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

A new explanation is proposed for the accumulated research findings concerning the door-in-the-face (DITF) influence strategy. The explanation treats successful DITF implementations as based on guilt: Refusal of the first request creates guilt, and compliance with the second request reduces guilt. In addition to explaining the known effects of DITF moderator variables, the explanation is consistent with current theoretical and empirical understandings of the nature of guilt and with extant research findings concerning guilt-based social influence. This explanation also suggests a significant role for a new moderator, the identity of the beneficiary of the requests. A reanalysis of previous meta-analytic findings confirms the importance of that moderator.

[1]  Dacher Keltner,et al.  Evidence for the Distinctness of Embarrassment, Shame, and Guilt: A Study of Recalled Antecedents and Facial Expressions of Emotion , 1996 .

[2]  James Price Dillard,et al.  The Multiple Affective Outcomes of AIDS PSAs , 1996 .

[3]  M. Pinto,et al.  Guilt appeals in advertising: what are their effects? , 1995, The Journal of applied psychology.

[4]  J. Tangney,et al.  Recent Advances in the Empirical Study of Shame and Guilt , 1995 .

[5]  R. Baumeister,et al.  Personal narratives about guilt: Role in action control and interpersonal relationships. , 1995 .

[6]  P. Niedenthal,et al.  "If only I weren't" versus "if only I hadn't": distinguishing shame and guilt in counterfactual thinking. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  Ira J. Roseman,et al.  Phenomenology, Behaviors, and Goals Differentiate Discrete Emotions , 1994 .

[8]  J. Dillard,et al.  Experiential and Physiological Responses to Interpersonal Influence , 1994 .

[9]  Robert A. Bell,et al.  Encouraging Charitable Contributions , 1994 .

[10]  R. Baumeister,et al.  Guilt: an interpersonal approach. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[11]  James Price Dillard,et al.  Persuasion past and present: Attitudes aren't what they used to be , 1993 .

[12]  Maria Miceli,et al.  How to Make Someone Feel Guilty: Strategies of Guilt Inducement and Their Goals , 1992 .

[13]  W. H. Jones,et al.  On conceptualizing and assessing guilt. , 1992 .

[14]  M. Pinto,et al.  Guilt Appeals in Advertising: An Exploratory Study , 1991, Psychological reports.

[15]  John A. Daly,et al.  Making people feel guilty in conversations: Techniques and correlates. , 1991 .

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

[17]  Ira J. Roseman,et al.  Appraisals of emotion-eliciting events: Testing a theory of discrete emotions. , 1990 .

[18]  Robert Vicent Joule,et al.  The Lure: A New Compliance Procedure , 1989 .

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

[20]  Jerry M. Burger,et al.  Increasing compliance by improving the deal: The that's-not-all technique. , 1986 .

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

[22]  Applying full-cycle social psychology to consumer marketing: The defusing objections technique , 1986 .

[23]  L. Hedges,et al.  Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis , 1987 .

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

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

[26]  Morry Ghingold,et al.  Evaluating guilt arousing marketing communications , 1983 .

[27]  J. Sivacek,et al.  Social reinforcement, self-attribution, and the foot-in-the-door phenomenon. , 1982 .

[28]  Inducing Compliance by a Two-Door-in-the-Face Procedure and a Self-Determination Request , 1981 .

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

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

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

[32]  Jerome B. Kernan,et al.  More Evidence on Interpersonal Yielding , 1979 .

[33]  P. Konoske,et al.  Compliant reactions to guilt: self-esteem or self-punishment. , 1979, The Journal of social psychology.

[34]  R. Foss,et al.  Blood donation and the foot-in-the-door technique: a limiting case. , 1979, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[36]  Peter H. Reingen.  On Inducing Compliance With Requests , 1978 .

[37]  Alice M. Tybout.  Relative Effectiveness of Three Behavioral Influence Strategies as Supplements to Persuasion in a Marketing Context , 1978 .

[38]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Low-ball procedure for producing compliance: Commitment then cost. , 1978 .

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

[40]  Jerome B. Kernan,et al.  Compliance with an Interview Request: A Foot-in-the-Door, Self-Perception Interpretation , 1977 .

[41]  A. Bizman,et al.  Effects of guilt-arousal communications on volunteering to the civil guard: A field experiment , 1976 .

[42]  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.

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

[44]  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.

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

[46]  M. Cunningham,et al.  To comply or not comply: testing the self-perception explanation of the "foot-in-the-door" phenomenon. , 1975, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[47]  Richard L. Miller,et al.  Facilitating Compliance by Manipulating the Nature of the Comparison: Relative Cost vs. Reciprocal Concession , 1974 .

[48]  D. T. Regan,et al.  Voluntary expiation of guilt: a field experiment. , 1972, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[49]  J. W. Regan,et al.  Guilt, perceived injustice, and altruistic behavior. , 1971, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[50]  A. Gross,et al.  Some effects of guilt on compliance. , 1969, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[51]  J. Freedman,et al.  Compliance without pressure: The effect of guilt. , 1967 .

[52]  R. B. Darlington,et al.  Displacement of guilt-produced altruistic behavior. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[53]  J. Freedman,et al.  Compliance without pressure: the foot-in-the-door technique. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.