The Door-in-the-Face Persuasive Message Strategy: A Meta-Analysis of the First 35 Years

Feeley, Thomas Hugh; Anker, Ashley E.; Aloe, Ariel M.

doi:10.1080/03637751.2012.697631

Cited by 56 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For solicitors, presenting a few coins in their hand when asking unknown passersby for money increased the probability of receiving money in return. The weighted mean correlation coefficient for the three studies appeared moderate (M ¼ .31) but also more important than results found with other compliance techniques such as the foot-in-the-door technique (r < .10: Beaman, Cole, Preston, Klentz, & Steblay, 1983;Burger, 1999;Dillard, Hunter, & Burgoon, 1984;Fern, Monroe, & Avila, 1986;Pascual & Guéguen, 2005), the door-in-the-face technique (r < .13: Dillard et al, 1984;Feeley, Anker, & Aloe, 2012), the "but your are free of . .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

The effect of requesting money with a few coins in one hand: the foot-in-the-hand technique

Guéguen

2015

Social Influence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

The effect of requesting money with a few coins in one hand: the foot-in-the-hand technique

Guéguen

2015

Social Influence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Implications Social Influence. Although several studies have shown that the DITF technique works significantly better than outright requests for eliciting verbal compliance, recent meta-analytic findings have called into question the robustness of the technique for changing behavior (Feeley et al, 2012). Indeed, Feeley and his colleagues (2012) concluded, ''Across 39 independent comparisons of actual behaviors associated with DITF requests, the DITF technique is not more successful, statistically speaking, than using a control request alone.''…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, despite the fact that the technique is useful for eliciting verbal compliance, several studies have found that relative to an outright request, the DITF technique elicits no significant differences in behavioral compliance (e.g., Burger, 1986, Experiment 7;Cialdini & Ascani, 1976;Foss & Dempsey, 1979;Katzev & Brownstein, 1989;Millar, 2002;Spiewak, 2002). 1 Some moderators have been proposed to an account for this lack of difference (e.g., using different requesters, introduction of a delay, for a full discussion see Feeley et al, 2012).…”

Section: Ditf Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

Why the door-in-the-face technique can sometimes backfire: A construal level account

Burgoon¹,

Henderson²

2014

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We put forward a construal-level account to explain why the door-in-the-face (DITF) technique can sometimes backfire in the prosocial domain. We argue that after rejecting an initial prosocial request, more abstract construals promote a more coherent selfish version of the self in people's minds, which then fosters less compliance with subsequent requests. Across three experiments, results indicated that relative to an outright request, the DITF technique was less likely to get participants to comply with various prosocial requests (e.g., writing to sick children) when participants adopted more abstract construals. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

show abstract

“…Though the reviews examining economic games did not specify channels, their use of economic games implied that they used face-to-face and online channels (e.g., Engel 2011). A few reviews both specified specific channels of interest and differentiated between variants of those channels, for example, focusing on face-to-face interaction, mediated channels (written mail or scenario, telephone), or mixed methods (Feeley, Anker, and Aloe 2012).…”

Section: Channel Of Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

What works to increase charitable donations? A meta-review with meta-meta-analysis

Noetel¹,

Slattery²,

Saeri³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. How can charities best increase the donations to their causes? This study aims to answer this question by synthesizing review-level evidence for increasing charitable giving.Methodology. This paper is an umbrella review of systematic reviews on interventions that influence financial donations to non-profits.Findings. We found 14 meta-analyses (combined N = 1,510,966) covering nine factors influencing charitable giving. Three factors increased donations: tax deductibility, encouraging women to make intuitive judgements, and legitimizing paltry contributions. Two factors reduced donations: compassion fade and larger starting amounts of money. Four factors did not influence donations: ‘door-in-the-face’, prosocial media, government crowding out/in, and artificial surveillance cues. Most reviews focused on contrived experiments measuring one-off donations, such as dictator games. None met all best-practice guidelines for systematic reviews.Practical implications. To increase donations, charities could promote the tax deductibility of the donation, the effects of even small contributions, and highlight the impact of the donation. Systematic reviews allow for more robust conclusions, but many recent reviews of philanthropy marketing neglect best-practice and focus on topics of limited applied utility.

show abstract

The Door-in-the-Face Persuasive Message Strategy: A Meta-Analysis of the First 35 Years

Cited by 56 publications

References 79 publications

The effect of requesting money with a few coins in one hand: the foot-in-the-hand technique

The effect of requesting money with a few coins in one hand: the foot-in-the-hand technique

Why the door-in-the-face technique can sometimes backfire: A construal level account

What works to increase charitable donations? A meta-review with meta-meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About