1. Pre-Request Tactics

2. Outline Foot-in-the-door technique Door-in-the-face technique Research developments Discussion/applications

3. Sequence Check List As usual, we consider the technique sequence –Interactional context –Commencement of interaction –Request –Compliance Implication Cues –Schedule & deadline –Compliance test –Opportunity –Consequences

4. Sequence Check List Today’s techniques –Have two sequences of note

5. Foot-in-the-Door Small then large request Pretest—high PFC FITD –Sign a petition for the homeless –Control Large request –Donate time to canned food drive –Reminder vs no reminder

6. Percentage of participants that complied with the large (target) request as a function of compliance technique and presence versus absence helpfulness focus. Participants on their way to a laboratory site were approached and asked to sign a petition or were not given this request. Later, they were given the target request, to spend time volunteering for a canned food drive, with or without the reminder question, “Are you a helpful person?”. The combination of the request and the reminder produced a notably elevated level of compliance with the target request.

7. Foot-in-the-Door First request –Interactional context Selected sample/PFC Selected interactional site Relational definition/attitude Continuous operation and development of attitude from this point –Commencement of interaction Engagement –Request Clear model—sign petition Clear expectation of performance

8. Foot-in-the-Door First request (continued) –Compliance implication cues Nice source Worthy cause –“to give greater consideration to the plight of the homeless “ Cost clear Leaning –Schedule/deadline/test An immediate response was required –Opportunity to comply Petition and time to sign

9. Foot-in-the-Door First request (continued) –Consequence Feedback –“Thank you for your helpfulness.” Impact –Value expression domain –Social adjustment domain –Ego defense domain Availability of pertinent attitudes

10. Foot-in-the-Door Second request –Interactional context Same participants as first request Took part in revise room Experimenter-participant relationship Psychology Club-participant relationship –Commencement of interaction W/ experimenter W/ Psychology Club –Request To read and complete the memo seeking volunteers

11. Foot-in-the-Door Second request (continued) –Compliance implication cues “Are you a helpful person?” –Attitude activation »Value/social/ego Cost implication –Attitude activation »Instrumental function –Leaning now

12. Foot-in-the-Door Second request (continued) –Schedule and deadline –Compliance test Commitment, not actual volunteering –Opportunity to respond

13. Foot-in-the-Door Conclusions

14. Door-in-the-Face Nature of the technique –Proposed account Three experimental conditions –Confederate approached participant with request(s) DITF Perceptual contrast Control

15. Door-in-the-Face Large request –We’re currently recruiting university students to work as voluntary, unpaid counselors at the County Juvenile Detention Center. The position could require two hours of your time per week for a minimum of two years. You would be working more in the line of a Big Brother (Sister) to one of the boys (girls) in the detention home. Would you be interested in being considered for one of these positions? Small request –We’re recruiting university students to chaperone a group of boys (girls) from the County Juvenile Detention Center on a trip to the zoo. It would be voluntary, unpaid, and would require about two hours of one afternoon or evening. Would you be interested in being considered for one of these positions?

16. Door-in-the-Face Compliance rate by experimental condition, 2 nd request Perceptual contrast effect ruled out Reciprocal concessions process supported

17. Door-in-the-Face First request –Interactional context Unselected sample University setting –People walking alone on university walkways Peer-stranger relationship –Attitude –Commencement of interaction Imposed Engagement likely

18. Door-in-the-Face First request (continued) –Request Clear and informative –Compliance cues Cost –Extremely high Worthy cause Altruistic confederate –Leaning Some ambivalence Refusal

19. Door-in-the-Face First request (continued) –Schedule/deadline/test –Opportunity to respond –Response to large request Refusal –Residual attitudes Value expression, social adjustment, ego defense Available in memory

20. Door-in-the-Face Second request –Interactional context Prior refusal Residual attitudes –Commencement of interaction Continuous with previous large request segment –Request Clear and informative Expectation of performance

21. Door-in-the-Face Second request (continued) –Compliance cues Cost Worthy cause Charitable experimenter Involves caring –2 nd request, concession by requester Leaning at this point –Ambivalence –Value expression, social adjustment, ego protection vs cost

22. Door-in-the-Face –Second request (continued) Schedule/deadline/test –Immediate response required –Commitment to act, not actual volunteering Opportunity –Provided

23. Door-in-the-Face Conclusions

24. Figure 4.1: Multiple requests in social influence. One social influence sequence can serve as a context for a subsequent influence attempt. This sort of thing occurs in such techniques as foot-in-the-door. In these cases, an influence source engages a recipient in a formal interactional ritual. The outcome of this event serves as an important part of the context of a subsequent influence attempt. Context Behavior Attitude Interaction Perception of object Opportunity Compliance test Consequences Context Behavior Attitude Interaction Perception of object Opportunity Compliance test Consequences

25. Research Developments

26. Prior Requests Discussion –Applications