SEQUENTIAL‐REQUEST PERSUASIVE STRATEGIES: Meta‐Analysis of Foot‐in‐the‐Door and Door‐in‐the‐Face

Meta‐analysis of the foot‐in‐the‐door (FITD) and door‐in‐the‐face (DITF) literatures showed both effects to be small (r = .17, .15 respectively), even under optimal conditions. Both require aprosocial topic in order to work. The amount of time between the first and second requests plays a different role in the operation of each of the two strategies. DITF was effective only when the delay between requests was brief. Effectiveness of FITD was unrelated to delay, but did depend on whether or not an incentive was provided with the first request. The positive relationship between effort and FITD predicted by self‐perception theory was not found. Self‐perception theory and reciprocal concessions theory, the theoretical perspectives usually applied to FITD and DITF respectively are examined in light of the findings and it is concluded that both are flawed seriously. Directions for future research are suggested.