Psychological Reports: Sociocultural Issues in Psychology 2013, 113, 2, 675-682. © Psychological Reports 2013
DOOR-IN-THE-FACE: IS IT REALLY NECESSARY THAT BOTH REQUESTS BE MADE BY THE SAME REQUESTER?1 LOHYD TERRIER Ecole Hôtelière de Lausanne, Switzerland BÉNÉDICTE MARFAING
MARC-OLIVIER BOLDI
Laboratoire de Psychologie Université de Fribourg, Switzerland
Ecole Hôtelière de Lausanne, Switzerland
Summary.—The door-in-the-face technique increases the likelihood of individuals accepting a target request by confronting them, beforehand, with an extreme request. The present research tests a new door-in-the-face technique in which the two requests are formulated by two different requesters during the same interaction. 160 participants were asked to help a charity organization following a doorin-the-face procedure. According to the experimental conditions, requests were formulated by one or two requesters during the same or a different interaction. As predicted, the door-in-the-face effect was observed even if two requests are formulated by two requesters, but only if both are present during the interaction. Results are discussed in terms of a reciprocal concessions interpretation and a motivational interpretation.
Introduced by Cialdini, Vincent, Lewis, Catalan, Wheeler, and Darby (1975), the door-in-the-face procedure increases the likelihood that individuals will comply with a target request after turning down a larger request. In Cialdini, et al.’s study (1975), researchers wanted college students to accept taking a group of young delinquents to the zoo for two hours. When asked directly, the request was accepted by 16.7% of the students. However, when that request was preceded by the refusal of a highly demanding request (too costly to be accepted), such as working as a volunteer in a juvenile detention center for two days a week during a two-year period, then 50% of the students agreed to the two-hour trip to the zoo (Cialdini, et al., 1975, Exper. 1). Based on reciprocity norm (Gouldner, 1960) and bargaining conducts (Komorita & Brenner, 1968; Benton, Kelley & Liebling, 1972) studies, Cialdini, et al. (1975; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004) interpreted these results in terms of reciprocal concessions. Shifting from a highly demanding request to a less costly one could be considered as a concession on the requester's part; in response to this concession, the participant would accept the target request. Address correspondence concerning this paper to Lohyd Terrier, Ecole Hôtelière de Lausanne, Le Chalet-à-Gobet, CH-1000 Lausanne 25, Switzerland or e-mail (lohyd.terrier@ehl. ch). 1
DOI 10.2466/17.07.PR0.113x25z7
24-PR_Terrier_130074.indd 675
ISSN 0033-2941
20/11/13 4:33 PM
676
L. TERRIER, ET AL.
This interpretation is supported by subsequent research (Cialdini, et al., 1975), indicating that the frequency of compliance decreased if the initial request was not demanding enough (Exper. 3), and if the participant did not refuse it (Exper. 1). Additional support comes from findings indicating that the frequency of compliance also decreased when the requests were not made by the same requester (Exper. 2). Although this explanation has been highlighted by various research (Reeves, Baker, Boyd, & Cialdini, 1991; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Cialdini, 2008; Fennis, Janssen, & Vohs, 2008; Fennis & Janssen, 2010; Fennis & Stel, 2011), it does not seem to be compatible with general results (see O'Keefe & Hale, 1998; Pascual & Guéguen, 2005; Feeley, Anker, & Aloe, 2012). Firstly, it does not enable understanding of why pro-social requests are more efficient than those that are not (Dillard & Hale, 1992; O'Keefe, 1999; Tusing & Dillard, 2000; Millar, 2002). Secondly, according to Abrahams and Bell (1994) and Bell, Abrahams, Clark, and Schlatter (1996), a reciprocal-concession interpretation suggests that the size of the concession should affect the door-in-the-face effects (i.e., the bigger the concession, the bigger the effect). However, Fern, Monroe, and Avila (1986) show that an extreme concession does not necessarily produce more compliance than a moderate one. In answer to these criticisms, Cialdini and Goldstein (2004) suggested a threshold effect. The latter being the reason for not observing any effects due to the size of the concession. They state that the participant's choice is dichotomous within the door-in-the-face framework: they either accept the choice or reject it. As the gap between both requests reaches a sufficient threshold, it activates the reciprocal concession mechanism, so the only way for the participant to conform would be by accepting the target request. Thus, as soon as the threshold has been reached, the reciprocal-concession mechanism leads the participant to accept the target request, no matter the size of the concession. The type of request used, pro-social versus non pro-social, is also covered by this conceptualization of reciprocal concession. Hale and Laliker (1999) pointed out that the pro-social requests are generally consistent with participants' attitudes. Therefore, one might expect participants to find it easier to accept a request they will have a positive attitude about. There are additional questions that can be asked regarding why the procedure is not efficient unless both requests are formulated by the same requester (Cialdini, et al., 1975, Exper. 2). As proposed, this postulate supports the reciprocal concession model; however, it should not be relevant to the motivational interpretation suggested by Terrier and Joule (2008) and Terrier, Joule, and Marfaing (2011). This interpretation is based on studies conducted by Pendleton and Batson (1979) and Tusing and Dillard (2000), respectively emphasizing links between self-presentation, social responsibility norms, and door-in-the-face
