![Sample our Communication Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, 2013 & 2014 volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5927/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Information-Science2.jpg"})
Abstract
The Door-in-the-Face (DITF) compliance-gaining tactic occurs when a large request, expected to be rejected, is followed by a more reasonable request that is granted. The mechanisms underlying the DITF strategy remain unclear. Researchers have posed different explanations for the effectiveness of DITF, including the reciprocal concessions and the social responsibility models. These theoretical rationales for DITF were tested in a 3 (request type: initial request only, DITF sequence, small request only)×2 (initial request size: moderate, large)×2 (solicitor familiarity: friend, stranger) between-participants experiment. Findings from the compliance data are mostly consistent with the reciprocal concessions model; but, findings from the cognitive and affective data were mixed. It appears that DITF messages are perceived as a helping situation for friends, but not for strangers. Strangers view request messages of all sizes to be a negotiation, but friends see these requests as a negotiation only when the initial request is large.
Acknowledgements
The authors want to express their gratitude to Ed Fink for his insight into this manuscript.
Notes
1. Another theoretical explanation that has been advanced is perceptual contrast. It does seem, however, that most scholars reject this theory based on the extant data (Cantrill & Seibold, 1986). The reciprocal concessions and social responsibility explanations are still being debated, which is why they are tested in this investigation.
2. Gouldner (1960) clarified several types of reciprocity: heteromorphic versus homomorphic reciprocity, positive versus negative reciprocity, and altruistic versus egoistic reciprocity. In heteromorphic reciprocity, a person returns a good or service received from another person with a different good or service of equal value, often referred to as “tit-for-tat.” In the case of homomorphic reciprocity, a good or service is paid back by the same good or service, often referred to as “tat-for-tat.” Reciprocity also can be positive or negative. Positive reciprocity means that good deeds are reciprocated with positive returns. Negative reciprocity refers to negative sanctioning of norm violators. Gouldner further distinguished egoistic reciprocity, or reciprocating for future benefits, from altruistic reciprocity, or reciprocating with no apparent future returns.
3. Notably, Bell et al. (1996) did not find a main effect of request type (DITF versus control) on feelings of obligation. Nonetheless, this variable is posited to mediate the DITF effect if the negotiation model is correct.
4. Two other moderating variables—same or different requestor and prosocialness of the request—are often varied in DITF studies. These variables are controlled for in this experiment by holding them constant.
5. However, these results do not suggest that people do not follow the principle of reciprocity in close relationships. Reciprocity, as a justice principle, has been shown to be a robust and powerful force governing human exchanges in many situations including both repeated and unrepeated interactions. People are equally unsatisfied when they give more than they receive and when they receive more than they give (Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, Citation1978). They also become resentful or feel a sense of betrayal when their requests are not granted by friends or they are asked to contribute too much (e.g., O'Connor, Citation1992; Walker, Citation1995; Winn et al., Citation1991). An explanation for these incompatible observations may be that people expect from friends and strangers different patterns of reciprocity. Long-term reciprocity is proposed in this paper as the pattern of reciprocity adopted among friends. With limited energy and resources, people may choose to be benevolent only in their communal relationships with kin and friends: They obscure their own contributions, they avoid overt monitoring of their friends’ contributions, and they do not demand immediate and exact reciprocation. However, they may be expecting their friends to provide emotional support in return instead of exact material benefits, and they may want to preserve the right to make a request in the future when they most need it instead of receiving immediate reciprocation from their friends. In other words, a rough balance of giving and receiving on a large timescale, long-term reciprocity, may work in close relationships such as friendships.
6. In the large request condition, “through the end of April” represented a nearly eight month commitment.
7. Given the robust correlation between guilt and obligation (r=.66, p<.05) we wanted to rule out the possibility that these two variables were actually one factor. Therefore, another CFA was conducted with only these two factors. The CFA was testing the prediction that these two scales made a two-factor model. If the data support a one-factor model, then this will be indicated in the goodness of fit indices. These data did indicate that the two-factor model was an excellent fit, χ2(26) = 115.14, p < .05, GFI=.91, RMSEA=.12. Therefore, these variables are highly correlated, but they are distinct factors.
8. In order to compare these four ratios the correct statistical computation would have had to account for the variability in both the numerator and the denominator. After numerous discussions with statistical experts at Yale University (L. Liu, personal communication, April 26, 2007), Iowa State University (P. Dixon, personal communication, April 26, 2007), and the University of Maryland (E. Fink, personal communication, April 24, 2007), we came to the conclusion that there is not an appropriate statistic for such a comparison. Therefore, we reported the t-test between independent percentages because it provides the closest test. In addition, although the highest percentage that can be entered into that equation is 100; we reiterate that this provides a more conservative estimate.