Guilt and expected guilt in the door‐in‐the‐face technique
- 1 December 1999
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Communication Monographs
- Vol. 66 (4) , 312-324
- https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376482
Abstract
Three studies are reported concerning the guilt‐based explanation of the door‐in‐the‐face (DITF) technique, which proposes that in successful DITF implementations, first‐request refusal generates guilt that is reduced by second‐request compliance. An initial experiment confirmed that, consistent with this explanation, rejection of a prosocial request evoked more guilt than did rejection of a nonprosocial request. A second experiment provided further confirmation that request rejection can elicit guilt in the expected ways, but found that second‐request compliance did not provide the predicted guilt reduction. A third experiment suggested that second‐request compliance may be motivated by the expectation that compliance will reduce guilt.Keywords
This publication has 21 references indexed in Scilit:
- Goal-directed EmotionsCognition and Emotion, 1998
- Effects of Goal-Directed Emotions on Salesperson Volitions, Behavior, and Performance: A Longitudinal StudyJournal of Marketing, 1997
- Encouraging Charitable ContributionsCommunication Research, 1994
- Guilt: An interpersonal approach.Psychological Bulletin, 1994
- Guilt and Help from Friends: Variables Related to Healthy BehaviorThe Journal of Social Psychology, 1993
- The Current Status of Research on Sequential-Request Compliance TechniquesPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1991
- SEQUENTIAL-REQUEST PERSUASIVE STRATEGIES.Human Communication Research, 1984
- Evaluating guilt arousing marketing communicationsJournal of Business Research, 1983
- Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975
- The scaling of terms used to describe personality.Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1957