24-PR_Terrier_130074.indd 676
20/11/13 4:34 PM
DOOR-IN-THE-FACE AND REQUESTER
677
effects. It suggests that in this type of situation, the extreme request will activate a social responsibility norm (Gouldner, 1960) and remind the participant of socially valued behavior. Yet, the importance of this request is such that the participant can only refuse it, thereby transgressing an important social norm (Bell, et al., 1996; Tusing & Dillard, 2000). The participant could then fear a negative evaluation, considering that in this particular situation, his refusal would not be acceptable in the eyes of the requester. According to this interpretation, the non-acceptance of this initial refusal could induce a state of tension for the participant that may, as for any state of tension, generate an appeal to its reduction (Terrier & Joule, 2008, Exper. 1). If at the same moment, the requester presents an opportunity to reduce it, in this case by accepting the second less costly request, the participant could take it in order to maintain a positive image of himself. On this basis, Terrier and Joule (2008, Exper. 2) found that making the first refusal acceptable reduced the state of tension experienced by participants, and consequently the door-in-the-face effect was observed. They also show that the door-in-the-face effect could be increased when the noncompliance with the extreme request is perceived as unacceptable by the requester (Terrier, et al., 2011). These results support the idea that the compliance with the target request is not due to the need to comply with a concession made by the requester, but to the need for participants to restore self-image. Therefore, it can be assumed that the similarity between the requesters is not a necessary condition to obtain door-in-the-face effects. The main objective of this study is to test a new modality of the doorin-the-face effect, for which the requests are formulated by two different requesters, but in a situation where all the actors are present during both formulations. Here, the reciprocal concession interpretation predicts there should be no door-in-the-face effect, because the participants cannot respond to the first requester's concession. On the other hand, the motivational interpretation predicts a significant door-in-the-face effect, because accepting a second request will allow the participant to redeem himself to the first requester. For classic comparisons, both interpretations predict the same results. METHOD Participants Passers-by (N = 160; 73 men, 87 women), between 18 and 50 years of age, were approached in a street of Nîmes, France, by two female confederates (all confederates were women, ages 20 to 22 years). Procedure This experiment includes three experimental conditions and one control condition. To make comparisons with previous studies easier, the same experimental procedure as Cialdini, et al. (1975, Exper. 2) was used. Partici-
24-PR_Terrier_130074.indd 677
20/11/13 4:34 PM
678
L. TERRIER, ET AL.
pants were approached in a pedestrian street by two confederates (A and B) introducing themselves as members of an animal protection association. At the same time, another confederate (C) arrived and engaged in a conversation with confederate B, whom he appears to know. For the three experimental conditions, A formulated the first request, asking the participants to get actively involved in the association for two years (the extreme request). Once this extreme request was refused, the participants were randomly assigned to one of the three experimental conditions: (1) Classic Door-inthe-face: in the classic door-in-the-face condition, after the refusal of the extreme request, confederate A formulated the second request, by asking participants to get involved and help the association for one afternoon only (target request; see Appendix). (2) Two requesters–Absent: in this condition, after the refusal of the extreme request, confederate A thanked the participant and left with confederate B, leaving the participant alone with confederate C. The latter, mentioned that he overheard his refusal of the extreme request, then asked participants to get involved by helping the association for one afternoon only (target request). (3) Two requesters–Present: in this condition, confederate A thanked the participant but before his departure, confederate C asked participant to get involved by helping the association for one afternoon only (target request). (4) In the Control condition, confederate A asked the participant to get involved by helping the association for one afternoon only (target request). Hypothesis 1. A higher rate of acceptance of the target request should occur in the classic door-in-the-face condition than in the control condition. Hypothesis 2. A lower rate of acceptance of the target request should occur when the two requests are made by two different requesters (Two requesters–Absent) than when they are formulated by the same requester (Classic Door-in-the-face). Hypothesis 3. A lower rate of acceptance of the target request should occur when the two requests are made by two different requesters in two different interactions (Two requesters–Absent) than when they are formulated by two different requesters in the same interaction (Two requesters–Present). Hypothesis 4. A higher rate of acceptance of the target request should occur in the condition Two requesters–Present than in the Control condition. Statistical analyses were conducted in R (Team, 2010). The model is a logistic regression. The dependent variable is the target request (No = 0, Yes = 1) and the independent variable is the experimental conditions factor (Control, Classic Door-in-the-face, Two requesters-Absent, Two requesters-Present).
