FITD Dimensions: Participants


Cann, Sherman, & Elkes, 1975

Study 1


88 subjects were selected randomly from an Indiana telephone directory. Three were not included in the final analysis, due to the fact that they were not contacted for the subsequent request.


Cann, Sherman, & Elkes, 1975

Study 2


60 residents of the same Indiana city as in Study 1 were randomly selected from the telephone directory. Two of them were not included because they hung the telephone up before the initial request was aked.


Baron, 1973


Beaman, Svanum, Manlove, & Miller, 1978


Cialdini, Cacioppo, Bassett, & Miller, 1978


Dejong, 1981

The participants consisted of 190 residents of Belmont and Watertown, Massachusetts, randomly drawn from a telephone directory. A total of 166 subjects were reached again for the second phone call. There were 119 females and 47 males, all of the age of 18.


Dejong & Funder, 1977

A random sample of 130 adult residents of Palo Alto, California was drawn from a local telephone directory. A total of 21 residents were not home the day of the second call, leaving a total of 109 participants.


Fish & Kaplan, 1974

151 introductory psychology students participated in the experiment as part of an educational and action series on problems in poverty in the Detroit community.


Foss & Dempsey Study 1, 1979

Research participants were 76 dormitory residents selected at random from a small rural university.


Foss & Dempsey Study 2, 1979

One-hundred-thirty-five dormitory residents at a large urban university participated in this study. Participants were randomly selected from a list ing of dormitory residents and assigned to one of three experimental condition or to a control group.


Foss & Dempsey Study 3, 1979

One-hundred-twenty-seven people were selected from a small urban college nine months after the first foot-in-the-door study was done. Participants were selected from the same university as the subjects in the first study.


Freedman & Fraser Study 1, 1966

Participants were 156 Palo Alto, California, houseviwes who were randomly selected from the telephone directory. They allowed survey team of five or six men to come into their homes for two hours to classify the household products they used. Additional 12 subjects which were equally distributed over the two conditions could not be reached for the second time and were, therefore, not included in the data analysis.


Freedman & Fraser Study 2, 1966

The subjects were 114 women and 13 men living in the Palo Alto, California. Nine women and six men could not be contacted for the second request and were, therefore, not included in the data analysis.


Furse, Stewart, & Rados, 1981

A random sample of 907 residential telephone subscribers in Nashville, Tennessee, area was generated from a listing of all such subscribers to be used as partcipants.


Goldman & Creason, 1981

The subjects were 192 Kansas City residents whose telephone numbers were randomly selected from the Kansas City telephone directory. The subjects were assigned to six conditions, with each condition containing 32 subjects.


Hansen & Robinson, 1980

Six-hundred subjects were selected at random from Columbus, Ohio, telephone directory.


Harris, 1972

Partcipants were selected from a mall or from a busy street.


Harris, Liguori & Stack, 1973

There were 120 participants in this experiment.


Harris & Samerotte, 1976

Experiment 1

Subjects were Ss which were 100 males who appeared to the Cs to be adult and of Anglo-American ethnic background, and who were sitting alone at various restaurants in two New Mexico cities, including a University cafeteria. Ss were randomly assigned to conditions, and approximately equal numbers of Ss in each condition were run in each location. The Cs who were four men in their twenties, dressed neatly but casually.

Experiment 2

Subjects were Ss which were 70 males who were seated alone at tables in a university library. Three males in their twenties alternated in the different confederate roles. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of five experimental conditions.


Reingen & Kernan, 1979

381 adult male and female residents of Greater Columbia, South Carolina were systematically chosen from the telephone directory. Subjects were assigned randomly to one of four conditions. There were 15 male and 8 female experimenters employed in the initial telephone contact and were randomly assigned to their conditions. Experimenters were told that they were participating in a study on "how willing people are to participate in a market research study." There was a post experimental debriefing regarding the experiment. Experimenters were not aware of the true experiment. They were instructed in trainning sessions: each recieved a booklet containing detailed instructions, recording sheets, and answers to potential questions by subjects to prevent or minimize bias arising from different replies by subjects.


Reingen & Kernan, 1977

Subjets were 109 females and 24 male residents of Westchester County, New York. The participants names were selected sytematically from the telephone directory from this selection they were asigned randomly to one of four conditions or a control group.


Pliner, et al., 1974

88 homeowners living in suburban Toronto were utilized as subjects. An individual was automatically considered to be a subject if he opened the door of his home to a canvasser for the Cancer Society. Subjects were approximately evenly divided into males and females, and their estimated ages ranged from 17 to 60.


Reingen, 1978

Subjects were 224 students (112 male and 112 female) at the University of South Carolina. Students that were walking or sitting along university walkways during 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays were selected, and no one knowing an experimenter was taken.

Replication

Subjects were 84 male adults (28 per condition) who were walking alone along downtown walkways of a two-block area of Columbia, South Carolina. One male college student served as experimenter.


Rittle, 1981

Participants were 11 male and 21 female undergraduates selected randomly from a general psychology subject pool. Three subjects were deleted because their postexperimental interview indicated some awareness of the manipulation. The final sample included 15 control and 14 experimental subjects.


Seligman, Bush, & Kirsch, 1976

The participants were 119 adults chosen at random from the telephone directory of a suburb of a large city. Subjects were randomly assigned to conditions. Of the 119 initially contacted, 7 could not be recontacted for the second request and were excluded from further consideration, leaving 112 participants.


Scott, 1976

The participants were 315 residents located in a suburb of Chicago, Illinois. The sample was selected from areas of the community zoned for single-family units, having comparable mean family income levels ($12,000 to $16,000).


Tybout, 1978

330 female public aid recipients from a large metropolitan area were the participants in Experiment 1 as well as Experiment 2.


Zuckerman, Lazzaro, & Waldgeir, 1979

140 housewives were randomly chosen from the telephone book. The number was later reduced to 127. The pay group consisted of 45 women; the no pay had 42; and the control had 40.


Return to SRS Abstracts Page


For information or feedback: sbb@badgerden.com