to the large request if you make
them agree to the small one first, since they have already committed and want to appear consistent.
- "Can I borrow the car to go to the store?" followed by "Can I borrow the car for the weekend?"
- "Would you sign this petition for our cause?" followed by "Would you donate to our cause?"
- "May I turn in the paper a few hours late?" followed by "May I turn it in next week?"

Dickerson et al. (1992) showed that students comply with a large request such as taking
shorter showers to a greater extent when they are asked a smaller request first (to sign a poster).
Aim: to investigate if university students could be made to save water in the dormitory showers
Method: field experiment
IV: whether they had signed a poster or not and whether they had been made to think about their water
usage through the survey.
DV: saving water (operationalized as measuring the time the students spent taking showers)
So, the actual, large request here is saving water/taking shorter showers and the small request is signing the
poster.
Participants: University students (US?)
Procedure:
- Asked students to sign a poster that said Take shorter showers. If we can do it so can you
- Asked them to take a survey designed to make them think about their own water wastage.
- Shower times were monitored.
Results: Students who had signed the poster and then been forced to think about their own water
usage took shorter showers. Students who had not been asked to sign the poster did not take shorter
showers.
Conclusion: This also shows evidence of the FIDT since students who were first asked a small favor (to sing
a poster to take shorter showers) actually took shorter showers (large request).
(+) Cause and effect (asking the small favor first makes more people comply with the large one)
(+) High ecological validity
(+) No demand characteristics
(-) Deception (field experiment)
(-) No informed consent (field experiment)

(-) Biased sample so limited generalization to other populations (university students are not representative of
the general population)

2. Door-in-the-face technique = a persuasion technique where a large

request is made which will surely be turned down. A second, more reasonable,
request is made which asks less of someone. People are more likely to accept the second
request because they feel that the person has already lowered the request in order to
accommodate them.
The principle or factor that makes this work is the norm of reciprocity. When we turn
someone down, we have a feeling that we owe them something, and therefore accept the
second request.

Cialdini et al. (1975) showed that when students are first asked a very large request that they
will most likely turn down, they are more likely to agree to a smaller request.
Aim: to investigate the door-in-the-face compliance technique. They investigated how willing students are
to help out to chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a day trip to the zoo
Small request=chaperone to the zoo (which is the actual request that they want students to comply with in
this case)
Large request= to sign up for two years of non-paid work (which is a question they asked first and that
they knew most would not agree to)
Method: field experiment
IV: Whether the students were asked the too large favor (work for two years) before the actual request
(chaperone delinquents to the zoo).
DV: Whether the students agreed to the small request (to chaperone delinquents to the zoo)
Procedure:
- The researchers posed as representatives of the County Youth Counseling Program
- Stopped university students on campus
- Asked control group if they would be willing to chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a day trip
to the zoo (the small request).
The experimental group was first asked a large favor that they would probably refuse: if they would be
willing to sign up to work for two hours per week as counsellors for a minimum of two years and then
they were asked the same as the first ones
- So, in the experimental group, the DIFT was used since they were first asked a too large favor (work for two
years), and then the small favor that they actually wanted them to agree to (chaperone kinds to the zoo).
This tactic was not used in the control condition. They were only asked to chaperone.
Results (measured as how many agreed to chaperone to the zoo)
- In the control condition, only 17 % agreed to chaperone the kids to the zoo when only asked this question
(the small request).
- In the experimental condition, when the technique was used and they were first asked to work for two years
(the large request) 50% agreed to chaperone to the zoo (the small request)
(+) An experiment was used, which means that we can conclude that asking a large favor first causes
people to agree to a smaller request to a greater extent. Extraneous variables were controlled in the sense
that standardized procedure was used (The students were approached the same way, told the same things,
they all got the same survey, etc.)
(+) This field experiment has high ecological validity since it was conducted in the natural environment of
the students. They were stopped on campus and they were not aware of the fact that they were part of a
study.
(-) One ethical limitation of this experiment is deception, which means that the participants did not know they
were a part of a study. This is a problem because participants in a study need to be informed they are in a

study and offered to sign consent and they need to be aware of the true aim of a study. However, this was
done to avoid demand characteristics. Since no psychological or physical harm was done, it could be argued
that the ends justify the means (meaning that the knowledge gained about the FIDT, outweighs the
problems).
How this principle can be used as a sales tactic or by charities
Will you donate $1000 to our organization? [Response is no].
Oh. Well could you donate $10?''
How to make people help you do some work for you
Can you help me do all this work?
Well can you help me with this bit?
How to make parents comply
"Can I stay the night at Suzys? followed by"Can I go over to Suzy's house for an hour?"
"Can I borrow the car for the weekend?"followed by "Can I borrow the car to go to the store?"
"Would you donate to our cause? followed by "Would you sign this petition for our cause?"
To make teachers comply:
"May I turn it in next week? followed by "May I turn in the paper a few hours late?"

