This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Guadagno, R. E. Articles by Cialdini, R. B. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Guadagno, R. E. Articles by Cialdini, R. B. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

When Saying Yes Leads to Saying No: Preference for Consistency and the Reverse Foot-in-the-Door Effect

Arizona State University, rosanna{at}asu.edu

Terrilee Asher

Arizona State University

Linda J. Demaine

RAND

Robert B. Cialdini

Arizona State University

A requester using the foot-in-the-door (FITD) tactic begins by gaining compliance with a small request and then advances to a related, larger request. Previous work has demonstrated that a strong preference for consistency among targets of the tactic can enhance the FITD effect. Other work has indicated that an inadequate delay between the requests can produce resistance and can significantly reduce the effect. Study 1 found that high levels of preference for consistency (PFC) were sufficient to override this resistance, provided that participants’ prior helpfulness in complying with the initial request was made salient. Study 2 replicated this finding among high-PFC participants and showed that low-PFC participants demonstrated a reverse FITD effect when their prior helpfulness was made salient. The authors conclude that high- and low-PFC individuals are likely to become more or less consistent with an action (respectively) when focused on the personal implications of that action.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?