Foot in the Door (FITD) -

1. Foot in the Door (FITD) - Basic Approach: Small initial request followed by a larger (key) request 1st request = Answer a number of questions about what household products used; 2nd request = 5/6 men going to home for about 2 hours to enumerate and classify all the household products present Basic Procedure of Study 1? Results?

2. Foot in the Door (FITD) - Study 2 1st Request = Asked either to put up a small sign or to sign a petition (tasks) for one of 2 issues: safe driving or keeping California beautiful (issues) 2nd Request = To install a very large sign in their front lawn which said "Drive Carefully" Basic Procedure? Results? All conditions improved compliance beyond the control

3. Foot in the Door (FITD) • Key Points: • 2nd request can be made by a different person • 2nd request can be on a different issue and involve a different task • Performing the 1st request is not essential. Just agreeing to do it is sufficient • Principle: Commitment (Self-perception)

4. Door in the Face (DITF)Basic Approach: Very large 1st request (refused), followed by a smaller request 1stRequest = Worktwo hours per week for a minimum of two years in County Juvenile Detention Center --- NO response 2nd Request: Be chaperones for a group of juvenile delinquents on a two-hour trip to the zoo. Procedure? Results? DITF notdue to a perceptual contrast effect

5. Door in the Face --- Study 2 What was the KEY reason for conducting Study #2? Results? Ineffective

6. Door in the Face --- Study 3 What was the KEY reason for conducting Study #3? 1st request = Perform as chaperones for a group of juvenile delinquents on a two-hour trip to the city museum; 2nd Request = Be a chaperone a for a group of juvenile delinquents on a two-hour trip to the zoo Inclusion of an equivalent request group: Results? Ineffective

7. Door in the Face • Key Points: • Both requests must be made by the same person • Perception of a concession/negotiation • Feeling of satisfaction within target • Principle: Reciprocity

8. That’s Not AllBasic Premise: Improve the Deal Basic Procedure: Give original price; before target responds, improve the deal. Two overall ways to do this --- • Give original cost, then reduceit before the target responds Study 1: • Reduce price = 73% compliance vs. 40% control • Give original cost, then addsomething “extra” before the target responds • Add something (cookies) = 73% vs. 44% control

9. That’s Not All in Action

10. That’s Not All Study 3? TNA = 85% NoNegotiation = 70% (I want to leave soon, so I’d be willing to sell them to you for 75 cents) Control = 50% No difference So, perception of a negotiation may not be critical to TNA success

11. That’s Not All Study 4? Selling product (candles) door to door Negotiation = 57.1% ($3.00 candles but we decided to sell them for $2.00) No Negotiation = 37.1% (No we sold all of those. These are the $2.00 candles) Control = 14.3% No diff As in Study 3 – the perception of personal negotiation is effective, but the TNA technique may work without it

12. That’s Not All Study 5? Testing adaption level or standard/anchor point Previously told that the club had been selling cupcakes for either $1.00 or 75 cents 1) Highest amount you’d be willing to pay for a cupcake? 2) What do you believe is an honest amount to charge for a cupcake Those in the $1.00 condition willing to pay more 51.4 cents vs. 44.6 cents, but not significantly different Those in the $1.oo condition believed in a higher honest price for cupcake; 66.1 cents vs. 52.4 cent (significant)

13. That’s Not All Study 6? TNA versus a bargain TNA condition = 55% Bargain condition = 25% Control = 20% Significant difference

14. That’s Not All Study 7? TNA versus DITF TNA condition = 50% (planning to close down soon, so now $1.00 DITF = 35% Control = 20% No difference No difference