Encouraging Charitable Contributions

This study tested three models of the door-in-the-face (DITF) compliance strategy—reciprocal concessions, perceptual contrast, and self-presentation. These accounts were tested in a fundraising context by manipulating the variables concession labeling, initial request size, and anticipated future interaction in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design with a stand-alone control group. The hypothesized mediating variable for each account—obligation, cost concerns, and image concerns—was assessed. A DITF effect was obtained. With regard to the models, concession labeling led to stronger feelings of obligation to donate, but did not affect compliance. The manipulation of anticipated interaction elevated impression management concerns, but these concerns did not motivate donating. The failure of the concession and self-presentation accounts is explained by their interaction; concession labeling facilitated charity when interaction with the solicitor was anticipated, but backfired when interaction was not expected. No support was found for the perceptual contrast explanation.

[1]  R. Cialdini,et al.  Reciprocal Concessions Procedure for Inducing Compliance: The Door-in-the-Face Technique , 1975 .

[2]  E. Berscheid,et al.  Increased Liking as a Result of the Anticipation of Personal Contact , 1967 .

[3]  R. Cialdini,et al.  Test of a concession procedure for inducing verbal, behavioral, and further compliance with a request to give blood. , 1976, The Journal of applied psychology.

[4]  T. Wang,et al.  Promoting Charitable Behaviour with Compliance Techniques , 1989 .

[5]  Michael E. Patch,et al.  The Role of Source Legitimacy in Sequential Request Strategies of Compliance , 1986 .

[6]  A. Bizman,et al.  The door in the face technique: Effects of the size of the initial request , 1978 .

[7]  C. Batson,et al.  Self-Presentation and the Door-in-the-Face Technique for Inducing Compliance , 1979 .

[8]  A. Gouldner.  THE NORM OF RECIPROCITY: A PRELIMINARY STATEMENT * , 1960 .

[9]  M. Shanab,et al.  The effects of delay upon compliance with socially undesirable requests in the door-in-the-face paradigm , 1980 .

[10]  S. Sherman,et al.  Effects of initial request size and timing of a second request on compliance: the foot in the door and the door in the face. , 1975, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  M. Goldman,et al.  Door-in-the-face procedure: Reciprocal concession, perceptual contrast, or worthy person. , 1984 .

[12]  Michael S. Pallak,et al.  Effect of commitment on responsiveness to an extreme consonant communication. , 1972 .

[13]  S. Duval,et al.  A theory of objective self awareness , 1972 .

[14]  Penelope Brown,et al.  Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage , 1989 .

[15]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  Coming to Like Obnoxious People When We Must Live with Them , 1977 .

[16]  D. Seibold,et al.  The Perceptual Contrast Explanation of Sequential Request Strategy Effectiveness , 1986 .

[17]  H. Helson.  Adaptation-level theory : an experimental and systematic approach to behavior , 1964 .

[18]  K. Williams,et al.  Impact of Source Strength on Two Compliance Techniques , 1989 .

[19]  Kent B. Monroe,et al.  Effectiveness of Multiple Request Strategies: A Synthesis of Research Results , 1986 .

[20]  Jospeh Schwarzwald,et al.  The Applicability of the Door‐in‐the Face Technique when Established Behavioral Customs Exist , 1979 .

[21]  John E. Hunter,et al.  Sequential-request persuasive strategies: Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. , 1984 .

[22]  J. Dillard.  The Current Status of Research on Sequential-Request Compliance Techniques , 1991 .

[23]  John C. Mowen,et al.  On Implementing the Door-in-the-Face Compliance Technique in a Business Context , 1980 .

[24]  Kenneth J. Roering,et al.  The effects of commitment to future interaction in single plays of three games , 1974 .

[25]  C. Seligman,et al.  Perceptual contrast versus reciprocal concession as mediators of induced compliance , 1976 .

[26]  The effects of contrast upon compliance with socially undesirable requests in the door-in-the-face paradigm. , 1979 .