DITF Procedures


Cialdini & Ascani, 1976

Individuals were approached by same sex experimenters who claimed to be representing blood service organizations. For the study, students were in a control or an experimental group. The control was only given the initial introduction and was then asked to donate one pint of blood the following day at a campus blood drive. The experimental group was asked to display a card which advertised the blood service organization, after compliance, they were then asked to donate blood in the upcoming drive. Any subject in either the control or the experimental group who aggreed that they would donate blood at the drive was asked to provide the experimenter information regarding their name and telephone number.

Those in the extreme request group were contacted to see if they would be willing to participate in a long-term blood donation program. Upon refusal, they were thanked and their names recorded. These people were contacted the following day and asked if they would be willing to donate a pint of blood in the drive.

At the blood drive the following day, the name and telephone number of those individuals who volunteered to donate was recorded. In addition, at the completion of the donation, students were asked to record wether they would be willing to donate again, and if so, how often. This was to measure willingness to comply with subsequent requests.


Even-Chen, Yinon, & Bizman:Study 1, 1978

A senior undergraduate male who acted as the experimenter and was blind to the experimental conditions approached subjects walking on campus in the daylight hours. Only those walking alone were approached.

The students were told that the experimenter was a representative of the National Council for the prevention of Auto-Accidents. The subsequent messages varied with the assigment to group. The experimental group was asked to make a 20-min drive to the office to pick up brochures for distribution. The second group received the same small request after hearing the moderate request that asked the participant if they would be willing to collect some data on transportation by observing traffic at a certain intersection at a specified time. The third group was presented with the small request to distribute literature after receiving a large request which asked if they would paarticipate in being trained to engage in propaganda on the topic of accident prevention. Individuals were informed that this training would take 2 hours per week for 2 years.


Even-Chen, Yinon, & Bizman:Study 2, 1978

A senior undergraduate male who acted as the experimenter and was blind to the experimental conditions approached subjects walking on campus in the daylight hours. Only those walking alone were approached.

The students were told that the experimenter was a representative of the National Council for the prevention of Auto-Accidents. The subsequent messages varied with the assigment to group. The experimental group was asked to make a 20-min drive to the office to pick up brochures for distribution. The second group received the same small request after hearing the moderate request that asked the participant if they would be willing to collect some data on transportation by observing traffic at a certain intersection at a specified time. The third gorup was presented with the small request to distribute literature after receiving a large request which asked if they would participate in being trained to engage in propaganda on the topic of accident prevention. Individuals were informed that this training would take 2 hours per week for 6 months.


Foss & Dempsey: Study 3, 1979

Five or six days prior to the bloodmobile visiting the university campus, individuals were contacted in person and presented with one of the following initial requests. The control group consisted of those people who were simply asked if they would be willing to donate blood in the blood drive. Those who received the routine request were asked six or seven questions regarding their kowledge of and experience with blood donation. Those who received the foot-in-the-door request were asked to put a poster advertising the bloodmobile visit on their dormitory room door. The group who received the door-in-the-face request were asked to recruit four friends to donate blood. On the evening preceding hte bloodmobile visit, an experimenter, who feigned ignorance of the earlier contact, contacted the room and asked the individuals to donate blood. Those who verbally complied were told of the location and the times.


Goldman & Creason, 1981

The subjects were assigned to six conditions, with each condition containing 32 subjects. Dependent on the condition, the subjects were either given the "two face" procedure (two hard requests, then the target), the "face" procedure (one hard request, then the target), or they were in the control group (the target request was the only one made). These three procedures were all carried out in either the fixed condition or the self-determined condition. The difference being that the target request was different by condition. In the fixed condition, subjects were asked to make 25 phone calls. In the self-determined condition, they were asked if they would be willing to help and if so how many calls they would make.


Miller et al, 1976

A subject was contacted on the telephone by a student experimenter who first introduced himself and explained that he was working for a faculty member who was co-ordinating a volunteer mental health program. At this point the experimenter made either the initial request followed by a second request or, as in the control condition, made only a single request. The conditions were yielding plus gaining condition, the yielding-only condition, the gaining-only condition, and of course the control condition.

The initial request in the yielding plus gaining condition asked students to volunteer for a two-year period, two hours per week. The second request asked them to volunteer on one day for a two hour period.

The initial request in the yielding-only condition and the gaining only condition was a request to volunteer on one day, for two hours.

The second request in the yielding-only condition was to ask the person to volunteer for another two hours in a position that equally benefitted the program, but not the experimenter.