24-PR_Terrier_130074.indd 678
20/11/13 4:34 PM
679
DOOR-IN-THE-FACE AND REQUESTER
RESULTS As in almost all research on the door-in-the-face procedure, all participants refused the extreme request. The classic door-in-the-face effect was observed, supporting Hypothesis 1: the acceptance rate of the target request was higher in the Classic Door-in-the-face condition than in the Control condition: Wald(1, N = 80) = 15.18, p < .001, ϕ = 0.43. In accordance with Cialdini, et al. (1975) and Hypothesis 2, the door-in-the-face procedure generated significantly more compliance with the target request in the Classic Door-in-the-face condition than in the Two requesters–Absent condition: Wald(1, N = 80) = 15.18, p < .001, ϕ = 0.43. Lastly, Hypotheses 3 and 4 were also supported. The target request's acceptance rate was higher for the Two requesters–Present condition than for the Two requesters–Absent condition and for the Control condition: Wald(1, N = 80) = 12.78, p < .001, ϕ = 0.40. These results highlight the door-in-the-face effect, whereas both requests are formulated by two requesters, therefore supporting the motivational interpretation (Table 1). TABLE 1 ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION RATES FOR EACH CONDITION Classic Door-in-theface %
Accept/ Reject
Two Requesters– Absent %
Accept/ Reject
Two Requesters– Present %
Accept/ Reject
Control %
Accept/ Reject
55 22/40 10 4/40 50 20/40 10 4/40 Note.—No significant difference between the Classic Door-in-the-face and Two requestersPresent.
DISCUSSION Interpretations of the door-in-the-face effect, in terms of reciprocal concessions (Cialdini, et al., 1975; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004), depend on a series of experiments showing that this technique produced compliance only if both requests were formulated by the same requester. The current study tested a new experimental situation where predictions based on the standard interpretation of reciprocal concessions opposed those based on a motivational interpretation (Terrier & Joule, 2008; Terrier, et al., 2011). In the situation where both requests are formulated by two different requesters, but in the presence of the first requester, the reciprocal-concessions interpretation and motivational interpretation suggest opposite findings. The first interpretation predicts the absence of the door-in-the-face effect (accepting the target request does not allow the participant to answer the concession made by the requester) and the second predicts the presence of a signif-
24-PR_Terrier_130074.indd 679
20/11/13 4:34 PM
680
L. TERRIER, ET AL.
icant door-in-the-face effect, because accepting the target request could reduce the discomfort generated by the refusal of the extreme request. The results of the present experiment clearly support the motivational hypothesis, highlighting the door-in-the-face effect whereby two requests are formulated by two different requesters. According to the motivational interpretation, refusing the first request is perceived by the participant as unacceptable for the requester, generating a state of tension induced by self-image (Terrier & Joule, 2008; Terrier, et al., 2011). Therefore, accepting the target request enables the participant to reduce this tension by restoring her image in the eyes of the requester. Here, it is not the acceptance of the second target that is considered important, but reducing the tension created by the initial refusal. Accepting the second request while the first requester is still present allows the participant to reduce that tension. In contrast, interpretations based on reciprocal concession do not lead to these results. So in this case, although the first requester is present, the participant does not have the opportunity to return the concession. Therefore, just like in the Two requesters–Absent condition, the door-in-the-face effect should not occur. This study also supports results reached by O'Keefe and Figge (1997) and Feeley, et al. (2012) nuancing the question related to the requester. According to them, one should not confuse the requester with the beneficiary: in Cialdini, et al.’s (1975) experiment, for example, the requester is the confederate, and the beneficiary is a detention center. O'Keefe and Figge (1997) made some complementary analyses of Dillard, Hunter, and Burgoon’s (1984) meta-analysis to compare the effects of the technique, more precisely when both requests are beneficial to one or two different parties. It appears the door-in-the-face effect is greater if the same beneficiary is benefitted by both requests. In the current case, the beneficiary is the same, but the requester changes. It would be interesting to test this new procedure in a situation where the beneficiaries of the two requests are different. Finally, if these results are in contradiction with a reciprocal concessions interpretation, they do support the hypothesis linked to social responsibility (Bell, et al., 1996; Tusing & Dillard, 2000), self-presentation (Pendleton & Batson, 1979), and guilt (O'Keefe & Figge, 1997). Each of these studies postulates a psychological state that may be accompanied by a state of tension. The theoretical interpretation in this study allows integration of all three interpretations within the same motivational framework. Further research is needed to distinguish the relevance of each of these, including manipulating the similarity of the beneficiaries (here, motivational interpretation and social responsibility interpretation could provide two opposite hypotheses).