Sample answers

SAQ:
Explain one compliance technique
If you are asked to explain, please remember to explain why the technique works. Foot-in-the-door is based on the principles of
commitment and consistency (once we have committed to something, we fell the need to be viewed as consistent) and door-in-the-face
is based on the principle of reciprocity (we feel the need to return a favor).

Answer to the question

One compliance technique is the foot-in-the-door technique, which can be illustrated using Moriartys field
expeirment.
Defintion of compliance techniques
Compliance techniques are persuasion methods and they are used to influence other people to agree with
requests they would normally not agree to.
Definition of the technique and explanation of why it works
The foot-in-the-door technique involves getting a person to agree to a large request by first setting
them up by having that person agree to a small request. This technique is based on the principles of
commitment and consistency because people agree to the large request because they have already
committed to the large and because they want to appear consistent in their decisions.
Study used to support the technique (aim, method, IV, DV connected to the technique, procedure, results,
conclusion)
Moriarty investigated this technique by investigating whether onlookers would risk personal harm to stop a
crime. He used a field experiment with a staged theft on the beach. A stooge put a beach blanket down five
feet from the blanket of a randomly chosen individual. After a few minutes, the stooge would leave the
blanket and either ask the participant to watch his things or not (This was the independent variable, since the
participants in the experimental condition were asked this small favor before the researcher measured
whether they would run after the theif, which in this case is the actual request and the large favor). Soon after
a stooge, pretending to be a thief, approaches, grabs the radio, and tries to hurry away with it. The procedure
was repeated 20 times in each condition and results showed that when participants had not been asked to
watch the radio, only 4/20 put themselves in danger by chasing the thief. In the experimental condition,
where the stooge asked the participant to watch the things, 19/20 ran after and stopped the thief. The
explanation why this technique works is that, due to the desire to be consistent, the participants who were

asked to watch the things (which is the small favor asked) put themselves in danger (which is the big
favor that is not explicitly asked in this case) in order to protect the property of the stooge. The
explanation for this behavior is the desire to be consistent, which is usually a valued and adaptive behavior
and a desirable personality trait.

ERQ:
Discuss the use of compliance techniques
(for example, lowballing, foot-in-the-door, reciprocity).
Discuss: Offer a considered and balanced review that includes a range of arguments, factors (factors influencing complicance, such as
commitment, authority, liking, consistency) or hypotheses (ideas about why we comply, which is the same). Opinions or conclusions
should be presented clearly and supported by appropriate evidence.
Since you might be asked to discuss (or maybe evaluate) one compliance technique, there is a lot of information on the first one (2
studies) and less on the second. If you are asked to evaluate, then most of your answer should be arguments constructed around
strengths and limitations of the techniques (and the research used to support them).

Compliance techniques, such as foot-in-the door and the door-in-the-face, are used to make other people
comply with our requests. This essay will illustrate their use, the factors that contribute to compliance as well
as research that shows evidence of how and why they work.
Compliance is a type of social influence and it is the result of direct pressure to respond to a request, for
example, when people comply to buy certain products, even though the direct pressure may not always be
apparent to the individual. Compliance techniques are persuasion methods or ways in which individuals
are influenced to comply with the demands or desires of others. They are often used in advertising and
marketing but also in everyday life.
Factors influencing compliance are factors increasing the likelihood that people will comply with a request.
One of these factors is authority. Research shows that people comply more often with those in positions of
some authority and people can be made to comply by associating famous people with the brand they are
selling. Another factor is scarcity. Opportunities seem more valuable to people when they are less readily
available. Another factor is commitment. Once people have agreed to something, either by their behavior or
by a statement of belief, they are more likely to comply with similar requests being consistent with previous
behavior. This means that once we make a choice or take a stand, we will encounter personal and
interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that decision. We simply convince ourselves that we
have made the right choice and, no doubt, feel better about our decision.
One compliance technique is the foot-in-the door technique (FITD) investigated by Moriarty (1975). FITD
involves getting a person to agree to a large request by first setting them up by having that person
agree to a small request. This technique is based on the principles of commitment and consistency
because people agree to the large request because they have already committed to the large and
because they want to appear consistent in their decisions. Moriarty investigated whether onlookers
would risk personal harm to stop a crime. He used a field experiment with a staged theft on the beach. A
stooge put a beach blanket down five feet from the blanket of a randomly chosen individual. After a few
minutes, the stooge would leave the blanket and either ask the participant to watch his things or not (IV).
Soon after a stooge, pretending to be a thief, approaches, grabs the radio, and tries to hurry away with it.
The procedure was repeated 20 times in each condition and results showed that when participants had not
been asked to watch the radio, only 4/20 put themselves in danger by chasing the thief. In the experimental
condition, where the stooge asked the participant to watch the things, 19/20 ran after and stopped the thief.
Due to the desire to be consistent, the participants who were asked to watch the things (which is the
small favor asked) put themselves in danger (which is the big favor that is not explicitly asked in this
case) in order to protect the property of the stooge. This sentence explicitly links the study to the
technique. The explanation for this behavior is the desire to be consistent, which is usually a valued and
adaptive behavior and a desirable personality trait. The person whose beliefs, words, and deeds dont match
is seen as confused, two-faced, even mentally ill. It is highly valued in our culture. We fall into the habit of
being consistent even in situations where it is not the sensible way to be.
Evaluate the study and connect that to the compliance technique. Remember that you can be awarded 9
marks for critical thinking.

