Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to browse PSPB online!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tusing, K. J.
Right arrow Articles by Dillard, J. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Psychological Reality of the Door-in-the-Face

It’s Helping, not Bargaining

Kyle James Tusing

University of Wisconsin-Madison, kjt{at}u.arizona.edu

James Price Dillard

University of Wisconsin-Madison, jdillard{at}facstaff.wisc.edu

Door-in-the-face (DITF) is a sequential request technique in which a source first makes a large request. Upon the receiver’s refusal, a smaller (target) request is made. DITF has been found to increase compliance with the target request compared to control conditions where only the target request is made. Despite its effectiveness, DITF lacks a consistently supported theoretical explanation. Two studies were conducted to determine whether people see DITF as a bargaining situation, consistent with the reciprocal concessions explanation, or as a helping situation, consistent with a social responsibility explanation. In Study 1, 78 participants judged the relevance of helping and bargaining items to four DITF interactions. In Study 2, 80 participants rated the similarity of a DITF interaction to four interactions that crossed situation (helping versus bargaining) with relationship (friend versus stranger). Results of both studies were consistent with a social responsibility explanation of DITF but inconsistent with reciprocal concessions.

Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 1, 5-25 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X00019001001


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Communication ResearchHome page
M. Millar
Effects of a Guilt Induction and Guilt Reduction on Door in the Face
Communication Research, December 1, 2002; 29(6): 666 - 680.
[Abstract] [PDF]