Door-in-the-face technique

The door-in-the-face (DITF) technique is a compliance method commonly studied in social psychology. The persuader attempts to convince the respondent to comply by making a large request that the respondent will most likely turn down, much like a metaphorical slamming of a door in the persuader's face. The respondent is then more likely to agree to a second, more reasonable request, than if that same request is made in isolation. The DITF technique can be contrasted with the foot-in-the-door (FITD) technique, in which a persuader begins with a small request and gradually increases the demands of each request. Both the FITD and DITF techniques increase the likelihood a respondent will agree to the second request. The door-in-the-face (DITF) technique is a compliance method commonly studied in social psychology. The persuader attempts to convince the respondent to comply by making a large request that the respondent will most likely turn down, much like a metaphorical slamming of a door in the persuader's face. The respondent is then more likely to agree to a second, more reasonable request, than if that same request is made in isolation. The DITF technique can be contrasted with the foot-in-the-door (FITD) technique, in which a persuader begins with a small request and gradually increases the demands of each request. Both the FITD and DITF techniques increase the likelihood a respondent will agree to the second request. In a classic experiment investigating the effectiveness of the DITF technique, researchers separated participants into three groups. In group 1, experimenters asked participants to volunteer to counsel juvenile delinquents for two hours a week for two years (large request). After their refusal, the group was asked to chaperone juvenile delinquents on a one-day trip to the zoo (small request). Group 2 was given only the small request. In group 3, the experimenter described the large request but asked the participants to perform the small request. 50% of the participants in group 1 agreed to the small request, compared to 17% in group 2 and 25% in group 3. Because compliance for the small request was significantly larger for group 1 than group 2, the DITF technique was successful. Compliance for the small request was also significantly larger for group 1 than group 3, which demonstrates that mere exposure to the more extreme task does not affect compliance as significantly. An important topic in DITF research involves whether the DITF technique is effective because of reciprocal concessions or social responsibility. The reciprocal concessions explanation is more common and involves reciprocity, or the need for a respondent to comply to the smaller second request because the persuader is compromising from the initial request. The social responsibility explanation involves internal standards of the importance of helping others that make the respondent feel they must comply to the second smaller request. Other explanations of the DITF effect involve maintaining a positive self-presentation and reducing guilt. Two studies comparing reciprocal concessions with social responsibility explanations found evidence for social responsibility related to helping. In the first study, participants read DITF scenarios and then rated whether certain terms were relevant to these situations or not. These terms either referred to helping or to bargaining. In the second study, participants rated the similarity of a DITF interaction to four other situations: helping a friend, negotiating with a friend, helping a stranger, and negotiating with a stranger. The DITF scenarios used in both studies were taken from previous research and shown to be very effective in influencing compliance. Overall, findings indicate that participants felt DITF interactions were more closely related to helping than bargaining. This supports the social responsibility explanation of the DITF technique because social responsibility is related to helping one's self, while reciprocal concessions is related to negotiating. Research investigating reciprocal concessions and in-group-out-group biases found both reciprocal concessions and in-group context to be important in the DITF technique. In-groups are groups that a person feels that they belong to, while out-groups are ones that a person does not belong to and might perceive negatively. This study employed two different types of confederates, in-group confederates who dressed and acted like college students and out-group confederates who dressed and acted more formally. The in-group confederates introduced themselves as university students, while the out-group confederates introduced themselves as private business school students. All of the participants in this study went to the same university as the in-group confederates. The confederates either made a large request then a smaller one, a smaller request alone, or offered the participant a choice of both requests. Results show greater compliance to the second smaller request for the in-group confederates compared to out-group confederates, but there was still a DITF effect in the out-group context. Participants were most likely to comply to requests from those within their social groups, yet they still had increased compliance to the smaller second request for people outside of their social groups. The researchers suggest that this is evidence for reciprocal concessions because the influence of social group and the DITF effect work independently of each other, therefore, there must be another explanation for DITF that does not involve in-group-out-group biases. The researchers fail to mention the social responsibility explanation, however. Another study comparing reciprocal concessions with social responsibility found neither explanation to be sufficient. This study employed confederates who asked for donations door-to-door. Participants were either given a large, moderate, or small request initially. The large request involved 10 hours of volunteering for several weeks, the moderate request involved a $30.00 donation, and the small request involved a donation of any amount. The confederate gave the smaller request after an initial large or moderate one. Participants then filled out a questionnaire that asked about the respondent's perceived obligation to comply, perceptions of negotiation and/or helping in the situation, and whether the respondent was friends with the confederate. Results show that participants were more likely to comply for friends than strangers, the DITF technique had greater compliance overall than a small request alone, and the DITF technique had larger increases in compliance for strangers. Findings regarding social responsibility and reciprocal concessions were inconclusive, with high correlations between perceptions of negotiation and guilt as well as guilt and obligation. The researchers suggest that both of the explanations work together in the DITF effect. In a similar study looking at differences between friends and strangers using the DITF technique, the DITF technique was more effective in increasing compliance for friends than strangers, which is contrary to other research findings. The researcher explains the results as evidence for the importance of self-presentation when friends use the DITF technique. They suggest that the respondents' need to present themselves well to their friends motivates compliance to the second request. Research on the influence of guilt indicates that it plays an important role in the effectiveness of the DITF technique. Participants began the study by filling out a questionnaire related to demographics and health. The experimenter then told the participant he or she was finished with the experiment. As the participant was leaving, the experimenter asked the participant to record meals for the next three months as a part of a larger study on health. After refusal, the experimenter then made a second smaller request for the participant to record their meals for four days. There was a control condition that only received the second smaller request. Participants were assigned to one of four groups: high guilt induction and high guilt reduction, high guilt induction and low guilt reduction, low guilt induction and high guilt reduction, and low guilt induction and low guilt reduction. The high guilt induction statement indicated that the rejection of the first request would have negative effects on the study, while the low guilt induction statement indicated that the rejection of the first request would not really have negative effects on the study. The high guilt reduction statement indicated that the second request would be equally helpful as the first, while the low guilt reduction statement indicated that the second request would not be as helpful as the first. Researchers measured both verbal and behavioral compliance to the smaller second request. Findings indicate a significant increase in both types of compliance for the high guilt induction, high guilt reduction condition. There was no DITF effect for the other conditions because compliance to the second request was the same as compliance for the control condition. According to the researcher, this suggests that guilt is the sole explanation for the effectiveness of the DITF technique. In a study looking at the DITF technique, researchers found that DITF requests that required metacommunication in the responses had higher rates of compliance than requests that did not. The researchers define metacommunication as establishing social boundaries. This is important because the DITF technique often involves strangers making extreme requests, which might elicit a response that requires metacommunication. For example, a person may use metacommunication to indicate that it is inappropriate for a stranger make such an extreme request. This study included four different groups: one starting with a large request and including a metacommunicative statement, one starting with a large request and excluding a metacommunicative statement, one with only a smaller request and including a metacommunicative statement, and one with only a smaller request and excluding a metacommunicative statement. For all of the groups a confederate asked participants to fill out a questionnaire about campus activities. The large request required a few hours, while the smaller one required 20 minutes. In the groups that started with a large request, the confederate followed up with the smaller one after a refusal. The requests with metacommunication included a sentence stating, 'This is kind of awkward. There is something else I'd like to ask of you, but tell me if even this seems inappropriate between strangers' prior to filling out the 20-minute questionnaire (p. 92). Results show significantly greater compliance to requests that included the metacommunicative statement. The researchers suggest that the explicit statement regarding social boundaries makes participants comply to avoid engaging in metacommunicative conflict.