24-PR_Terrier_130074.indd 680
20/11/13 4:34 PM
DOOR-IN-THE-FACE AND REQUESTER
681
In conclusion, if this study clearly states that the motivational interpretation allows better understanding of the results obtained in the present research, further research should test how it could help recognize all the results found using the door-in-the-face technique. REFERENCES
ABRAHAMS, M., & BELL, R. (1994) Encouraging charitable contributions: an examination of three models of door-in-the-face compliance. Communication Research, 21, 131-153. BELL, R. A., ABRAHAMS, M. F., CLARK, C. L., & SCHLATTER, C. (1996) The door-in-the-face compliance strategy: an individual differences analysis of two models in an AIDS fundraising context. Communication Quarterly, 44(1), 107-124. BENTON, A. A., KELLEY, H. H., & LIEBLING, B. (1972) Effects of extremity of offers and concession rate on the outcomes of bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(1), 73-83. CIALDINI, R. B. (2008) Influence: science and practice. (5th ed.) New-York: Quill, Prentice Hall. CIALDINI, R. B., & GOLDSTEIN, N. J. (2004) Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621. CIALDINI, R. B., VINCENT, J. E., LEWIS, S. K., CATALAN, J., WHEELER, D., & DARBY, B. L. (1975) A reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: the door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206-215. DILLARD, J., & HALE, J. (1992) Prosocialness and sequential request compliance techniques: limits to the foot-in-the-door and the door-in-the-face. Communication Studies, 43, 220-232. DILLARD, J. P., HUNTER, J. E., & BURGOON, M. (1984) Sequential-request persuasive strategies: meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human Communication Research, 10, 461-488. FEELEY, T. H., ANKER, A. E., & ALOE, A. M. (2012) The door-in-the-face persuasive message strategy: a meta-analysis of the first 35 years. Communication Monographs, 79(3), 316-343. FENNIS, B., & JANSSEN, L. (2010) Mindlessness revisited: sequential request techniques foster compliance by draining self-control resources. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 29(3), 235-246. FENNIS, B. M., JANSSEN, L., & VOHS, K. D. (2008) Acts of benevolence: a limited resources account of compliance with charitable requests. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 906-924. FENNIS, B. M., & STEL, M. (2011) The pantomime of persuasion: fit between nonverbal communication and influence strategies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 806-810. FERN, E., MONROE, K., & AVILA, R. (1986) Effectiveness of multiple request strategies: a synthesis of research results. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 64-80. GOULDNER, A. W. (1960) The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178. HALE, J. J., & LALIKER, M. (1999) Explaining the door-in-the-face: is it really time to abandon reciprocal concessions? Communication Studies, 50(3), 203-210. KOMORITA, S. S., & BRENNER, A. R. (1968) Bargaining and concession making under bilateral monopoly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(1), 15-20.
24-PR_Terrier_130074.indd 681
20/11/13 4:34 PM
682
L. TERRIER, ET AL.
MILLAR, M. G. (2002) The effectiveness of the door-in-the-face compliance strategy on friends and strangers. Journal of Social Psychology, 142(3), 295-304. O'KEEFE, D. J. (1999) Three reasons for doubting the adequacy of the reciprocal concessions explanation of door-in-the-face effects. Communication Studies, 50(3), 211-220. O'KEEFE, D. J., & FIGGE, M. (1997) A guilt-based explanation of the door-in-the-face influence strategy. Human Communication Research, 24, 64-81. O'KEEFE, D. J., & HALE, S. L. (1998) The door-in-the-face influence strategy: a randomeffects meta-analytic review. Communication Yearbook, 21, 1-33. PASCUAL, A., & GUÉGUEN, N. (2005) Foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face: a comparative meta-analytic study. Psychological Reports, 96(1), 122-128. PENDLETON, M. G., & BATSON, C. D. (1979) Self-presentation and the door-in-the-face technique for inducing compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 77-91. REEVES, R. A., BAKER, G. A., BOYD, J. G., & CIALDINI, R. B. (1991) The door-in-the-face technique: reciprocal concessions vs. self-presentational explanations. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 6, 545-558. TEAM, R. D. C. (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.Rproject.org. TERRIER, L., & JOULE, R. V. (2008) La procédure de porte-au-nez: vers une interprétation motivationnelle [The door-in-the-face technique: toward a motivational interpretation]. Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 77, 5-14. TERRIER, L., JOULE, R. V., & MARFAING, B. (2011) Requester's acceptance and non-acceptance of the refusal of the initial request: how to improve the door-in-the-face effects? Current Research in Social Psychology, 17(1), 1-9. TUSING, K. J., & DILLARD, J. P. (2000) The psychological reality of the door-in-the-face: it's helping, not bargaining. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 5-25. Accepted October 11, 2013. APPENDIX DOOR-IN-THE-FACE REQUESTS
Extreme request: I am a member of the “happiness with four legs” association. We welcome cats and dogs that have been abandoned by their masters. We are currently looking for volunteers to help the association on a daily basis. Members' activities mainly consist of cleaning the boxes, feeding the animals, walking the dogs, and taking care of them. We need reinforcements who would agree to be present on Saturday afternoons to walk the dogs and be ready to commit for at least two years. Would you be interested? Target request: We are also looking for occasional help, such as volunteers that would agree to take the dogs on a walk, one Saturday afternoon within the next following weeks. Would you be interested?
