Three reasons for doubting the adequacy of the reciprocal‐concessions explanation of door‐in‐the‐face effects

Abstract

This article discusses three broad reasons for concern about the adequacy of the reciprocal‐concessions explanation of door‐in‐the‐face (DITF) effects. First, the explanation ù not sufficiently well articulated to permit unambiguous identification of disconfirming evidence. Second, even acknowledging the explanation's suppleness, at least three sets of empirical results (concerning concession size effects, concession emphasis effects, and the necessity of concessions) are apparently inconsistent with the explanation. Third, there is no empirical evidence distinctly supportive of the explanation.