Advertisement

Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 245–249 | Cite as

An application of the foot in the door technique to organ donation

  • Bernardo J. Carducci
  • Pamela S. Denser
  • Andrew Bauer
  • Michael Large
  • Marie Ramaekers
Research Notes

Abstract

The extent to which the size of an initial request related to organ donation could be reduced when using the foot-in-the-door technique was investigated. After being asked to comply with an initial request to complete a questionnaire related to organ donation having either 5, 10, 15, or 20 items or not being asked to complete the questionnaire, subjects indicated their willingness to become an organ donor. In addition to replicating earlier research, the results indicated that the original 20-item questionnaire could be reduced to five items without losing its effectiveness to increase willingness to become an organ donor when compared to the no-request condition. The implications of the foot-in-the-door technique for medical volunteering in general and suggestions for future research are also discussed.

Keywords

Social Psychology Social Issue Early Research Organ Donation Initial Request 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beaman, A. L., Cole, C. M., Preston, M., Klentz, B., & Steblay, N. M. (1983). Fifteen years of foot-in-the-door research: A meta-analysis.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 181–196.Google Scholar
  2. Cialdini, R. B. (1988).Influence: Science and Practice (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.Google Scholar
  3. Carducci, B. J., & Deuser, P. S. (1984). The foot-in-the-donor technique: Initial request and organ donation.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5, 75–81.Google Scholar
  4. Deaton, J. B. (1974).New parts for old: The age of organ transplants. Palisade, NJ: Franklin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  5. Deuser, P. S., & Carducci, B. J. (1982).The Anatomical Donation Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University Southeast, New Albany, IN.Google Scholar
  6. Fern, E. F., Monroe, K. B., Avila, R. A. (1986). Effectiveness of multiple request strategies: A synthesis of research results.Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 144–152.Google Scholar
  7. Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195–202.Google Scholar
  8. Harris, M. B. (1972). The effects of performing one altruistic act on the likelihood of performing another.Journal of Social Psychology, 88, 65–73.Google Scholar
  9. Monaco, A. P. (1985). Clinical kidney transplantation in 1984.Transplantation Proceedings, 17, 5–12.Google Scholar
  10. Perkins, K. A. (1987). The shortage of cadaver donor organs for transplantation: Can psychology help?American Psychologist, 42, 921–930.Google Scholar
  11. Simmons, R. G., Fulton, J., & Fulton, R. (1972). The prospective organ transplant donor: Problems and prospects of medical innovation.Omega, 4, 319–329.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernardo J. Carducci
    • 1
  • Pamela S. Denser
    • 1
  • Andrew Bauer
    • 1
  • Michael Large
    • 2
  • Marie Ramaekers
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyIndiana University SoutheastNew Albany
  2. 2.California State UniversityFullerton

Personalised recommendations