Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Recent articles (Dillard, 1991; O'Keefe and Figge', 1997, 1999) have addressed issues related to the sequential request influence strategy called Door‐In‐The‐Face (DITF). Those articles presented objections to reciprocal concessions, the most often invoked explanation for DITF effects, and two of the articles (O'Keefe & Figge', 1997, 1999) explicated a guilt‐based explanation as an alternative. This article presents a series of arguments defending the reciprocal concessions explanation, and suggests one possible research agenda relative to address issues related to reciprocal concessions and the guilt based explanation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hale et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: