Two experiments were conducted to test the generality of the door-in-the-face compliance technique from nonbusiness to business contexts. Results indicate that the compliance-gaining procedure generalizes if a concession is emphasized by making the second request a smaller version of the first request rather than a new request, and if the second request is made large enough to avoid ceiling effects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BassF. M., PessemierE. A., and LehmannD. R. (1972), “An Experimental Study of Relationships Between Attitudes, Brand Preference, and Choice,” Behavioral Science, 17, 532–41.
2.
CannA., ShermanS. J., and ElkesR. (1975), “Effects of Initial Request Size and Timing of a Second Request: The Foot in the Door and the Door in the Face,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 774–82.
3.
CialdiniR. B. and AscaniA. (1976), “Test of a Concession Procedure for Inducing Verbal, Behavioral, and Further Compliance with a Request to Give Blood,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 295–300.
4.
CialdiniR. B. and SchroederD. A. (1976), “Increasing Compliance by Legitimizing Paltry Contributions: When Even a Penny Helps,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 599–604.
5.
CialdiniR. B., VincentJ. E., LewisS. Y., CatalanJ., WheelerD., and DarbyB. L. (1975), “A Reciprocal Concessions Procedure for Inducing Compliance,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206–15.
6.
FreedmanJ. L. and FraserS. (1966), “Compliance Without Pressure: The Foot-in-the-Door Technique,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195–202.
7.
GinterJ. L. (1974), “An Experimental Investigation of Attitude Change and Choice of a New Brand,” Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 30–40.
8.
LangerE. J. and AbelsonR. P. (1972), “The Semantics of Asking a Favor: How to Succeed in Getting Help Without Really Dying,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 26–32.
9.
MowenJ. C. and CialdiniR. (1978), “Recent Research on the Door-in-the-Face Compliance Technique,” paper presented before American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
10.
ReingenP. H. (1978), “On Inducing Compliance with Request,” Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 96–102.
11.
ReingenP. H. and KernanJ. B. (1977), “Compliance with an Interview Request: A Foot-in-the-Door, Self-Perception Interpretation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (August), 365–9.
12.
ReingenP. H. and KernanJ. B. (1979), “More Evidence on Interpersonal Yielding,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (November), 588–93.
13.
ScottC. A. (1976), “The Effects of Trial and Incentives on Repeat Purchase Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (August), 263–9.
14.
ShethJ. N. and TalarzykW. W. (1972), “Perceived Instrumentality and Value Importance as Determinants of Attitudes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (February), 6–9.
15.
TyboutA. (1978), “Relative Effectiveness of Three Behavioral Strategies as Supplements to Persuasion in a Marketing Context,” Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (May), 229–42.
