Next, the research assistants approached different people with an even bolder request: Would they be interested in being considered to serve as an unpaid counselor at the juvenile detention center?
They were told this volunteer position would require two hours of their time each week for a minimum of two years. They then asked them if they would instead be willing to consider chaperoning a group of juvenile delinquents on a day trip to the zoo for no pay. Why did people become so willing to agree to consider the significant request after turning down a much larger one?
According to Cialdini and his team, when we back down from an extreme request and ask for less, the other party views this as a concession and feels compelled to reciprocate it. Research suggests that if a negotiator follows up the extreme request with a more moderate one, the proverbial door may stay open. Given that door in the face technique has been studied only in one-off interactions, Professor Ricky S. Wong of Hang Seng Management College in Hong Kong and his colleagues wondered whether it could have a negative impact on a second negotiation with the same counterpart.
After all, the norm of reciprocity works both ways—we respond in kind to negative as well as positive behaviors. This is large request — would you agree or not? The foot-in-the-door technique works on the principle of consistency. People prefer not to contradict themselves in both actions and beliefs. This means that as long as the request in consistent with or similar in nature to the original small request, the technique will work Petrova et al.
Sherman called residents in Indiana USA and asked them if, hypothetically, they would volunteer to spend 3 hours collecting for the American Cancer Society. Three days later, a second experimenter called the same people and actually requested help for this organization. The door-in-the-face technique is a compliance method whereby the persuader attempts to convince the respondent to comply by making a large request that the respondent will most likely turn down. This technique achieves compliance as refusing a large request increases the likelihood of agreeing to a second, smaller request.
Initially you make a big request which a person can be expected to refuse. For example, negotiating a pay rise with your boss. Cialdini asked participants if they would escort a group of young criminals to the zoo; most refused control group. In control group 2 participants were approached and asked to spend 2 hours per week as a peer counsellor to young criminals for around 2 years; again most said no.
However in the experimental condition participants were asked to be peer counsellors and then the request was downgraded to escort children to the zoo the target request. It has been found the door-in-the face technique produces high levels of compliance only when the same person makes the request, and the requests are similar in nature.
This technique works due to the principle of reciprocity Cialdini et al. It turns out that we actually feel better about the transaction than if the door-in-the-face had not been used. Because the door-in-the-face begins with a concession on the part of the requestor, we feel greater satisfaction with the outcome. And because the door-in-the-face ends with our agreement with the concession, we feel greater responsibility for the outcome.
We generally want our friends, family and peers to maintain a positive impression of us, whilst many celebrities pursue that age-old, Machiavellian goal of being loved by the masses, making high-profile charitable gestures and giving interviews to improve their public image.
This desire is often referred to as a need for positive self-presentation , and may explain why we agree to a second reasonable request but not the first. The second question, in the mind of the subject, provides an opportunity to prove that we are not as uncharitable as the first question led us to appear, and so we agree to it Pendleton and Batson, Factors relating to the structuring of a door-in-the-face request can affect compliance rates.
These factors include the length of delay between the first and the second questions. In , an experiment was conducted at Santa Clara University to test the technique on two groups of participants. One group was asked the second question immediately after the first, whilst a second group was given time between the questions. The researchers found that a delay increased compliance with the second request Chartrand et al, One explanation for the effect of a delay is that it gives recipients time to consider their response to the first request.
During this time, they may realize that their own self-presentation has been tarnished by their refusal to comply. The absence of a delay does not give a person time to realise how they may have appeared to the person making the request. At the University of Nevada, Murray Millar measured compliance rates when the relationship between the person making the request and the responder differed.
Millar found that when a familiar person made the request, they would be more likely to comply with a door-in-the-face question than they would if the person asking the favor was not known to them. As we tend to care more about what friends and family members of our in-group think about us than how strangers out-group observers view us, this finding supports the role of self-presentation in our decision making Millar, Which Archetype Are You? Discover which Jungian Archetype your personality matches with this archetype test.
Are You Angry? Take our 5-minute anger test to find out if you're angry! Windows to the Soul What can a person's eyes tell you about what they are thinking? Are You Stressed? Measure your stress levels with this 5-minute stress test. Memory Like A Goldfish? Take Psychologist World's 5-minute memory test to measure your memory. Slave To Your Role? To what extent are people controlled by their roles in society? Are You Fixated? Discover your Freudian personality type with our Fixation Test.
0コメント