Explaining the door-in-the face: Is it really time to abandon reciprocal concessions?

Communication Studies

Volumn 50, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 203-210

  Hale, Jerold L ^a   Laliker, Melanie ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b BRIDGEWATER COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 17044428146     PISSN: 10510974     EISSN: 17451035     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10510979909388487     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Cialdini, R. B., 1994. “ Interpersonal influence ”. In Persuasion: psychological insights and perspectives, Edited by: Shavitt, S., and Brock, T. C., 195-217. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
2. Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J. E., Lewis, S. K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., and Darby, B. L., 1975. Reciprocal concessions: procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31: 206-215.
3. Dillard, J. P., 1991. The current status of research on sequential-request compliance techniques. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17: 283-288.
4. Dillard, J. P., and Hale, J. L., 1992. The prosocial parameter of sequential persuasive messages: Limits on foot-in the door and door in the face. Communication Studies, 43: 220-233.
5. Dillard, J. P., Hunter, J. E., and Burgoon, M. E., 1984. Sequential request persuasive strategies: Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human Communication Research, 10: 461-488.
6. Fern, E. F., Monroe, K. B., and Avila, R. A., 1986. Effectiveness of multiple request strategies: A synthesis of research results. Journal of Marketing Research, 23: 144-152.
7. Gouldner, A. W., 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25: 161-178.
8. Hale, J. L., and Dillard, J. P., 1991. The uses of meta-analysis: Making knowledge claims and setting research agendas. Communication Monographs, 58: 463-470.
9. Jackson, S., O'Keefe, D. J., Jacobs, S., and Brashers, D. E., 1989. Messages as replications: Toward a message-centered design strategy. Communication Monographs, 56: 364-384.
10. Morris, R. T., 1956. A typology of norms. American Sociological Review, 21: 610-613.
11. O'Keefe, D. J., 1998. “ The door-in-the-face influence strategy: A random-effects meta-analytic review ”. In Communication yearbook 21, Edited by: Roloff, M. E., 1-34. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. O'Keefe, D. J., and Figge’, M., 1999. Guilt and expected guilt in the door-in-the-face technique. Communication Monographs, 66: 312-324.
13. O'Keefe, D. J., and Figge’, M., 1997. A guilt-based explanation of the door-in-the-face influence strategy. Human Communication Research, 24: 64-81.
14. Patch, M. E., 1988. Differential perception of source legitimacy in sequential request strategies. Journal of Social Psychology, 128: 817-823.
15. Patch, M. E., 1986. The role of source legitimacy in sequential request strategies of compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12: 199-205.
16. Putnam, L. L., and Jones, T. S., 1982. Reciprocity in negotiations: An analysis of bargaining interactions. Communication Monographs, 49: 171-191.
17. Schwarzwald, J., Raz, M., and Zvibel, M., 1979. The applicability of the door-in-the-face technique when established behavioral customs exist. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9: 576-586.