24-PR_Terrier_130074.indd 682
20/11/13 4:34 PM
Copyright of Psychological Reports is the property of Ammons Scientific, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
DOOR-IN-THE-FACE: IS IT REALLY NECESSARY THAT BOTH REQUESTS BE MADE BY THE SAME REQUESTER?1 LOHYD TERRIER Ecole Hôtelière de Lausanne, Switzerland BÉNÉDICTE MARFAING
MARC-OLIVIER BOLDI
Laboratoire de Psychologie Université de Fribourg, Switzerland
Ecole Hôtelière de Lausanne, Switzerland
Summary.—The door-in-the-face technique increases the likelihood of individuals accepting a target request by confronting them, beforehand, with an extreme request. The present research tests a new door-in-the-face technique in which the two requests are formulated by two different requesters during the same interaction. 160 participants were asked to help a charity organization following a doorin-the-face procedure. According to the experimental conditions, requests were formulated by one or two requesters during the same or a different interaction. As predicted, the door-in-the-face effect was observed even if two requests are formulated by two requesters, but only if both are present during the interaction. Results are discussed in terms of a reciprocal concessions interpretation and a motivational interpretation.
Introduced by Cialdini, Vincent, Lewis, Catalan, Wheeler, and Darby (1975), the door-in-the-face procedure increases the likelihood that individuals will comply with a target request after turning down a larger request. In Cialdini, et al.’s study (1975), researchers wanted college students to accept taking a group of young delinquents to the zoo for two hours. When asked directly, the request was accepted by 16.7% of the students. However, when that request was preceded by the refusal of a highly demanding request (too costly to be accepted), such as working as a volunteer in a juvenile detention center for two days a week during a two-year period, then 50% of the students agreed to the two-hour trip to the zoo (Cialdini, et al., 1975, Exper. 1). Based on reciprocity norm (Gouldner, 1960) and bargaining conducts (Komorita & Brenner, 1968; Benton, Kelley & Liebling, 1972) studies, Cialdini, et al. (1975; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004) interpreted these results in terms of reciprocal concessions. Shifting from a highly demanding request to a less costly one could be considered as a concession on the requester's part; in response to this concession, the participant would accept the target request. Address correspondence concerning this paper to Lohyd Terrier, Ecole Hôtelière de Lausanne, Le Chalet-à-Gobet, CH-1000 Lausanne 25, Switzerland or e-mail (lohyd.terrier@ehl. ch). 1
DOI 10.2466/17.07.PR0.113x25z7
24-PR_Terrier_130074.indd 675
ISSN 0033-2941
20/11/13 4:33 PM
676
L. TERRIER, ET AL.
This interpretation is supported by subsequent research (Cialdini, et al., 1975), indicating that the frequency of compliance decreased if the initial request was not demanding enough (Exper. 3), and if the participant did not refuse it (Exper. 1). Additional support comes from findings indicating that the frequency of compliance also decreased when the requests were not made by the same requester (Exper. 2). Although this explanation has been highlighted by various research (Reeves, Baker, Boyd, & Cialdini, 1991; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Cialdini, 2008; Fennis, Janssen, & Vohs, 2008; Fennis & Janssen, 2010; Fennis & Stel, 2011), it does not seem to be compatible with general results (see O'Keefe & Hale, 1998; Pascual & Guéguen, 2005; Feeley, Anker, & Aloe, 2012). Firstly, it does not enable understanding of why pro-social requests are more efficient than those that are not (Dillard & Hale, 1992; O'Keefe, 1999; Tusing & Dillard, 2000; Millar, 2002). Secondly, according to Abrahams and Bell (1994) and Bell, Abrahams, Clark, and Schlatter (1996), a reciprocal-concession interpretation suggests that the size of the concession should affect the door-in-the-face effects (i.e., the bigger the concession, the bigger the effect). However, Fern, Monroe, and Avila (1986) show that an extreme concession does not necessarily produce more compliance than a moderate one. In answer to these criticisms, Cialdini and Goldstein (2004) suggested a threshold effect. The latter being the reason for not observing any effects due to the size of the concession. They state that the participant's choice is dichotomous within the door-in-the-face framework: they either accept the choice or reject it. As the gap between both requests reaches a sufficient threshold, it activates the reciprocal concession mechanism, so the only way for the participant to conform would be by accepting the target request. Thus, as soon as the threshold has been reached, the reciprocal-concession mechanism leads the participant to accept the target request, no matter the size of the concession. The type of request used, pro-social versus non pro-social, is also covered by this conceptualization of reciprocal concession. Hale and Laliker (1999) pointed out that the pro-social requests are generally consistent with participants' attitudes. Therefore, one might expect participants to find it easier to accept a request they will have a positive attitude about. There are additional questions that can be asked regarding why the procedure is not efficient unless both requests are formulated by the same requester (Cialdini, et al., 1975, Exper. 2). As proposed, this postulate supports the reciprocal concession model; however, it should not be relevant to the motivational interpretation suggested by Terrier and Joule (2008) and Terrier, Joule, and Marfaing (2011). This interpretation is based on studies conducted by Pendleton and Batson (1979) and Tusing and Dillard (2000), respectively emphasizing links between self-presentation, social responsibility norms, and door-in-the-face
