011 min
The problem the foot-in-the-door technique describes
A direct request for something large is often refused. A request for something small is usually accepted. The foot-in-the-door technique, often shortened to FITD, links the two. The small request is not the goal. It changes how the person responds to the next one.
The pattern is common in everyday business. A visitor is asked to sign up for a newsletter. Later, the same person is asked to start a trial. Later again, to pay. Each step is small compared with the one after it, and each agreement makes the next easier to give. The same sequence can also be used to push people toward choices they would not have made, which is why the technique is discussed in ethics as well as in marketing.
021 min
Where the foot-in-the-door technique comes from
Jonathan L. Freedman and Scott C. Fraser published "Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique" in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 1966. Freedman and Fraser describe their work as 2 experiments "conducted to test the proposition that once someone has agreed to a small request he is more likely to comply with a larger request." In the first experiment, the same person made both requests, and in the second, "different people made the 2 requests."
The second experiment matters because it removed an easy explanation. If the effect only appeared when the same person asked twice, it might be a wish to be consistent with that person. When strangers made the requests and the effect remained, the explanation had to lie in the person who agreed. The authors report that they ran several further groups to try to explain the result, and they discuss possible explanations without settling on one.
031 min
Why the foot-in-the-door technique works
No single cause explains the effect. Jerry Burger's 1999 review in Personality and Social Psychology Review named six processes that may operate: "self-perception, psychological reactance, conformity, consistency, attributions, and commitment." Two of these are easy to describe.
- Self-perception. A person who agreed to a small request may infer from their own behaviour that they are the kind of person who helps. The next request is then judged against that new picture of themselves.
- Consistency. People prefer to act in line with what they have already done. Refusing the large request would conflict with having accepted the small one. The idea is covered under commitment and consistency.
Burger's conclusion is that the processes sum up differently in different settings. Burger argues that these processes together "can account for successful FITD demonstrations as well as studies in which the technique was ineffective or led to a decrease in compliance." In other words, the technique is not a guaranteed lever. Under some conditions it works, under some it does nothing, and under some it makes people less willing to agree.
041 min
How the foot-in-the-door technique shows up in marketing and product work
Here is an illustrative case. A product team for a budgeting app notices that few visitors start a paid plan from the pricing page. The team adds a first step that asks for almost nothing: choose a savings goal, with no account needed. Visitors who finish the step see a call to action to save their goal by creating a free account. The paid plan is offered only after the account exists. Each step asks for slightly more than the last one.
Several things should be checked before a team reads such a design as FITD. The small request must be something the person did freely. If the first step is hidden or automatic, it is not a commitment. The second request should follow the first closely and in the same area. A request for money after a request for a quiz answer is a weaker link than a request for an account after a request for a goal.
The technique has a sibling that works in the opposite order. The door-in-the-face technique starts with a large request that is refused, and then asks for a smaller one. It relies on reciprocity, since the second request looks like a concession.
051 min
Applying the foot-in-the-door technique
- Define the final request first. Decide what you actually want the person to do.
- Choose a first request that is real, small and clearly related to the final one.
- Make sure agreement is free. Do not make the small step the only way to reach something the person already wanted.
- Ask for the larger request only after the first has been completed, and say what it builds on.
- Measure against a control group that is asked only the final request. Without that group you cannot tell whether the first step helped.
061 min
When the foot-in-the-door technique fails
Burger's review states that the technique is sometimes ineffective and sometimes reduces compliance. The causes he lists suggest where it fails. Reactance is one: a person who feels pushed may refuse to protect their freedom. A request that is too small to count as a choice is another, because it gives the person nothing to be consistent with.
A team should also expect trouble when the sequence is visible as a trick. A person who feels maneuvered is likely to refuse the larger request and may distrust the company afterward.
The tell of failure in a funnel is a first step with good completion and no lift in the next step. If many people finish the small request and the final request converts no better than for people who skipped it, the first step is not working as a commitment.
071 min
Foot-in-the-door versus door-in-the-face
| Foot-in-the-door | Door-in-the-face | |
|---|---|---|
| First request | Small, usually accepted | Large, usually refused |
| Second request | Larger | Smaller |
| Main mechanism | Self-perception and consistency | Reciprocity and contrast |
The order of the requests is the clearest difference. The mechanisms listed in the last row are the ones usually proposed for each technique. Burger's review covers only the foot-in-the-door.
081 min
Frequently asked questions
What is the foot-in-the-door technique?
It is a way of gaining compliance by first asking for a small request and later making a larger one. People who agreed to the small request are more likely to agree to the larger one.
Who discovered the foot-in-the-door technique?
Jonathan Freedman and Scott Fraser, in a 1966 paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. They ran two experiments.
Why does the foot-in-the-door technique work?
Several processes may contribute, including self-perception and consistency. Jerry Burger's 1999 review lists six.
Does the foot-in-the-door technique always work?
No. Burger's review found studies in which it was ineffective and studies in which it reduced compliance.
Is the foot-in-the-door technique manipulative?
It can be, when the small request is used to push someone toward a choice they would not otherwise make. It is more defensible when the steps are honest and the person gains from each one.
?3 questions
Questions people ask
What is the foot-in-the-door technique?
Who discovered the foot-in-the-door technique?
Does the foot-in-the-door technique always work?
§2 sources
Sources
Jonathan L. Freedman and Scott C. Fraser, "Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4(2), 1966, pp. 195-202. PubMed 5969145 and abstract on cbsm.com
Jerry M. Burger, "The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure: A multiple-process analysis and review", Personality and Social Psychology Review 3(4), 1999, pp. 303-325. abstract on cbsm.com
