Submit A 3-5 Page Paper That Includes The Following

Submita 3- to 5-Page Paper That Includes The Followingusing Either Th

Submit a 3- to 5-page paper that includes the following: Using either the foot-in-the-door strategy or the door-in-the-face strategy, explain how you will get The Board to attend an information meeting about the group’s proposal. Explain in enough detail to demonstrate that you understand the strategy, and why you believe the strategy you chose will work to motivate The Board to come to the meeting. Assume your strategy worked and The Board is now at the meeting where your group is going to present their proposal. Your next goal is to get the board to feel dissonance. Explain why you want the Board to experience dissonance.

Next, based on your readings, discuss the specific activity that will believe will induce these feelings and why you chose this activity. Based on the techniques to relieve dissonance discussed in Chapter 11, describe an activity you will provide at the meeting to help The Board relieve their feelings of dissonance, and explain why your activity will be effective in helping them to relieve their dissonance. Why will relieving the Board’s dissonance be an important part of your meeting with them? Evaluate the ethics of using these compliance strategies and explain your reasoning based on specific ethical guidelines.

Paper For Above instruction

The purpose of this paper is to explore the application of social influence tactics, specifically the foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face strategies, in motivating a decision-making body such as a board to attend an informational meeting and engage with a proposal. It will also examine the psychological concept of cognitive dissonance, its induction during such meetings, and the ethical considerations surrounding the use of persuasive techniques in organizational contexts.

Introduction

Influence strategies are essential tools in organizational and social psychology, used to shape attitudes and behaviors. Among these, the foot-in-the-door (FITD) and door-in-the-face (DITF) techniques stand out for their effectiveness in gaining compliance and motivating action. This paper begins by explaining these strategies and how they can be applied to ensure board members attend an informational meeting. It then discusses how inducing cognitive dissonance—the psychological discomfort resulting from holding conflicting cognitions—can be strategically used to influence subsequent attitudes and decisions. Finally, the paper evaluates the ethical implications of deploying such influence tactics, emphasizing the importance of ethical guidelines in organizational persuasion.

Applying the Foot-in-the-Door and Door-in-the-Face Strategies

The foot-in-the-door strategy involves securing initial agreement to small, easy-to-accept requests to increase the likelihood of compliance with larger requests later. Conversely, the door-in-the-face strategy begins with a large, often unreasonable request, which is likely to be refused, followed by a smaller, more reasonable request that appears as a concession. In motivating the board to attend an informational meeting, the door-in-the-face technique is particularly suitable.

For example, I would first request that each board member commit to attending a lengthy, comprehensive workshop on unrelated topics—an unreasonable request they are likely to decline. After their refusal, I would then present the actual request: attending the shorter, more manageable informational meeting regarding the proposal. This "reciprocal concession" creates a sense of obligation and increased likelihood of compliance (Cialdini, 2009). Because the initial request is large and likely to be declined, the subsequent smaller request seems more reasonable, increasing the chance that the board members will agree to attend.

I believe this strategy will work because it exploits the principle of commitment and consistency, where individuals prefer to act consistently with previous commitments and concessions made by others (Cialdini, 2007). Additionally, the social norm of reciprocity encourages compliance after perceived concessions, making the board more inclined to attend the meeting to reciprocate the perceived concession from the requester.

Inducing Cognitive Dissonance

Once the board agrees to attend the meeting and is present at the proposal presentation, the next goal is to induce cognitive dissonance. Dissonance occurs when individuals encounter conflicting attitudes or behaviors, prompting psychological discomfort and a motivation to resolve the inconsistency (Festinger, 1957). Inducing dissonance in this context helps motivate the board to align their attitudes with the proposed benefits of the group's initiative, fostering a more favorable view and increasing the likelihood of support.

One effective activity to induce dissonance is to have the board members initially express doubts or reservations about the proposal, perhaps in small groups or written form. Later, during the presentation, highlighting the substantial merits of the proposal in comparison to their reservations creates a discrepancy between their initial skepticism and the positive evaluation. This mismatch produces dissonance, which they are motivated to resolve—usually by convincing themselves that the proposal is indeed beneficial and worth supporting (Aronson, 1992).

Activities to Relieve Dissonance

To help relieve dissonance, I would introduce a reflective activity where the board members articulate, in a guided manner, the reasons why they now support the proposal after hearing its benefits. This could involve writing a brief endorsement or engaging in a group discussion that emphasizes their personal values aligning with the initiative's positive outcomes. Such activities are grounded in the concept of self-perception theory, which suggests that people infer their attitudes from their behaviors and verbal expressions (Bem, 1972).

This activity is effective because it consolidates the positive attitudes they have developed and makes their support feel more genuine and self-affirmed. By publicly or privately affirming their support, the dissonance between their initial reservations and their current stance diminishes, leading to internal consistency and increased support for the proposal (Cooper & Fazio, 1984).

Why Relieving Dissonance Is Crucial

Relieving dissonance is crucial to ensure authentic commitment rather than superficial compliance. When individuals resolve dissonance internally, they are more likely to genuinely support and advocate for the proposal, leading to sustained action and alignment with organizational goals. Forced or superficial resolution of dissonance might result in compliance without true endorsement, which can be fragile and undermine the initiative's long-term success.

Ethical Considerations

The ethical implications of using compliance strategies such as foot-in-the-door, door-in-the-face, and inducing dissonance revolve around issues of manipulation and informed consent. According to ethical guidelines outlined by the American Psychological Association (APA, 2017), persuasion should respect autonomy, promote truthful communication, and avoid deception. While these strategies can be effective, their use must be transparent and aimed at mutual benefit rather than coercion.

Using these techniques ethically involves transparency regarding the purpose of the activities and ensuring that the board members are not coerced into decisions that conflict with their values or best interests. Inducing dissonance can be ethically acceptable if it encourages honest reflection and decision-making, not if it manipulates individuals into supporting something they fundamentally oppose. Therefore, the tactics should be employed to foster genuine support and understanding rather than deception or exploitation.

Conclusion

Influence strategies like the door-in-the-face technique and methods to induce and relieve cognitive dissonance are powerful tools in organizational persuasion. When used ethically, they can facilitate constructive engagement and support among decision-makers. It is imperative, however, to consider the ethical guidelines that prioritize respect, honesty, and transparency, ensuring that such techniques promote genuine consent and support rather than manipulation. Overall, a balanced approach that respects ethical boundaries will yield sustainable and authentic organizational commitment.

References

• Aronson, E. (1992). The social animal (5th ed.). W. H. Freeman.
• Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1-62.
• Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Harper Business.
• Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Pearson.
• Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. H. (1984). Effects of public commitment to a policy opinion on subsequent attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20(4), 303-310.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• American Psychological Association (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. APA.
• Knobe, J., & Fraser, B. (2010). The philosophy of experimental philosophy. Philosophical Studies, 150(1), 1-8.
• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.