24-PR_Terrier_130074.indd 676
20/11/13 4:34 PM
DOOR-IN-THE-FACE AND REQUESTER
677
effects. It suggests that in this type of situation, the extreme request will activate a social responsibility norm (Gouldner, 1960) and remind the participant of socially valued behavior. Yet, the importance of this request is such that the participant can only refuse it, thereby transgressing an important social norm (Bell, et al., 1996; Tusing & Dillard, 2000). The participant could then fear a negative evaluation, considering that in this particular situation, his refusal would not be acceptable in the eyes of the requester. According to this interpretation, the non-acceptance of this initial refusal could induce a state of tension for the participant that may, as for any state of tension, generate an appeal to its reduction (Terrier & Joule, 2008, Exper. 1). If at the same moment, the requester presents an opportunity to reduce it, in this case by accepting the second less costly request, the participant could take it in order to maintain a positive image of himself. On this basis, Terrier and Joule (2008, Exper. 2) found that making the first refusal acceptable reduced the state of tension experienced by participants, and consequently the door-in-the-face effect was observed. They also show that the door-in-the-face effect could be increased when the noncompliance with the extreme request is perceived as unacceptable by the requester (Terrier, et al., 2011). These results support the idea that the compliance with the target request is not due to the need to comply with a concession made by the requester, but to the need for participants to restore self-image. Therefore, it can be assumed that the similarity between the requesters is not a necessary condition to obtain door-in-the-face effects. The main objective of this study is to test a new modality of the doorin-the-face effect, for which the requests are formulated by two different requesters, but in a situation where all the actors are present during both formulations. Here, the reciprocal concession interpretation predicts there should be no door-in-the-face effect, because the participants cannot respond to the first requester's concession. On the other hand, the motivational interpretation predicts a significant door-in-the-face effect, because accepting a second request will allow the participant to redeem himself to the first requester. For classic comparisons, both interpretations predict the same results. METHOD Participants Passers-by (N = 160; 73 men, 87 women), between 18 and 50 years of age, were approached in a street of Nîmes, France, by two female confederates (all confederates were women, ages 20 to 22 years). Procedure This experiment includes three experimental conditions and one control condition. To make comparisons with previous studies easier, the same experimental procedure as Cialdini, et al. (1975, Exper. 2) was used. Partici-
24-PR_Terrier_130074.indd 677
20/11/13 4:34 PM
678
L. TERRIER, ET AL.
pants were approached in a pedestrian street by two confederates (A and B) introducing themselves as members of an animal protection association. At the same time, another confederate (C) arrived and engaged in a conversation with confederate B, whom he appears to know. For the three experimental conditions, A formulated the first request, asking the participants to get actively involved in the association for two years (the extreme request). Once this extreme request was refused, the participants were randomly assigned to one of the three experimental conditions: (1) Classic Door-inthe-face: in the classic door-in-the-face condition, after the refusal of the extreme request, confederate A formulated the second request, by asking participants to get involved and help the association for one afternoon only (target request; see Appendix). (2) Two requesters–Absent: in this condition, after the refusal of the extreme request, confederate A thanked the participant and left with confederate B, leaving the participant alone with confederate C. The latter, mentioned that he overheard his refusal of the extreme request, then asked participants to get involved by helping the association for one afternoon only (target request). (3) Two requesters–Present: in this condition, confederate A thanked the participant but before his departure, confederate C asked participant to get involved by helping the association for one afternoon only (target request). (4) In the Control condition, confederate A asked the participant to get involved by helping the association for one afternoon only (target request). Hypothesis 1. A higher rate of acceptance of the target request should occur in the classic door-in-the-face condition than in the control condition. Hypothesis 2. A lower rate of acceptance of the target request should occur when the two requests are made by two different requesters (Two requesters–Absent) than when they are formulated by the same requester (Classic Door-in-the-face). Hypothesis 3. A lower rate of acceptance of the target request should occur when the two requests are made by two different requesters in two different interactions (Two requesters–Absent) than when they are formulated by two different requesters in the same interaction (Two requesters–Present). Hypothesis 4. A higher rate of acceptance of the target request should occur in the condition Two requesters–Present than in the Control condition. Statistical analyses were conducted in R (Team, 2010). The model is a logistic regression. The dependent variable is the target request (No = 0, Yes = 1) and the independent variable is the experimental conditions factor (Control, Classic Door-in-the-face, Two requesters-Absent, Two requesters-Present).
