Abstract
A bystander’s reaction to a theft following a foot-in-the door (FITD) technique was observed in a field setting. An experiment was conducted in the pavement area of a bar where a first male confederate was seated alone with his suitcase on the ground. In the FITD condition, the confederate asked a participant for the time, thanked him/her, and left to go into the bar. In the control condition, no initial verbal contact was displayed, and the confederate just left to go into the bar. About 20 seconds after the first confederate had left to go into the bar, a second male confederate arrived, looked carefully around him, took the first confederate’s suitcase, and then left the place. More participants intervened in the FITD condition to stop the theft (84 per cent) than in the control condition (47 per cent). Social responsibility activation was used to explain these results, which has significant implications for encouraging public involvement in crime prevention.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beaman, A.L., Cole, M.C., Preston, M., Klentz, B. and Mehrkens-Steblay, N. (1983) Fifteen years of foot-in-the-door research: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 9 (2): 181–196.
Burger, J.M. (1999) The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure: A multiple-process analysis and review. Personality and Social Psychology Review 3 (4): 303–325.
Carducci, B.J., Deuser, P.S., Bauer, A., Large, M. and Ramaekers, M. (1989) An application of the foot-in-the-door to organ donation. Journal of Business & Psychology 4 (2): 245–249.
Cialdini, R. (2008) Influence: Science and Practice. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Dillard, J.P., Hunter, J.E. and Burgoon, M. (1984) Sequential-request persuasive strategies: Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human Communication Research 10 (4): 461–488.
Dolin, D.J. and Booth-Butterfield, S. (1995) Foot-in-the-door and cancer prevention. Health Communication 7 (1): 55–66.
Felson, M. (1995) Those who discourage crime. In: J.E. Eck and D. Weisburd (eds.) In Crime and Place. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 53–66.
Fern, E., Monroe, K. and Avila, R. (1986) Effectiveness of multiple request strategies: A synthesis of research results. Journal of Marketing Research 23 (2): 144–152.
Freedman, J.L. and Fraser, S.C. (1966) Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4 (2): 195–202.
Goldman, M., Creason, C.R. and McCall, C.G. (1981) Compliance employing a two-feet-in-the-door procedure. The Journal of Social Psychology 114 (2): 259–265.
Guéguen, N. and Fischer-Lokou, J. (1999) Sequential request strategy: Effect on donor generosity. The Journal of Social Psychology 139 (5): 669–671.
Guéguen, N. and Jacob, C. (2001) Fund-raising on the Web: The effect of an electronic foot-in-the-door on donation. CyberPsychology and Behavior 4 (6): 705–709.
Guéguen, N., Marchand, M., Lourel, M. and Pascual, A. (2008) The effect of the foot-in-the-door technique on a courtship request: A field experiment. Psychological Reports 103 (2): 529–534.
Guéguen, N., Meineri, S., Martin, A. and Grandjean, I. (2010) The combined effect of the foot-in-the-door technique and the ‘but you are free’ technique: An evaluation on the selective sorting of household wastes. EcoPsychology 2 (4): 231–237.
Guéguen, N. and Triffaut, J. (2003) L’effet de persistance et de transfert d’une requête engageante: Une illustration en milieu naturel. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale 16 (2): 5–28.
Harris, M.B. (1972) The effects of performing one altruistic act on the likelihood of performing another. The Journal of Social Psychology 88 (1): 65–73.
Harris, M. and Samerotte, G. (1976) The effects of actual and attempted theft, need, and a previous favor on altruism. The Journal of Social Psychology 99 (2): 193–202.
Hornik, J., Zaig, T. and Shadmon, D. (1991) Reducing refusals in telephone surveys on sensitive topics. Journal of Advertising Research 31 (3): 49–56.
Joule, R.-V. (1987) Le pied-dans-la-porte: Un paradigme à la recherche d’une théorie. Psychologie Française 32 (4): 301–306.
Katzev, R.D. and Johnson, T.R. (1983) A social-psychological analysis of residential electricity consumption: The impact of minimal justification techniques. Journal of Economic Psychology 3 (3–4): 267–284.
Kiesler, C.A. (1971) The Psychology of Commitment: Experiments Linking Behavior to Belief. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Moriarty, T. (1975) Crime, commitment and the responsive bystander: Two field experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31 (2): 370–376.
Pascual, A. and Guéguen, N. (2004) Cultural differences in altruistic behavior: Quasi replication of Uranowitz’s foot-in-the-door with implicit demand. Psychological Reports 94: 767–770.
Pascual, A. and Guéguen, N. (2005) Foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face: A comparative meta-analytic study. Psychological Reports 96 (3): 122–128.
Schwarz, L., Jennings, K., Petrillo, J. and Kidd, R. (1980) Role of commitments in the decision to stop a theft. The Journal of Social Psychology 110 (2): 183–192.
Shaffer, D., Rogel, M. and Hendrick, C. (1975) Intervention in the library: The effect of increased responsibility on bystanders’ willingness to prevent a theft. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 5 (4): 303–319.
Stewart, J. and Cannon, D. (1977) Effects of perpetrator status and bystander commitment on responses to a simulated crime. Journal of Police Science and Administration 5 (3): 318–323.
Uranowitz, S. (1975) Helping and self-attributions: A field experiment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31 (5): 852–854.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Guéguen, N., Martin, A., Silone, F. et al. The foot-in-the-door technique, crime, and the responsive bystander: A field experiment. Crime Prev Community Saf 18, 60–68 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/cpcs.2015.20
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/cpcs.2015.20