Three reasons for doubting the adequacy of the reciprocal‐concessions explanation of door‐in‐the‐face effects
- 1 September 1999
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Communication Studies
- Vol. 50 (3) , 211-220
- https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979909388488
Abstract
This article discusses three broad reasons for concern about the adequacy of the reciprocal‐concessions explanation of door‐in‐the‐face (DITF) effects. First, the explanation ù not sufficiently well articulated to permit unambiguous identification of disconfirming evidence. Second, even acknowledging the explanation's suppleness, at least three sets of empirical results (concerning concession size effects, concession emphasis effects, and the necessity of concessions) are apparently inconsistent with the explanation. Third, there is no empirical evidence distinctly supportive of the explanation.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Encouraging Charitable ContributionsCommunication Research, 1994
- When tactical pronouncements of change become real change: The case of reciprocal persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1992
- Effects of Compliance Techniques on Spontaneous and Asked-For HelpingThe Journal of Social Psychology, 1988
- Effectiveness of Multiple Request Strategies: A Synthesis of Research ResultsJournal of Marketing Research, 1986
- Compliance Employing a Combined Foot-in-the-Door and Door-in-the-Face ProcedureThe Journal of Social Psychology, 1986
- SEQUENTIAL-REQUEST PERSUASIVE STRATEGIES.Human Communication Research, 1984
- Increasing Altruistic Behavior by Using Compliance TechniquesThe Journal of Social Psychology, 1983
- Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975
- Some effects of guilt on compliance.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969
- Compliance without pressure: The effect of guilt.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967