24-PR_Terrier_130074.indd 678
20/11/13 4:34 PM
679
DOOR-IN-THE-FACE AND REQUESTER
RESULTS As in almost all research on the door-in-the-face procedure, all participants refused the extreme request. The classic door-in-the-face effect was observed, supporting Hypothesis 1: the acceptance rate of the target request was higher in the Classic Door-in-the-face condition than in the Control condition: Wald(1, N = 80) = 15.18, p < .001, ϕ = 0.43. In accordance with Cialdini, et al. (1975) and Hypothesis 2, the door-in-the-face procedure generated significantly more compliance with the target request in the Classic Door-in-the-face condition than in the Two requesters–Absent condition: Wald(1, N = 80) = 15.18, p < .001, ϕ = 0.43. Lastly, Hypotheses 3 and 4 were also supported. The target request's acceptance rate was higher for the Two requesters–Present condition than for the Two requesters–Absent condition and for the Control condition: Wald(1, N = 80) = 12.78, p < .001, ϕ = 0.40. These results highlight the door-in-the-face effect, whereas both requests are formulated by two requesters, therefore supporting the motivational interpretation (Table 1). TABLE 1 ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION RATES FOR EACH CONDITION Classic Door-in-theface %
Accept/ Reject
Two Requesters– Absent %
Accept/ Reject
Two Requesters– Present %
Accept/ Reject
Control %
Accept/ Reject
55 22/40 10 4/40 50 20/40 10 4/40 Note.—No significant difference between the Classic Door-in-the-face and Two requestersPresent.
DISCUSSION Interpretations of the door-in-the-face effect, in terms of reciprocal concessions (Cialdini, et al., 1975; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004), depend on a series of experiments showing that this technique produced compliance only if both requests were formulated by the same requester. The current study tested a new experimental situation where predictions based on the standard interpretation of reciprocal concessions opposed those based on a motivational interpretation (Terrier & Joule, 2008; Terrier, et al., 2011). In the situation where both requests are formulated by two different requesters, but in the presence of the first requester, the reciprocal-concessions interpretation and motivational interpretation suggest opposite findings. The first interpretation predicts the absence of the door-in-the-face effect (accepting the target request does not allow the participant to answer the concession made by the requester) and the second predicts the presence of a signif-
24-PR_Terrier_130074.indd 679
20/11/13 4:34 PM
680
L. TERRIER, ET AL.
icant door-in-the-face effect, because accepting the target request could reduce the discomfort generated by the refusal of the extreme request. The results of the present experiment clearly support the motivational hypothesis, highlighting the door-in-the-face effect whereby two requests are formulated by two different requesters. According to the motivational interpretation, refusing the first request is perceived by the participant as unacceptable for the requester, generating a state of tension induced by self-image (Terrier & Joule, 2008; Terrier, et al., 2011). Therefore, accepting the target request enables the participant to reduce this tension by restoring her image in the eyes of the requester. Here, it is not the acceptance of the second target that is considered important, but reducing the tension created by the initial refusal. Accepting the second request while the first requester is still present allows the participant to reduce that tension. In contrast, interpretations based on reciprocal concession do not lead to these results. So in this case, although the first requester is present, the participant does not have the opportunity to return the concession. Therefore, just like in the Two requesters–Absent condition, the door-in-the-face effect should not occur. This study also supports results reached by O'Keefe and Figge (1997) and Feeley, et al. (2012) nuancing the question related to the requester. According to them, one should not confuse the requester with the beneficiary: in Cialdini, et al.’s (1975) experiment, for example, the requester is the confederate, and the beneficiary is a detention center. O'Keefe and Figge (1997) made some complementary analyses of Dillard, Hunter, and Burgoon’s (1984) meta-analysis to compare the effects of the technique, more precisely when both requests are beneficial to one or two different parties. It appears the door-in-the-face effect is greater if the same beneficiary is benefitted by both requests. In the current case, the beneficiary is the same, but the requester changes. It would be interesting to test this new procedure in a situation where the beneficiaries of the two requests are different. Finally, if these results are in contradiction with a reciprocal concessions interpretation, they do support the hypothesis linked to social responsibility (Bell, et al., 1996; Tusing & Dillard, 2000), self-presentation (Pendleton & Batson, 1979), and guilt (O'Keefe & Figge, 1997). Each of these studies postulates a psychological state that may be accompanied by a state of tension. The theoretical interpretation in this study allows integration of all three interpretations within the same motivational framework. Further research is needed to distinguish the relevance of each of these, including manipulating the similarity of the beneficiaries (here, motivational interpretation and social responsibility interpretation could provide two opposite hypotheses).
