Premium
The Applicability of the Door‐in‐the Face Technique when Established Behavioral Customs Exist
Author(s) -
Schwarzwald Jospeh,
Raz Moshe,
Zvibel Moshe
Publication year - 1979
Publication title -
journal of applied social psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.822
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1559-1816
pISSN - 0021-9029
DOI - 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1979.tb00817.x
Subject(s) - compliance (psychology) , psychology , legitimacy , context (archaeology) , social psychology , donation , proposition , face (sociological concept) , internet privacy , computer science , law , political science , paleontology , philosophy , social science , epistemology , sociology , politics , biology
The applicability of the door‐in‐the‐face technique was tested in a monetary donation context where established behavioral standards exist, and where the target person has standards by which to judge the legitimacy of the solicitor's demand. Based on the proposition that exaggerated initial requests might discredit the solicitor and thereby halt the give‐and‐take process, it was expected that (a) with legitimate initial requests, the probability of compliance with a request would be greater when preceded by a larger request than if presented alone; and that (b) with illegitimate initial requests, the probability of compliance with a second request would be smaller when preceded by a larger request than if presented alone. On the national collection day for the Association for the Rehabilitation of the Mentally Handicapped, 400 subjects were asked to contribute IL 10, 15, or 20. In the experimental groups, these amounts were preceded with requests for larger sums which were judged previously by a pretest to be considered legitimate or illegitimate. In the control groups, subjects were asked to contribute the same amounts, but no larger amounts were first requested. The replicability of the door‐in‐the‐face technique has been proven with requests for which established customs exist. However, the technique was only effective with legitimate initial requests. With initial requests that were previously judged as unreasonable, the technique had a “boomerang effect” and suppressed compliance.