{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/77284"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/77284","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Testing Two Cognitive Explanations for Sequential Request Efficacy (foot-in-the-Door, Door-in-the-Face, Adaptation Level, Manipulation)","abstract":"Although previous studies of the foot-in-the-door and the door-in-the-face techniques of interpersonal influence have established the effectiveness of these sequential request strategies, communication researchers have not discovered an adequate conceptual framework for explaining their compliance enhancing properties. Existing theories have either been (1) falsified in various studies, (2) not applied to both techniques, or (3) not sufficiently tested in the paradigm. The present study examines the empirical support for the perceptual contrast and "mindlessness" explanations for sequential request efficacy. Even though substantially higher compliance with various types of requests was obtained through the use of the foot-in-the-door and the door-in-the-face techniques, measures of underlying cognitions failed to support either explanation of their effectiveness. Possible shortcomings of the present research are discussed and a number of suggestions for future replications and research are suggested.","abstract_html":"Although previous studies of the foot-in-the-door and the door-in-the-face techniques of interpersonal influence have established the effectiveness of these sequential request strategies, communication researchers have not discovered an adequate conceptual framework for explaining their compliance enhancing properties. Existing theories have either been (1) falsified in various studies, (2) not applied to both techniques, or (3) not sufficiently tested in the paradigm. The present study examines the empirical support for the perceptual contrast and "mindlessness" explanations for sequential request efficacy. Even though substantially higher compliance with various types of requests was obtained through the use of the foot-in-the-door and the door-in-the-face techniques, measures of underlying cognitions failed to support either explanation of their effectiveness. Possible shortcomings of the present research are discussed and a number of suggestions for future replications and research are suggested.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Cantrill, James Gerard"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Speech Communication","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2015,"date_issued":"2015-05-13T15:38:19Z","date_published":"2015-05-13T15:38:19Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:10Z","subjects":["Speech Communication"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["(UMI)AAI8600139"],"render_values":[{"text":"(UMI)AAI8600139","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/77284","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Cantrill, James Gerard"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2015-05-13T15:38:19Z","10000-01-01","1985"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Speech Communication"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Speech Communication"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/77284","(UMI)AAI8600139"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["Although previous studies of the foot-in-the-door and the door-in-the-face techniques of interpersonal influence have established the effectiveness of these sequential request strategies, communication researchers have not discovered an adequate conceptual framework for explaining their compliance enhancing properties. Existing theories have either been (1) falsified in various studies, (2) not applied to both techniques, or (3) not sufficiently tested in the paradigm. The present study examines the empirical support for the perceptual contrast and "mindlessness" explanations for sequential request efficacy. Even though substantially higher compliance with various types of requests was obtained through the use of the foot-in-the-door and the door-in-the-face techniques, measures of underlying cognitions failed to support either explanation of their effectiveness. Possible shortcomings of the present research are discussed and a number of suggestions for future replications and research are suggested.","Made available in DSpace on 2015-05-13T15:38:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4848 bytes, checksum: 96035ab3f5e1c23cc7138a224ce498bd (MD5) 8600139.PDF: 10577696 bytes, checksum: acbc6abf306993c7ffc6d289cdbe702d (MD5) Previous issue date: 1985","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 78495 Lift date: Forever Reason: Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","U of I Only","326 p.","Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1985."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Testing Two Cognitive Explanations for Sequential Request Efficacy (foot-in-the-Door, Door-in-the-Face, Adaptation Level, Manipulation)"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:creator":["Cantrill, James Gerard"],"dc:date":["2015-05-13T15:38:19Z","10000-01-01","1985"],"dc:description":["Although previous studies of the foot-in-the-door and the door-in-the-face techniques of interpersonal influence have established the effectiveness of these sequential request strategies, communication researchers have not discovered an adequate conceptual framework for explaining their compliance enhancing properties. Existing theories have either been (1) falsified in various studies, (2) not applied to both techniques, or (3) not sufficiently tested in the paradigm. The present study examines the empirical support for the perceptual contrast and "mindlessness" explanations for sequential request efficacy. Even though substantially higher compliance with various types of requests was obtained through the use of the foot-in-the-door and the door-in-the-face techniques, measures of underlying cognitions failed to support either explanation of their effectiveness. Possible shortcomings of the present research are discussed and a number of suggestions for future replications and research are suggested.","Made available in DSpace on 2015-05-13T15:38:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4848 bytes, checksum: 96035ab3f5e1c23cc7138a224ce498bd (MD5) 8600139.PDF: 10577696 bytes, checksum: acbc6abf306993c7ffc6d289cdbe702d (MD5) Previous issue date: 1985","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 78495 Lift date: Forever Reason: Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","U of I Only","326 p.","Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1985."],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/77284","(UMI)AAI8600139"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:subject":["Speech Communication"],"dc:title":["Testing Two Cognitive Explanations for Sequential Request Efficacy (foot-in-the-Door, Door-in-the-Face, Adaptation Level, Manipulation)"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Speech Communication"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:10Z"}