Norms of Social Conduct and the Foot-In-The-Door

Abstract

Summary Using an account analysis (giving excuses or justifications for compliance or noncompliance) to indicate the operation of social norms, the foot-in-the-door (FITD) paradigm was investigated with four groups (N = 160): small-request only, large-request only, small-request/large-request, and small-request/large-request with an excuse provided. A three-factor interaction between compliance, category of account, and group indicated that (a) Ss were more likely to comply and give justifications in the small-request only group; (b) Ss were more likely not to comply and give excuses in the large-request only group; (c) Ss in the FITD group indicated a bimodal pattern of accounting and compliance; and (d) compliance in the FITD group was reduced when an excuse for noncompliance was provided. It was concluded that norms of social conduct may govern how people respond to different sized requests from strangers and that the small-request/large-request sequence (FITD) may be normatively ambiguous.