DITF Theory & Rationale


Cialdini & Ascani, 1976

The experimenters were attempting to test the hypothese speculated by Cialdini et al. (1975) in a context other than that of the origional study. This replication would serve a three-fold purpose. First, it would determine the generality of the compliance mechanism. Second, it would provide evidence regarding the mediator effect in the mechanism. Finally, it would investigate some practical advantages to using this method.


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

Evan-Chen, et al. Sought to find if the size of the inital requesst had any impact on the subsequent compliance of the individual. The researchers proposed in their experiments that reciprocal concessions would only take place when the size of the initial request was extremely large.


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

Evan-Chen, et al. Sought to find if the size of the inital requesst had any impact on the subsequent compliance of the individual. The researchers proposed in their experiments that reciprocal concessions would only take place when the size of the initial request was extremely large.


Foss & Dempsey: Study 3, 1979

A third study was run to see if under the right circumstances, the experimenters could get the FITD technique to work.


Goldman & Creason, 1981

This study explores the "door-in-the-face" theory, and attempts to either expand the ditf theory or create a new one "two-door-in-the-face".


Miller et al, 1976

This study explores the "door-in-the-face" theory. The study examined two explanations for the success of a compliance strategy in which a second moderate-sized request is asked immediately after the refusal of a first large-sized request.


Mowen & Cialdini, Study II, 1980

Mowen & Cialdini were interested in furthering study by marketing researchers investigating compliance-gaining tactics that influece behavior directly. They also were interested in applying the behavioral induction technique 'even a penny will help' (Cialdini & Schroeder, 1976). In this approach a standard request for a donation is followed with the phrase, "even a penny will help." The study focused on the application of the 'door-in-the-face' technique in a business situation.


Reingen, 1978

This study explores the "door-in-the-face" theory, while inspecting other strategies of inducing compliance with requests.


Reingen & Kernan, 1979

Reinegen and Kernan reasoned that the foot-in-the-door (FITD) and door-in-the-face (DITF) techniques of influencing behavior had been tested in primarily prosocial request contexts and decided to examine the efficacy in a commercial setting. A review of literature had revealed that most DITF and FITD research focused on gaining compliance on the basis of some altruistic cause. The present research examined the effects of FITD and DITF when the request were not of an altruistic nature.p>


Schwarzwald, Raz, & Zvibel, 1979

The authors reasoned that to date, the door-in-the face technique has not been tested where common behavioral customs exist, and the target person has standards by which to judge the reasonableness of the solicitor's demand.


Shanab & Isonio, 1980

A review of literature revealed that the door-in-the-face technique is an effective technique in influencing behavior change. A particular study showed that subjects would agree to a second, smaller request that alone is seemingly offensive if it was preceded by an even more offensive request. Shanab and Isonio endeavored to extend the finding of this study and hypothesized that if two request are perceived as independent because of intervening delays, then neither the contrast not the reciprocal concession manipulation would lead to an increase in compliance.


Shanab & O'Neil, 1979

A review of the literature revealed that no studies of the Door-in-the-face (DITF) techniques had been carried out in the rate of compliance to socially undesirable request. It had been conjectured that if socially undesirable request were made, compliance would be reduced. Shanab and O'Neill reasoned that this is an unjustifiable request considering that subjects in earlier experiments had consented to administering electric shock to other subjects.


Return to Dimensions Page


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