Communication Research

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for free access to the SAGE eReference platform!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by ABRAHAMS, M. F.
Right arrow Articles by BELL, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Communication Research, Vol. 21, No. 2, 131-153 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/009365094021002001

Encouraging Charitable Contributions

An Examination of Three Models of Door-in-the-Face Compliance

MATTHEW F. ABRAHAMS

ROBERT A. BELL

This study tested three models of the door-in-the-face (DITF) compliance strategy—reciprocal concessions, perceptual contrast, and self-presentation. These accounts were tested in a fundraising context by manipulating the variables concession labeling, initial request size, and anticipated future interaction in a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design with a stand-alone control group. The hypothesized mediating variable for each account—obligation, cost concerns, and image concerns—was assessed. A DITF effect was obtained. With regard to the models, concession labeling led to stronger feelings of obligation to donate, but did not affect compliance. The manipulation of anticipated interaction elevated impression management concerns, but these concerns did not motivate donating. The failure of the concession and self-presentation accounts is explained by their interaction; concession labeling facilitated charity when interaction with the solicitor was anticipated, but backfired when interaction was not expected. No support was found for the perceptual contrast explanation.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Communication ResearchHome page
R. Goei, A. Roberto, G. Meyer, and K. Carlyle
The Effects of Favor and Apology on Compliance
Communication Research, December 1, 2007; 34(6): 575 - 595.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Communication ResearchHome page
R. Goei, L. L. M. Lindsey, F. J. Boster, P. D. Skalski, and J. M. Bowman
The Mediating Roles of Liking and Obligation on the Relationship between Favors and Compliance
Communication Research, April 1, 2003; 30(2): 178 - 197.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Language and Social PsychologyHome page
K. J. Tusing and J. P. Dillard
The Psychological Reality of the Door-in-the-Face: It's Helping, not Bargaining
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, March 1, 2000; 19(1): 5 - 25.
[Abstract] [PDF]