Upload
alancummins3556
View
103
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Comparison of Foot-in-Doorvs. Door-In-Face, Using Recycling Issues, to Determine Best Means of Compliance.
Overview – High-level
Re-cyclogical Group Presentation
DOOR-IN-FACE FOOT-IN-DOORVS
Overview - Presentation• This presentation will contain the following sections:
– Introduction to Compliance Research and it’s application and extension in the Litter experiment and the hypothesis stated.
– Description of the Procedure undertaken to carry out the Experiment
– Reporting of the Results
– Conclusions of the Experiment including Criticisms and Future Research
– Questions and Feedback
Re-cyclogical Group Presentation
Introduction• Compliance: response to direct request
• Conformity: response to indirect pressure due to absence of direct request
• Milgram, 1963 Teacher- Student
• Ability to influence compliance
Re-cyclogical Group Presentation
Introduction• So what elements can affect an individual’s
willingness to comply with requests?• ‘Foot in the Door Technique’ (Freedman & Fraser,
1966). – Agree Small request -> Agree Large request– Why?
• Self Perception– supported by non-compliance
• Labels (Kraut, 1973)
• ‘Door in the Face Effect’ (Ciadini et al, 1975)– Refuse Large request -> agree small request– Why?
• Social Pressure
Re-cyclogical Group Presentation
Introduction• Implications:
– Method of presentation can influence response• Social psychology
• Marketing
• Question:– Which has a greater influence on an individual’s
compliance in response to requests?
• ‘The Foot in the Door Technique’
or • ‘The Door in the Face Technique’?
Re-cyclogical Group Presentation
Hypothesis Stated• Alternative Hypothesis (H1)
– There will be a significant difference between the number of respondents who accept a request to clear litter on given day when asked using FID as compared to being asked using DIF.
Re-cyclogical Group Presentation
Method• Two groups, one for FID, other for DIF, a between
subjects design• Independent Variable: Order of small and large
requests.
• Dependent Variable: Positive or negative responses
• Total Sample Size: 50 people randomly approached in Dublin City Centre. – FID Sample Size: 25 Participants– DIF Sample Size: 25 Participants
Re-cyclogical Group Presentation
Method• Materials Used:
– Instruction sheet– Questionnaire– Petition Sheet– Debriefing Sheet– Contact Details Sheet– Pens– DBS Student ID– Results Sheet– Clipboards– Computer, Printer
Re-cyclogical Group Presentation
Method• Procedure
– DBS interviewers question Participants randomly at locations throughout Dublin
– Two Different Groups• FID
– Asked to sign petition against littering (SMALL)– If an initial positive response, then asked to spend a day at Green
Saturdays helping out. (MEDIUM)
• DIF– Asked to give weekly commitment to help clean litter (LARGE)– If an initial negative response, then asked to spend a day at
Green Saturdays helping out. (MEDIUM)
– Permission, Debriefing, Explanation, Confidentialityand Thanks were provided at the end of the experiment.
Re-cyclogical Group Presentation
FID % Total DIF % Total Count % Total
Yes 7 12% 7 12% 14 24%
No 18 38% 18 38% 36 76%
Total 25 50% 25 50% 50 100%
• Cross-tabulation of Participant Responses
23
23
1
4
0
5
23
23
1
4
1
4
0
5
32
Yes - A No -A Yes - B No - B Yes - C No -C Yes - D No - D Yes - E No - E
Participant Response Per Interviewer
Foot In Door Door In Face
• Participant Response per Compliance per Interviewer
Results
Re-cyclogical Group Presentation
24 %
76 %
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Yes
No
% Response Using Foot In Door
Foot In Door
24 %
76 %
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Yes
No
% Response Using Door In Face
Door In Face
Results
Re-cyclogical Group Presentation
Results
• Pearson Chi-squared result:
X2 = 0.000, d.f. = 1, Significance P > 0.05
• We have failed to reject the Null hypothesis.
There is no difference between the observed and
expected values.
Re-cyclogical Group Presentation
Conclusions• Failed to Reject the Null Hypothesis.
• No difference, but different techniques should produce different results. (Cialdini, 1994)
• However, both have been shown previously to increase compliance.
– Friedman & Frasier
– Pliner et al (1974)
– Schwartzwald (1983)
Re-cyclogical Group Presentation
Criticisms• FID initial request too small, large jump, 2 feet-in-
door
• Field experiments have less control
• Selective personal bias
• Interviewer Reliability
• Halo effect
• Individuals and manner
• Timing of Experiment
• Place of InterviewRe-cyclogical Group Presentation
Future Research and Improvements• More control
• Unbiased random sampling
• Researcher Training
• 2 Feet-in-Door
Re-cyclogical Group Presentation
Questions and Thanks• Thanks for listening
• Any questions or feedback?
Re-cyclogical Group Presentation