Testing the Effectiveness of Alternative Foot-in-the-Door Manipulations

Hansen, Robert A.; Robinson, Larry M.

doi:10.1177/002224378001700309

Cited by 36 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Subjects would be less likely, however, to anticipate that the amount they consumed was of interest. Further, the amount of consumption has practical relevance because marketers are likely to be concerned not only with whether or not people comply but also with the quality of their compliant behavior (e.g., Hansen and Robinson 1980).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information Availability as a Determinant of Multiple Request Effectiveness

Tybout

Sternthal

Calder

1983

Journal of Marketing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face are multiple request techniques frequently used to increase behavioral compliance. However, results from experimental research indicate that these techniques may enhance, undermine, or have no effect on compliance. In the authors' research, the notion of information availability is introduced to help specify when multiple request techniques are likely to be effective.Four experiments are reported that test and support the information availability predictions.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information Availability as a Determinant of Multiple Request Effectiveness

Tybout

Sternthal

Calder

1983

Journal of Marketing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several FITD experiments have been conducted in a survey setting (Reingen and Kernan 1977;Allen, Schewe, and Wijk 1980;Hansen and Robinson 1980;Furse, Stewart, and Rados 1981;Groves and Magilavy 1981;Kamins 1989;Poon, Albaum, and Evangelista 1999;Gu eguen 2002;Sperry, Siler, and Mull 2018, but we know of only one application that analyses multiple related requests and hence resembles our study. Acquisti, John, and Loewenstein (2012) varied the order of intrusiveness of sensitive questions to examine the effect on disclosure.…”

Section: Previous Research and Background Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Experiments on Multiple Requests for Consent to Data Linkage in Surveys

Walzenbach

Burton

Couper

et al. 2022

Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is increasingly common for researchers to link survey data to administrative data. If several administrative data sources are of interest, respondents are required to give consent to each of them, meaning that multiple consent questions have to be included in one survey. Existing literature suggests that individual consent varies widely between data sources and over time, but little is known about how respondents process multiple consent requests in a single survey. Using an online access panel in Great Britain, we conducted a set of experiments in two surveys to explore multiple consent requests (covering five domains or data sources). In the first study, we experimentally varied the format of the request, testing three versions: (1) a sequence of pages (with one response per domain), (2) all five requests on the same page (with one response per domain), and (3) a single request (with one joint request covering all five domains). We also varied the order of the domains. We find that average consent rates do not differ by format, but asking a less-sensitive or easier-to-comply request first yields slightly higher average consent rates than asking a more sensitive request first. We repeated the order experiment in a second study, using an independent sample from the same panel, and adding two more order conditions. We find average consent rates are not affected much by order, but the consent to individual domains is affected by order. However, we fail to replicate the pattern of consents found in the first study. We conclude that the order in which multiple consent requests are asked does matter, but in complicated ways that depend on the particular outcomes in which one is interested. Objective knowledge and subjective comprehension of the consent process, and confidence in the decision are largely unaffected by format or order.

show abstract

“… agents of a large Midwest-based insurance company (USA) insurance mail Postal one group given return cards Eaker 1998 [ 25 ] (Pre-contact or Control) x (length or control) x (mention of telephone contact or control) final follow-up factorial experiment Men and women living in Sweden in 1995 20–79 yrs. Old (Sweden) health risk factors 1 week mail Postal none stated Etter 1998 [ 26 ] (Pre-contact or control) x (layout or control) first and final follow-up factorial experiment annual insurance questionnaire; residents of Geneva, valid address (Switzerland) health insurance survey 2 weeks mail Postal none stated Ford 1967 A [ 27 ] Pre-contact or control first and final follow-up experimental design Residents of Chenoa (USA) shopping survey 1 week mail Postal none stated Ford 1967 B [ 27 ] Pre-contact or control first and final follow-up experimental design Residents of Beardstown (USA) shopping survey 1 week mail Postal none stated Hansen 1980 [ 28 ] ×2 Pre-contact, questionnaire length, or control final follow-up Randomised control trail. People who bought cars in past year in Ohio (USA) consumer’s attitudes towards recent new car purchases 3 days telephone Postal Asked if willing to enter study.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Woolf

Edwards

2021

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Questionnaires remain one of the most common forms of data collection in epidemiology, psychology and other human-sciences. However, results can be badly affected by non-response. One way to potentially reduce non-response is by sending potential study participants advance communication. The last systematic review to examine the effect of questionnaire pre-notification on response is 10 years old, and lacked a risk of bias assessment. Objectives Update the section of the Cochrane systematic review, Edwards et al. (2009), on pre-notification to include 1) recently published studies, 2) an assessment of risk of bias, 3) Explore if heterogeneity is reduced by: delay between pre-contact and questionnaire delivery, the method of pre-contact, if pre-contact and questionnaire delivery differ, if the pre-contact includes a foot-in-the-door manipulation, and study’s the risk of bias. Methods Inclusion criteria: population: any population, intervention: comparison of some type of pre-notification, comparison group: no pre-notification, outcome: response rates. Study design: randomised controlled trails. Exclusion criteria: NA. Data sources: Studies which cited or were included in Edwards et al. (2009); We additionally searched: CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EconLit, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Cochrane CMR, ERIC, and Sociological Abstracts. The searches were implemented in June 2018 and May 2021. Study screening: a single reviewer screened studies, with a random 10% sample independently screened to ascertain accuracy. Data extraction: data was extracted by a single reviewer twice, with a week between each extraction. Risk of Bias: within studies bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (ROB1) by a single unblinded reviewer, across studies bias was assessed using funnel plots. Synthesis Method: study results were meta-analysed with a random effects model using the final response rate as the outcome. Evaluation of Uncertainty: Uncertainty was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Results One hundred seven trials were included with 211,802 participants. Over-all pre-notification increased response, OR = 1.33 (95% CI: 1.20–1.47). However, there was a large amount of heterogeneity (I2 = 97.1%), which was not explained by the subgroup analyses. In addition, when studies at high or unclear risk of bias were excluded the effect was to reduced OR = 1.09 (95% CI: 0.99–1.20). Because of the large amount of heterogeneity, even after restricting to low risk of bias studies, there is still moderate uncertainty in these results. Conclusions Using the GRADE evaluation, this review finds moderate evidence that pre-notification may not have an effect on response rates. Funding Economic and Social Research Council. Preregistration None.

show abstract

Testing the Effectiveness of Alternative Foot-in-the-Door Manipulations

Cited by 36 publications

References 14 publications

Information Availability as a Determinant of Multiple Request Effectiveness

Information Availability as a Determinant of Multiple Request Effectiveness

Experiments on Multiple Requests for Consent to Data Linkage in Surveys

Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About