The door-in-the-face technique increases the likelihood of individuals accepting a target request by confronting them, beforehand, with an extreme request. The present research tests a new door-in-the-face technique in which the two requests are formulated by two different requesters during the same interaction. 160 participants were asked to help a charity organization following a door-in-the-face procedure. According to the experimental conditions, requests were formulated by one or two requesters during the same or a different interaction. As predicted, the door-in-the-face effect was observed even if two requests are formulated by two requesters, but only if both are present during the interaction. Results are discussed in terms of a reciprocal concessions interpretation and a motivational interpretation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsM.BellR. (1994) Encouraging charitable contributions: an examination of three models of door-in-the-face compliance. Communication Research, 21, 131–153.
2.
BellR. A.AbrahamsM. F.ClarkC. L.SchlatterC. (1996) The door-in-the-face compliance strategy: an individual differences analysis of two models in an AIDS fundraising context. Communication Quarterly, 44(1), 107–124.
3.
BentonA. A.KelleyH. H.LieblingB. (1972) Effects of extremity of offers and concession rate on the outcomes of bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(1), 73–83.
4.
CialdiniR. B. (2008) Influence: science and practice. (5th ed.) New-York: Quill, Prentice Hall.
5.
CialdiniR. B.GoldsteinN. J. (2004) Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.
6.
CialdiniR. B.VincentJ. E.LewisS. K.CatalanJ.WheelerD.DarbyB. L. (1975) A reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: the door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206–215.
7.
DillardJ.HaleJ. (1992) Prosocialness and sequential request compliance techniques: limits to the foot-in-the-door and the door-in-the-face. Communication Studies, 43, 220–232.
8.
DillardJ. P.HunterJ. E.BurgoonM. (1984) Sequential-request persuasive strategies: meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human Communication Research, 10, 461–488.
9.
FeeleyT. H.AnkerA. E.AloeA. M. (2012) The door-in-the-face persuasive message strategy: a meta-analysis of the first 35 years. Communication Monographs, 79(3), 316–343.
10.
FennisB.JanssenL. (2010) Mindlessness revisited: sequential request techniques foster compliance by draining self-control resources. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 29(3), 235–246.
11.
FennisB. M.JanssenL.VohsK. D. (2008) Acts of benevolence: a limited resources account of compliance with charitable requests. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 906–924.
12.
FennisB. M.StelM. (2011) The pantomime of persuasion: fit between nonverbal communication and influence strategies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 806–810.
13.
FernE.MonroeK.AvilaR. (1986) Effectiveness of multiple request strategies: a synthesis of research results. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 64–80.
14.
GouldnerA. W. (1960) The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
15.
HaleJ. J.LalikerM. (1999) Explaining the door-in-the-face: is it really time to abandon reciprocal concessions?Communication Studies, 50(3), 203–210.
16.
KomoritaS. S.BrennerA. R. (1968) Bargaining and concession making under bilateral monopoly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(1), 15–20.
17.
MillarM. G. (2002) The effectiveness of the door-in-the-face compliance strategy on friends and strangers. Journal of Social Psychology, 142(3), 295–304.
18.
O'KeefeD. J. (1999) Three reasons for doubting the adequacy of the reciprocal concessions explanation of door-in-the-face effects. Communication Studies, 50(3), 211–220.
19.
O'KeefeD. J.FiggeM. (1997) A guilt-based explanation of the door-in-the-face influence strategy. Human Communication Research, 24, 64–81.
20.
O'KeefeD. J.HaleS. L. (1998) The door-in-the-face influence strategy: a random-effects meta-analytic review. Communication Yearbook, 21, 1–33.
21.
PascualA.GuéguenN. (2005) Foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face: a comparative meta-analytic study. Psychological Reports, 96(1), 122–128.
22.
PendletonM. G.BatsonC. D. (1979) Self-presentation and the door-in-the-face technique for inducing compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 77–91.
23.
ReevesR. A.BakerG. A.BoydJ. G.CialdiniR. B. (1991) The door-in-the-face technique: reciprocal concessions vs. self-presentational explanations. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 6, 545–558.
24.
TeamR. D. C. (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org.
25.
TerrierL.JouleR. V. (2008) La procédure de porte-au-nez: vers une interprétation motivationnelle [The door-in-the-face technique: toward a motivational interpretation]. Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 77, 5–14.
26.
TerrierL.JouleR. V.MarfaingB. (2011) Requester's acceptance and non-acceptance of the refusal of the initial request: how to improve the door-in-the-face effects?Current Research in Social Psychology, 17(1), 1–9.
27.
TusingK. J.DillardJ. P. (2000) The psychological reality of the door-in-the-face: it's helping, not bargaining. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 5–25.
