We put forward a construal-level account to explain why the door-in-the-face (DITF) technique can sometimes backfire in the prosocial domain. We argue that after rejecting an initial prosocial request, more abstract construals promote a more coherent selfish version of the self in people’s minds, which then fosters less compliance with subsequent requests. Across three experiments, results indicated that relative to an outright request, the DITF technique was less likely to get participants to comply with various prosocial requests (e.g., writing to sick children) when participants adopted more abstract construals. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M.ZemlaJ. C. (2010). Missing the trees for the forest: A construal theory account of the illusion of explanatory depth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 436–451.
2.
BaumeisterR. F.VohsK. D.FunderD. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396–403.
3.
BemD. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). New York, NY: Academic Press.
4.
BereczkeiT.BirkasB.KerekesZ. (2007). Public charity offer as a proximate factor of evolved reputation-building strategy: An experimental analysis of a real-life situation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 277–284.
5.
BurgerJ. M. (1986). Increasing compliance by improving the deal: The that’s-not-all technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 277–283.
6.
BurgoonE. M.HendersonM. D.MarkmanA. B. (2013). There are many ways to see the forest for the trees: A tour guide for abstraction. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 487–497.
7.
CialdiniR. B. (1994). Interpersonal influence. In ShavittS.BrockT. C. (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (pp. 195–217). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
8.
CialdiniR. B.AscaniK. (1976). Test of a concession procedure for inducing verbal, behavioral, and further compliance with a request to give blood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 295–300.
9.
CialdiniR. B.SagarinB. J. (2005). Principles of Interpersonal Influence. In BrockT. C.GreenM. C. (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 143–169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
CialdiniR. B.TrostM. R.NewsomJ. T. (1995). Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 69, 318–328.
11.
CialdiniR. B.VincentJ. E.LewisS. K.CatalanJ.WheelerD.DarbyB. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206–215.
12.
ConwayP.PeetzJ. (2012). When does feeling moral actually make you a better person? Conceptual abstraction moderates whether past moral deeds motivate consistency or compensatory behavior. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 907–919.
13.
DillardJ. P.HunterJ. E.BurgoonM. (1984). Sequential-request strategies: Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human Communication Research, 10, 461–488.
14.
EyalT.SagristanoM. D.TropeY.LibermanN.ChaikenS. (2009). When values matter: Expressing values in behavioral intentions for the near vs. distant future. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 35–43.
15.
FeeleyT.AnkerA. E.AloeA. M. (2012). The Door-in-the-Face persuasive message strategy: A meta-analysis of the first 35 years. Communication Monographs, 79, 316–343.
16.
FernE. F.MonroeK. B.AvilaR. A. (1986). Effectiveness of multiple request strategies: A synthesis of research results. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 144–152.
17.
FörsterJ. (2012). GLOMO[sup]sys[/sup]: The how and why of global and local processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 15–19.
18.
FossR. D.DempseyC. B. (1979). Blood donation and the foot-in-the-door technique: A limiting case. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 580–590.
19.
FreedmanJ. L.FraserS. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195–202.
20.
GawronskiB.StrackF. (2012). Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21.
GerbasiM. E.PrenticeD. A. (2013). The self- and other-interest inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 495–514.
22.
GiacomantonioM.De DreuC. W.ShalviS.SligteD.LederS. (2010). Psychological distance boosts value-behavior correspondence in ultimatum bargaining and integrative negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 824–829.
23.
GoodmanR. L.WebbT. L.StewartA. J. (2009). Communicating stereotype-relevant information: Is factual information subject to the same communication biases as fictional information?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 836–852.
24.
HallJ. A. (2010). Nonverbal behavior in social psychology research: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In AgnewC. R.CarlstonD. E.GrazianoW. G.KellyJ. R. (Eds.), Then a miracle occurs: Focusing on behavior in social psychological theory and research (pp. 412–437). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
25.
HansenJ.WänkeM. (2010). Truth from language and truth from fit: The impact of linguistic concreteness and level of construal on subjective truth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1576–1588.
26.
HayesT. J.DwyerF. R.GreenwaltT. J.CoeN. A. (1984). A comparison of two behavioral influence techniques for improving blood donor recruitment. Transfusion, 24, 399–403.
27.
HendersonM. D. (2013). When seeing the forest reduces the need for trees: The role of construal level in attraction to choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 676–683.
28.
KatzevR.BrownsteinR. (1989). The influence of enlightenment on compliance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 335–347.
29.
KingL. A. (2013, January). Minding the gaps or attending to the gaping maw: What is really missing from personality and social psychology. Presented at a symposium entitled, “Looking Forward: Insights and Advice for the Upcoming Generation of Psychologists.”Kathryn Bollich & Jill Brown, Co-Chairs. Society for Personality and Social Psychology Convention. New Orleans, LA.
30.
McConnellA. R.RydellR. J.LeiboldJ. M. (2002). Expectations of consistency about the self: Consequences for self-concept formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 569–585.
31.
MenegattiM.RubiniM. (2013). Convincing similar and dissimilar others: The power of language abstraction in political communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 596–607.
32.
MartensB. K.KellyS. Q.DiskinM. T. (1996). The effects of two sequential-request strategies on teachers’ acceptability and use of a classroom intervention. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 7, 211–221.
33.
MillarM. G. (2001). Promoting health behaviours with door-in-the-face: The influence of the beneficiary of the request. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 6, 115–119.
34.
MillarM. G. (2002). The effectiveness of the Door-in-the-Face compliance strategy on friends and strangers. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 295–304.
35.
MogilnerC.ChanceZ.NortonM. I. (2012). Giving time gives you time. Psychological Science, 23, 1233–1238.
36.
O’KeefeD. J.HaleS. L. (1998). The door-in-the-face influence strategy: A random-effects meta-analytic review. Communication Yearbook, 21, 1–33.
37.
PillemerK.Fuller-RowellT. E.ReidM. C.WellsN. M. (2010). Environmental volunteering and health outcomes over a 20-year period. The Gerontologist, 50, 594–602.
38.
SchwarzwaldJ.RazM.ZvibelM. (1979). The applicability of the door-in-the-face technique when established behavioral customs exist. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 576–586.
SeminG.FiedlerK. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558.
41.
SmithP. K.TropeY. (2006). You focus on the forest when you're in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 578–596.
42.
SpiewakS. (2002). Cognitive depletion and the effectiveness of the door-in-the-face and the fear-then-relief compliance techniques. Studia Psychologiczne, 40, 23–47.
43.
ter DoestL.SeminG. R.ShermanS. J. (2002). Linguistic context and social perception: Does stimulus abstraction moderate processing style?Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 195–229.
44.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463.
45.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2012). Construal level theory. In Van LangeP. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 118–134).
46.
TyboutA. M.SternthalB.CalderB. J. (1983). Information availability as a determinant of multiple request effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 280–290.
47.
VallacherR. R.WegnerD. M. (1987). What do people think they're doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3–15.
48.
Van LangeP. M.De BruinE. N.OttenW.JoiremanJ. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 733–746.
49.
WakslakC. J. (2012). The experience of cognitive dissonance in important and trivial domains: A construal-level theory approach. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1361–1364. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.011
50.
WakslakC. J.NussbaumS.LibermanN.TropeY. (2008). Representations of the self in the near and distant future. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 757–773.
