To test the door-in-the-face technique for a private solicitation, 53 men and 37 women in several bars were engaged. In one condition, a female confederate asked the subject to buy her drink because her boyfriend had left without paying the bill. After the subject refused, the confederate requested only 2 or 3 coins. In the control condition, the latter request was the only one. Analysis showed a dramatic increase in compliance for the door-in-the-face condition. A positive effect of the door-in-the-face technique was also observed for the average amount of the donation. The accentuation of the solicitor's dependency in the door-in-the-face condition seemed relevant for explanation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsM. F., & BellR. A. (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, 107–124.
3.
CannA.ShermanS. J., & ElkesR. (1975) Effects of initial request size and timing of a second request on compliance: the foot-in-the-door and the door-in-the-face. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 774–782.
4.
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, 61, 295–300.
5.
CialdiniR. B.VincentJ. E.LewisS. K.CatalanJ.WheelerD., & DarbyB. L. (1975) Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: the door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206–215.
6.
DillardJ., & HaleJ. (1992) Prosocialness and sequential request compliance techniques: limits to the foot-in-the-door and the door-in-the-face. Communications Studies, 43, 220–232.
7.
DillardJ.HunterJ., & BurgoonM. (1984) Sequential-request persuasive strategies: meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human Communication Research, 10, 461–488.
8.
FointiatV. (2000) “Foot-in-the-door” versus “door-in-the-face” request. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 264–26
9.
GoldmanM. (1986) Compliance employing a combined foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face procedure. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 111–116.
10.
GoldmanM., & CreasonC. (1981) Inducing compliance by a two-door-in-the-face procedure and a self-determination request. Journal of Social Psychology, 114, 229–235.
11.
GoldmanM.McVeighJ. F., & RichterkessingJ. L. (1984) Door-in-the-face procedure: reciprocal concession, perceptual contrast, or worthy person. Journal of Social Psychology, 123, 245–251.
12.
GouldnerA. W. (1960) The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
13.
GuéguenN., & Fischer-LokouJ. (1999) Sequential request strategy: effect on donor generosity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 669–671.
14.
HarrisM. B., & MeyerF. W. (1973) Dependency, threat, and helping. Journal of Social Psychology, 90, 239–242.
15.
JouleR. V. (1987) Tobacco deprivation: the foot-in-the-door technique versus the low-ball technique. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 361–365.
16.
LeskS., & ZippelB. (1975) Dependency, threat, and helping in a large city. Journal of Social Psychology, 95, 185–186.
17.
MowenJ. C., & CialdiniR. B. (1980) On implementing the door-in-the-face compliance technique in a business context. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 253–258.
18.
O'KeefeD. J., & FiggeM. (1997) A guilt-based explanation of the door-in-the-face influence strategy. Human Communication Research, 24, 64–81.
19.
ReevesR. A.BakerG. A.BoydJ. G., & CialdiniR. B. (1991) The door-in-the-face technique: reciprocal concessions versus self-presentational explanations. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 545–558.
20.
SchapsE. (1972) Cost, dependency and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 74–78.
21.
SchwarzwaldJ.BizmanA., & RazM. (1983) The foot-in-the-door paradigm: effects of second request size on donation probability and donor generosity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 443–450.
22.
ShanabM. E., & O'NeillP. (1979) The effects of contrast upon compliance with socially undesirable requests in the door-in-the-face paradigm. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 11, 236–244.
