Pay for Article

Foot-in-the-door or the "sequential request" theory means using a person’s self-perception to motivate them to partake of the desired action. When an individual complies a first time, they perceive themselves to be helpful. If they are asked to comply a second time in an even greater way, she is likely to consent. In an effort to maintain consistency with the first impression and with their own self-perception, they agree to give even more of themselves.

The following outline highlights three key principles in learning how to use this technique:

1. Small commitments often later lead to large commitments. For example, salespeople often focus first on securing an initial order, even if it’s a small one. Once this is accomplished, the customer will be more likely to commit to buying from them again.

2. Written commitments are usually more powerful than verbal commitments. We know the power of the written word. When contracts are signed and promises put into writing, the commitment level correspondingly increases tenfold.

3. Public commitments are stronger than private commitments. Taking a public stand that is witnessed by others compels us to continually endorse that commitment. Otherwise, we risk being seen as inconsistent, weak, or dishonest. For example, as mentioned earlier, many weight-loss centers have their clients write down and share their goals with as many people as possible, thereby decreasing the likelihood of failure. The key to using FITD is to get the person to initially grant a small request. For example, if you were to ask someone, "Can I have just thirty seconds of your time?" most individuals would respond affirmatively. According to self-perception theory, the person would observe his own behavior and, in regard to this interaction, consider himself to be a helpful person. The second step in the FITD principle is making another, more involved request. "Can I try this on the stain on your carpet?" The person feels he should consent to the second request because he is "that kind of person." He has already seen himself do other behaviors in support of the product or service, so he willingly complies with the second request.

A1966 study by psychologists Jonathan Freedman and Scott Fraser highlights just how effective FITD is. In their study, a researcher posing as a volunteer canvassed a California neighborhood, asking residents if they would allow a large billboard reading "Drive Carefully" to be displayed on their front lawns. So they’d have an idea of what it would look like, the volunteer showed his recruits a picture of the large sign obstructing the view of a beautiful house.

Naturally, most people refused, but in one particular group, an incredible 76 percent actually consented. The reason for their compliance was this: Two weeks prior, these residents had been asked by another volunteer to make a small commitment to display a three-inch-square sign that read "Be a Safe Driver" in their windows. Since it was such a small and simple request, nearly all of them agreed. The astounding result was that the initial small commitment profoundly influenced their willingness to comply with the much larger request two weeks later.

With another group of homeowners, Freedman and Fraser sent petitions requesting their signatures in support of helping to keep California beautiful. Of course, nearly everyone signed. Two weeks later, another volunteer went around and asked them if they’d allow the big "Drive Carefully" sign to be placed in their yards. Amazingly, about half of the homeowners consented, even though their previous small commitment was to state beautification and not safety.

Freedman and Fraser were also interested in discovering whether or not they could persuade homemakers to carry out a very large request. They asked the women of the house if they would permit a group of five or six unknown men to freely look through their cupboards and storage spaces for two hours, for the purpose of classifying the women’s household products. Prior to this request, however, researchers had asked some of the women to take a survey about household products. Of those surveyed, approximately 50 percent consented to allowing the men to go through their household products. Of the women who had not been surveyed, only 25 percent agreed to let the men examine their storage spaces.

Another study involved testing to see whether introductory psychology students would rise early to take part in a 7:00 A.M. study session on thinking processes. In one group, the students were told at the beginning of the call that the session would begin promptly at 7:00 A.M. Of these students, only 24 percent agreed to participate. In the second group, the students were first told what the study was and that their participation was desired. The 7:00 A.M. time was not mentioned until after they had consented to take part, which 56 percent of them did. When the opportunity to change their minds was presented to them, however, none of them took advantage of it. Ninety-five percent of students actually followed through and showed up for the 7:00 A.M. session.

In another case, social psychologist Steven J. Sherman wanted to see if he could increase the number of people who would be willing to collect door-to-door donations for the American Cancer Society. He called a sample of residents and simply asked them what their response would be if they were asked to volunteer three hours of their time to collect charitable donations for the American Cancer Society. Not wanting to seem uncharitable, many responded that they would indeed volunteer. The final outcome? When a representative of the American Cancer Society actually called and asked for volunteers, there was a 700 percent increase of individuals agreeing to participate.