Question

Which of the following correctly compares the foot-in-the-door effect and the low-ball technique?

A) Both techniques involve making a small request followed by a larger one.
B) The foot-in-the-door effect relies on commitment, while the low-ball technique relies on reciprocity.
C) The low-ball technique involves a smaller initial request than the foot-in-the-door effect.
D) The foot-in-the-door effect uses a bait-and-switch strategy, while the low-ball technique uses consistency.

Answer 1

The foot-in-the-door technique involves starting with a small request and then making a larger one based on the principle of consistency, while the low-ball technique involves presenting a more suitable initial offer and then changing it, relying on the person's commitment to the original offer.

Step-by-step explanation:

The comparison of the foot-in-the-door effect and the low-ball technique reveals that both involve strategies of persuasion but operate on different principles. The foot-in-the-door technique starts with a small request followed by a larger one, leveraging the principle of consistency; once a person agrees to the initial request, they are more inclined to comply with a larger, related request to maintain a consistent image of themselves. This was famously demonstrated in a study by Freedman and Fraser in 1966. On the other hand, the low-ball technique starts with an agreeable offer, which is then changed to be less advantageous to the individual, betting on the person's commitment to the initial offer to accept the changed (often less favorable) terms. Thus, the foot-in-the-door effect primarily relies on consistency while the low-ball technique utilizes commitment.

For example, a salesperson might use the foot-in-the-door technique by first persuading a customer to add a small accessory to their smartphone purchase and then suggesting a more costly extended warranty plan. The customer's initial agreement creates a 'doorway' for further compliance.