When Saying Yes Leads to Saying No: Preference for Consistency and the Reverse Foot-in-the-Door Effect

By Rosanna E. Guadagno, Terrilee Asher, L. Demaine, Robert B. Cialdini. 2001

88 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Simple and Painless? The Limitations of Spillover in Environmental Campaigning (2009, background): “For example, there is at least one study reporting that the foot-in-the-door effect is contingent on the individual having a high preference for consistency (Guadagno et al. 2001).”
Spillover effects in environmental behaviors, across time and context: a review and research agenda (2017, background): “Nevertheless, this effect was not found within the hybrid car owners group (de Haan, Mueller, and Peters 2006).”
Social influence: compliance and conformity. (2004, methodology): “Together, these findings both bolster the notion of self-perception as a mediator of the FITD effect and suggest its potential limitations (Guadagno et al. 2001).”
Preference for consistency and social influence: A review of current research findings (2010, background): “In their second study, Guadagno et al. (2001) sought to replicate and expand upon Study 1 by also examining the impact of making prior helpfulness salient on low-preference-for-consistency individuals.”
Heterogeneity in the Effects of Online Persuasion (2012, background): “A personality construct that measures these motivations—the preference for consistency scale—predicts responses to the commitment strategy, such that for participants low on this scale these strategies are ineffective (Cialdini et al., 1995; Guadagno et al., 2001).”