A Guilt-Based Explanation of the Door-in-the-Face Influence Strategy

Abstract

A new explanation is proposedfor the accumulated researchjindings concerning the door-inthe-face (DITF) influence strategy. The explanation treats successful DlTF implementations as based on guilt: Refusal of thejrst request creates guilt, and compliance with the second request reducesguilt. In additwn to explaining the known effects of DITF moderator variables, the explanation is wnsisfent with current theoretical and empirical understandings of the nature ofguilt and with extant researchfindings concerningguilt-basedsocial infumce. This explanation also suggests a sign$cant rolefor a new moderator, the identity of the b@& y of the requests. A reanalysis of previous meta-analytic findings confinns the importance of that moderator.his article proposes a new explanation for the effects of the door-in-the-face (DITF) influence strategy. It initially describes T the DITF strategy and then summarizes the observed effects of several moderating variables that have been explored as possible influences on the size of DITF effects. The prevailing explanation of DITF effects, the reciprocal concessions explanation, is shown to fail to account satisfactorily for the observed effects of the possible moderators. A new explanation is then proposed, one that treats successful DITF implementations as based on the arousal and reduction of guilt. A number of different lines of supporting evidence are reviewed, and some complexities and caveats attached to the proposed explanation are considered. A concluding discussion frames the explanation within larger developments in the study of social influence. Daniel 1. O'Keefe is an associate professor of speech communication and Marianne

The Moderators and Mediators of Door-in-the-Face Requests: Is it a Negotiation or a Helping Experience?

“…Critics of the reciprocal concessions explanation have argued that it is not supported by the evidence (Abrams & Bell, 1994;Dillard, 1991;Dillard et al, 1984;O'Keefe, 1999;O'Keefe & Figge, 1997, 1999. Although meta-analyses indicate that the DITF effect is heterogeneous (O'Keefe & Hale, 1998), there is no evidence that initial request size serves as a moderator (Fern et al, 1986;O'Keefe & Hale, 1998)*which is in contrast to reciprocity predictions.…”

“…The most commonly cited explanation for the DITF effect is the reciprocal concessions model (Cann, Sherman, & Elkes, 1975;Cialdini et al, 1975); although in the last decade this rationale has been challenged with logic based on social responsibility (O'Keefe, 1999;O'Keefe & Figge, 1997;Tusing & Dillard, 2000). Regardless of which rationale is proposed, published studies on DITF have made few attempts to examine the experience of receivers during the DITF sequence in a manner that might illuminate some of the theoretical underpinnings suggested by different scholars.…”

“…the size of the second favor must be unambiguously smaller than that of the first; only then can the action of a reciprocal concessions norm come into play' ' (p. 207). O'Keefe and Figge (1997) also noted that if the reciprocal concessions theory were valid, then rates of compliance would increase as the magnitude of the initial request increases (see also Mowen & Cialdini, 1980). Relational familiarity.…”

“…1 A field experiment manipulating request type, relational familiarity, and initial request size was conducted to build on recent work attempting to map the psychological states experienced by receivers of DITF requests (Dillard & Hale, 1992;O'Keefe & Figge, 1997, 1999Tusing & Dillard, 2000). We examine predicted mediators and moderators assumed by each theoretical account.…”

Moral masochism: On the connection between guilt and self-punishment.

“…A sizable experimental literature indicates that people often deal with their guilt over a bad deed by doing a good deed for someone else or for society in general (Carlsmith & Gross, 1969;Darlington & Macker, 1966;O'Keefe & Figge, 1997;Regan, Williams, & Sparling, 1972). In one study, for example, people who had been led to believe that their negligence had ruined the study in which they were participating-and who consequently felt guilty about their behavior-later contributed more to a charity (Regan, 1971).…”