24-PR_Terrier_130074.indd 680
20/11/13 4:34 PM
DOOR-IN-THE-FACE AND REQUESTER
681
In conclusion, if this study clearly states that the motivational interpretation allows better understanding of the results obtained in the present research, further research should test how it could help recognize all the results found using the door-in-the-face technique. REFERENCES
ABRAHAMS, M., & BELL, R. (1994) Encouraging charitable contributions: an examination of three models of door-in-the-face compliance. Communication Research, 21, 131-153. BELL, R. A., ABRAHAMS, M. F., CLARK, C. L., & SCHLATTER, C. (1996) The door-in-the-face compliance strategy: an individual differences analysis of two models in an AIDS fundraising context. Communication Quarterly, 44(1), 107-124. BENTON, A. A., KELLEY, H. H., & LIEBLING, B. (1972) Effects of extremity of offers and concession rate on the outcomes of bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(1), 73-83. CIALDINI, R. B. (2008) Influence: science and practice. (5th ed.) New-York: Quill, Prentice Hall. CIALDINI, R. B., & GOLDSTEIN, N. J. (2004) Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621. CIALDINI, R. B., VINCENT, J. E., LEWIS, S. K., CATALAN, J., WHEELER, D., & DARBY, B. L. (1975) A reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: the door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206-215. DILLARD, J., & HALE, J. (1992) Prosocialness and sequential request compliance techniques: limits to the foot-in-the-door and the door-in-the-face. Communication Studies, 43, 220-232. DILLARD, J. P., HUNTER, J. E., & BURGOON, M. (1984) Sequential-request persuasive strategies: meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human Communication Research, 10, 461-488. FEELEY, T. H., ANKER, A. E., & ALOE, A. M. (2012) The door-in-the-face persuasive message strategy: a meta-analysis of the first 35 years. Communication Monographs, 79(3), 316-343. FENNIS, B., & JANSSEN, L. (2010) Mindlessness revisited: sequential request techniques foster compliance by draining self-control resources. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 29(3), 235-246. FENNIS, B. M., JANSSEN, L., & VOHS, K. D. (2008) Acts of benevolence: a limited resources account of compliance with charitable requests. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 906-924. FENNIS, B. M., & STEL, M. (2011) The pantomime of persuasion: fit between nonverbal communication and influence strategies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 806-810. FERN, E., MONROE, K., & AVILA, R. (1986) Effectiveness of multiple request strategies: a synthesis of research results. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 64-80. GOULDNER, A. W. (1960) The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178. HALE, J. J., & LALIKER, M. (1999) Explaining the door-in-the-face: is it really time to abandon reciprocal concessions? Communication Studies, 50(3), 203-210. KOMORITA, S. S., & BRENNER, A. R. (1968) Bargaining and concession making under bilateral monopoly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(1), 15-20.
24-PR_Terrier_130074.indd 681
20/11/13 4:34 PM
682
L. TERRIER, ET AL.
MILLAR, M. G. (2002) The effectiveness of the door-in-the-face compliance strategy on friends and strangers. Journal of Social Psychology, 142(3), 295-304. O'KEEFE, D. J. (1999) Three reasons for doubting the adequacy of the reciprocal concessions explanation of door-in-the-face effects. Communication Studies, 50(3), 211-220. O'KEEFE, D. J., & FIGGE, M. (1997) A guilt-based explanation of the door-in-the-face influence strategy. Human Communication Research, 24, 64-81. O'KEEFE, D. J., & HALE, S. L. (1998) The door-in-the-face influence strategy: a randomeffects meta-analytic review. Communication Yearbook, 21, 1-33. PASCUAL, A., & GUÉGUEN, N. (2005) Foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face: a comparative meta-analytic study. Psychological Reports, 96(1), 122-128. PENDLETON, M. G., & BATSON, C. D. (1979) Self-presentation and the door-in-the-face technique for inducing compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 77-91. REEVES, R. A., BAKER, G. A., BOYD, J. G., & CIALDINI, R. B. (1991) The door-in-the-face technique: reciprocal concessions vs. self-presentational explanations. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 6, 545-558. TEAM, R. D. C. (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.Rproject.org. TERRIER, L., & JOULE, R. V. (2008) La procédure de porte-au-nez: vers une interprétation motivationnelle [The door-in-the-face technique: toward a motivational interpretation]. Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 77, 5-14. TERRIER, L., JOULE, R. V., & MARFAING, B. (2011) Requester's acceptance and non-acceptance of the refusal of the initial request: how to improve the door-in-the-face effects? Current Research in Social Psychology, 17(1), 1-9. TUSING, K. J., & DILLARD, J. P. (2000) The psychological reality of the door-in-the-face: it's helping, not bargaining. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 5-25. Accepted October 11, 2013. APPENDIX DOOR-IN-THE-FACE REQUESTS
Extreme request: I am a member of the “happiness with four legs” association. We welcome cats and dogs that have been abandoned by their masters. We are currently looking for volunteers to help the association on a daily basis. Members' activities mainly consist of cleaning the boxes, feeding the animals, walking the dogs, and taking care of them. We need reinforcements who would agree to be present on Saturday afternoons to walk the dogs and be ready to commit for at least two years. Would you be interested? Target request: We are also looking for occasional help, such as volunteers that would agree to take the dogs on a walk, one Saturday afternoon within the next following weeks. Would you be interested?
24-PR_Terrier_130074.indd 682
20/11/13 4:34 PM
Copyright of Psychological Reports is the property of Ammons Scientific, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