Since a field experiment was used, the results provide evidence of this technique in a real-life setting, which
is a strength of this study. On the other hand, other studies show that collectivist cultures show lower levels
of compliance, which shows that the technique might not work as well in all cultures. Another strength of this
study used to support the technique is that it is an experiment, which means that an IV (whether the
participant was asked to watch the things) was manipulated. This means that we can draw the conclusion
that the request caused the participant to comply.
Evidence of critical thinking by showing that you understand how the technique can be used or misused
(applied)
Since consistency is an automatic process (we dont think hard enough to make good decision), it can also
be exploited/used by those who would prefer that we respond to their requests without thinking. For
example, toy manufacturers use the foot-in-the door technique when trying to sell their products after
Christmas since reducing prices and advertizing campaigns dont work at that time of year. Parents have
already spent a lot of money on toys. Toy manufacturers advertise a product before Christmas. Parents
promise the product to their children as a Christmas gift (which is the small favor, even though it is not
explicitly asked of the parents). Then the manufacturers undersupply the stores with the toys they have
gotten the parents to promise to buy. Then parents tend to buy the product after Christmas (which is the
large request from the toy manufacturers to parents, even though it is not explicitly expressed), since they
want to be consistent with their promise to the child. This technique is also used by car salesmen when
making the customer agree to buy on paper or get the money up front.
Another study on foot-in-the-door if you are asked about one technique.
Dickerson et al. (1992) investigated if university students could be made to save water in the dormitory
showers (large request). They were asked to sign a poster that said, Take shorter showers. If we can do it
so can you. Then they asked them to take a survey designed to make them think about their own water
wastage. Shower times were monitored and measured. Results showed that students who had signed the
poster (small request) and then been forced to think about their own water usage took shorter showers
(large request).
Evaluation of the research used to support the techniques.
The studies used as evidence of the techniques also tends to be experimental in nature, which means that
cause and effect can be inferred, which is important in psychology. Both of these studies show that
compliance technique tend to be investigated in real-life context, which is a strength. Since there is high
ecological validity, results can more readily be generalized to real-life situations. However, a limitation is the
necessary use of deception in order to avoid demand characteristics. Ethical guidelines, such as obtaining
informed consent from the participants, should be followed but It could be argued that the deception is
justified, since useful knowledge is gained.
The second technique is explained (as well as the principle behind it-the factor that makes it work)
The door-in-the-face technique is another persuasion technique where a request is made which will surely
be turned down because it is too big. A second, more reasonable, request is made which asks less of
someone. People are more likely to accept the second request because they feel that the person has already
lowered the request in order to accommodate them. This technique is based on the principle of reciprocity.
The first request creates a sense of debt or guilt that the second request offers to clear.
One classic experiment was conducted by Cialdini et al. (1975). Students were asked/not asked a large
request, which was to counsel juvenile delinquents for two hours a week for two years. They knew that most
students would say no. What they actually wanted the students to agree to, was a smaller request: to
chaperone juvenile delinquents on a one-day trip to the zoo (small request). Results showed that 83%
refused the first large request, which was expected. 50% agreed to chaperone the trip to the zoo if they had
been asked the large favor first, as compared to 17% of participants who only received the zoo request. The
conclusion is that it is easier to make people do what we want them to do if we ask them a bigger
favor first, which we know will be turned down, and then ask them the smaller favor that we want
them to do for us.
In conclusion, compliance techniques are used in many different ways, especially in marketing and they
seem to have a large effect in trying to influence others to comply with different kinds of requests. The
principles that seem to make them work are commitment, consistency and the principle of reciprocity, among
others. The research conducted is often experimental, which means that cause and effect can be inferred
and that demand characteristics can be avoided. It has high ecological validity since field experiments are
used but obtaining consent might pose a problem in field research.