Research participants were 76 dormitory residents selected at random from
a small rural university.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Six-hundred subjects were selected at random from Columbus, Ohio,
telephone directory.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
330 female public aid recipients from a large metropolitan area were the
participants in Experiment 1 as well as Experiment 2.
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.
For information or feedback:
sbb@badgerden.comBaron, 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
Foss & Dempsey Study 2, 1979
Foss & Dempsey Study 3, 1979
Freedman & Fraser Study 1, 1966
Freedman & Fraser Study 2, 1966
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
Hansen & Robinson, 1980
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
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
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.Rittle, 1981
Seligman, Bush, & Kirsch, 1976
Scott, 1976
Tybout, 1978
Zuckerman, Lazzaro, & Waldgeir, 1979