The present study explored the role of guilt in the door-in-the-face procedure. Drawing on the guilt-based explanation of door-in-the-face effect, it was hypothesized that the greatest amount of compliance would occur when the rejection of the initial request produced high levels of guilt and the acceptance of the small request allowed participants to anticipate a large reduction in guilt. This hypothesis was tested by presenting participants with an initial large request. Statements accompanying the request were designed to produce either high levels of guilt or low levels of guilt when the request was rejected. After the initial request, participants were presented with a second smaller request that was accompanied by statements that would make compliance with the request either more effective or less effective at guilt reduction. Compliance with the second request was recorded, and the results supported the hypothesis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abrahams, M., & Bell, R. (1994). Encouraging charitable contributions: An examination of three models of door-in-the-face compliance. Communication Research, 21, 131-153.
2.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
3.
Baumeister, R., Stillwell, A., & Heatherton, T. (1995). Personal narratives about guilt: Role in action control and interpersonal relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 173-198.
4.
Bell, R., Abrahams, M., Clark, C., & Schlatter, C. (1996). The door-in-the-face compliance strategy: An individual differences analysis of two models in an AIDS fund raising context. Communication Quarterly, 44, 107-124.
5.
Bentler, P. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.
6.
Boster, F., Mitchell, M., Lapinski, M., Cooper, H., Orrego, V., & Rienke, R. (1999). The impact of guilt and type of compliance-gaining message on compliance. Communication Monographs, 66, 168-177.
7.
Cantrill, J., & Seibold, D. (1986). The perceptual contrast explanation of sequential request strategy effectiveness. Human Communication Research, 13, 253-267.
8.
Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Cermak, I., & Rosza, S. (2001). Facing guilt: Role of negative affectivity, need for reparation, and fear of punishment in leading to prosocial behaviour and aggression. European Journal of Personality, 15, 219-237.
9.
Cialdini, R., & Ascani, K. (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.
10.
Cialdini, R., Vincent, J., Lewis, S., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & Darby, B. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206-215.
11.
Coulter, R., & Pinto, M. (1995). Guilt appeals in advertising: What are their effects?Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 697-705.
12.
Dillard, J. P. (1991). The current status of research on sequential-request compliance techniques. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 17, 283-288.
13.
Dillard, J. P., Hunter, J., & Burgoon, M. (1984). Sequential-request persuasive strategies: Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human Communications Research, 10, 461-488.
14.
Fern, E., Monroe, K., & Avila, R. (1986). Effectiveness of multiple request strategies: A synthesis of research results. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 144-152.
15.
Goldman, M., McVeigh, J., & Richterkessing, J. (1984). Door-in-the-face procedure: Reciprocal concession, perceptual contrast, or worthy person. Journal of Social Psychology, 123, 245-251.
16.
Martens, R., Kelly, S., & Diskin, M. (1996). The effects of two sequential request strategies on teachers' acceptability and use in a classroom intervention. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 7, 211-221.
17.
Millar, M. G. (2001). Promoting health behaviors with door-in-the-face: The influence of the beneficiary of the request. Psychology, Health, & Medicine, 6, 115-121.
18.
Miller, R., Seligman, C., Clark, N., & Bush, M. (1976). Perceptual contrast versus reciprocal concession as mediators of induced compliance. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 8, 401-409.
19.
O'Keefe, D., & Figge, M. (1997). A guilt-based explanation of the door-in-the-face influence strategy. Human Communication Research, 24, 64-80.
20.
O'Keefe, D., & Figge, M. (1999). Guilt and expected guilt in the door-in-the-face technique. Communication Monographs, 66, 312-324.
21.
O'Keefe, D., & Hale, S. (2001). An odds-ratio-based meta-analysis of research on the door-in-the-face influence strategy, Communication Reports, 14, 31-38.
22.
Patch, M., Hoang, V., & Stahelski, A. (1997). The use of meta-communication in compliance: Door-in-the-face and single request strategies. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 88-97.
23.
Pendleton, M., & Batson, D. (1979). Self-presentation and the door-in-the-face technique for inducing compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 77-81.
24.
Reeves, R., Baker, G., Boyd, J., & Cialdini, R. (1991). The door-in-the-face technique: Reciprocal concessions vs. self-presentational explanations. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 545-558.
25.
Regan, D., Williams, M., & Sparling, S. (1972). Voluntary expiation of guilt: A field experiment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 41-45.
26.
Schwarzwald, J., Raz, M., & Zvibel, M. (1979). The applicability of the door-in-the-face technique when established behavioral customs exist. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 576-586.
27.
Shanab, M., & Isonio, S. (1980). The effects of delay upon compliance with socially undesirable request in the door-in-the-face paradigm. Bulletin of the Psychonomics Society, 15, 76-78.
28.
Tusing, K., & Dillard, J. (2000). The psychological reality of the door-in-the-face: It's helping, not bargaining. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 5-25.