The second request in the gaining-only condition was to ask them to fill an equally important position for the experimenter to fill and he added that it was easier for the subject to do than the first position.


Mowen & Cialdini, Study I, 1980

A 2x3 factorial design was used (helping emphasized/helping not emphasized) and (very large/large/no first request). Six experimenters were used, four men and two women. The participants were divided equally into these groups. In the very large first request group, two hours of time was asked for, then one, then the target request. In the large group, an hour of time was asked for, then the target request. In the no first request group, the target request was the first one asked. The groupings were further divided on whether or not helping the experimenter was emphasized. This addition to the study was to test the findings of Cialdini and Schroeder's (1976) approach "even a penny will help".


Mowen & Cialdini, Study II, 1980

Study II has a 2x3 factorial design. The first factor (ceiling factor) manipulated the length of time subjects would be told they would have to take out of their day to complete the survey. A second survey was either not mentioned (control group), described as part of the overall survey (clear concession condition), or described as a different survey (ambiguous concession condition). One of three possible effects was anticipated in this study. 1.) The face effect may occur only when the second request is large enough to prevent a ceiling effect caused by a high level of control group compliance. 2.) The face technique could only be found in the clear concessions conditions in which the second request was part of the first request. 3.) It is possible that in a business context both of the factors mentioned previously are necessary to show the "face" effect in the experiment. If this is so, there should be a significant difference between experimental and control subjects only when the second request is moderate in size and part of the initial large request.


Reingen, 1978

The experimenters (four male and four female college students), blind to the hypotheses of the study, approached only same-sex subjects who met the conditions for subjects. Experimenters were equipped with all necessary paraphenalia for a fund-raising drive for the Heart Association of South Carolina. An experimenter initiated interaction by introducing himself or herself as representing the Heart Association. After the introductory remarks, subjects were randomly assigned to one of seven conditions (only the door-in-the-face conditions are listed here), 32 subjects each, accoring to a pre-specified treatment schedule that varied across experimenters.

The schedule was constructed so that an experimenter completed exactly four replications per condition. Afer an interaction had been completed, an experimenter contacted the next eligible subject.


Reingen & Kernan, 1979

Each experimenter (n=23) was given a list of names and telephone numbers and each completed an average of 15 interviews, 3 per weekday. Experimenter introduced him/herself as representing a fictitious marketing research organization. The experimenters were given a specific scripts for use with all of the experimental groups, except no initial request group. Subject in the large-initial-request group were asked to perform a very large task (detailed in message sections). Regardless of agreement to perform the large task, subject were subsequently asked to complete a 6-page survey that would be mailed to them. The subjects in the critical-request-only (initial telephone contact) were asked only to complete a 6 page survey, and subjects in the critical-request-only (no initial contact) were merely sent the survey in the mail.


Shanab & Isonio, 1979

Subjects were scheduled to arrive at a particular time and were greeted by an experimenter who recited he/she was directed. The script recited depended on the group to which the subject was assigned. The subjects participated in two sessions that were separated by an average delay of 8.5 days. All subjects except those assigned to the control group were presented with the extreme initial request and then asked to complete the Study of Values Inventory. Subjects were reminded to return for the second session at the appointed time. During the second session, the subjects were presented with the appropriate second request, according to the subjects condition assignment.


Schwarzwald, Raz, and Zvibel, 1979

A pretest was conducted to see how much money students would voluntarily contribute to a charity and what sums were considered reasonable and unreasonable. In the actual field study, there were three control groups (n=20 each) where the experimenter asked the subject what amount he/she should fill in the receipt book. The subjects response was recorded and a receipt was given. For the 17 experimental groups (n=20 each), the experimenter asked if he/she should fill in an amount larger than the acceptable amount (get IL 20). Most subjects refused and the experimenter asked if he/she could fill in an amount within the acceptable range. The subjects response to the second request was recorded and a receipt was given.


Shanab & O'Neill, 1980

Subjects were asked to arrive at a particular location and were greeted by experimenters who recited the first and/or second request according to directions given. Some subjects were exposed only to the yield condition and others to the gaining only condition. The yielding only condition was such that the subject should have perceived that the experimenter was conceding. The gaining only condition was such that the target should have perceived that he/she was gaining. In the control condition, the subjects were asked only to participate in the study that involved shocking rats.


Return to Dimensions Page


For information or feedback: sbb@badgerden.com
Created February 27, 1996; Last updated February 27, 1996