The Door-inthe-Face Influence Strategy : A Random-Effects Meta-Analytic Review

s International, 46, 3191A. (University Microfilms No. AAC86-00139) Cantrill, J. G. (1986, April). Sequential requests and the problem of message sampling. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Atlantic City, NJ. *Cantrill, J. G. (1991). Inducing health care voluntarism through sequential requests: Perceptions of effort and novelty. Health Communication, 3, 59-74. *Cantrill, J. G. , & Seibold, D. R. (1986). The perceptual contrast explanation of sequential request strategy effectiveness. Human Communication Research, 13, 253-267. Carlsmith, J. M. , & Gross, A. E. (1969). Some effects of guilt on compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 232-239. *Cialdini, R. B. (1975). A test of two techniques for inducing verbal, behavioral, and further compliance with a request to give blood. In S. M. Weiss (Ed.), Proceedings of the National Heart and Lung Institute working conference on health behavior (pp. 176-186). Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health. *Cialdini, R. B. , & Ascani, K. (1976). Test of a concession procedure for inducing verbal, behavioral, and further compliance with a request to give blood. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 61, 295-300. *Cialdini, R. B. , Vincent, 1. E. , Lewis, S. K. , Catalan, 1. , Wheeler, D. , & Darby, B. L. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206-215. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. *Collins, B. , & Brady, R. M. (1994, November). Anchoring effects in the door-in-the-face technique. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, New Orle~ns. Corner, J. M. , Kardes, F. R. , & Sullivan, A. K. (1992). Multiple deescalating requests, statistical information, and compliance: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1199-1207. Cook, T. D. , Cooper, H. , Cordray, D. S. , Hartmann, H. , Hedges, L. V. , Light, R. J., Louis, T. A. , & Mosteller, F. (1992). Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Cooper, H. M. (1981). On the significance of effects and the effects of significance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1013-1018. Coulter, R. H. , & Pinto, M. B. (1995). Guilt appeals in advertising: What are their effects? Journal ofApplied Psychology, 80, 697-705. *Crano, W. D. , & Sivacek, J. (1982). Social reinforcement, self-attribution, and the foot-in-thedoor phenomenon. Social Cognition, 1, 110-125. Cunningham, M. R. , Steinberg, J., & Grev, R. (1980). Wanting to and having to help: Separate motivations for positive mood and guilt-induced helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 181-192. Dillard, J. P. (1991). The current status of research on sequential-request compliance techniques. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 283-288. *Dillard, J. P., & Hale, J. L. (1992). Prosocialness and sequential request compliance techniques: Limits to the foot-in-the-door and the door-in-the-face? Communication Studies, 43, 220-232. Dillard, J. P., Hunter, J. E. , & Burgoon, M. (1984). Sequential-request strategies: Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human Communication Research, 10, 461-488. 30 COMMUNICATION YEARBOOK 21 Erez, A. , Bloom, M. C. , & Wells, M. T. (1996). Using random rather than fixed effects models in meta-analysis: Implications for situational specificity and validity generalization. Personnel Psychology, 49, 275-306. *Even-Chen, M. , Yinon, Y. , & Bizman, A. (1978). The door in the face technique: Effects of the size of the initial request. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 135-140. Fern, E. F. , Monroe, K. B. , & Avila, R. A. (1986). Effectiveness of multiple request strategies: A synthesis of research results. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 144-152. Foehl, J. C. , & Goldman, M. (1983). Increasing altruistic behavior by using compliance techniques. Journal of Social Psychology, 119, 21-29. *Foss, R. D. , & Dempsey, C. B. (1979). Blood donation and the foot-in-the-door technique: A limiting case. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 580-590. Freedman, J. L. , Wallington, S. A. , & Bless, E. (1967). Compliance without pressure: The effect of guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 117-124. Ghingold, M. , & Bozinoff, L. (1981). Construct validation and empirical testing of guilt arousing marketing communications. In A. A. Mitchell (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 9, pp. 210-214). St. Louis, MO: Association for Consumer Research. *Goldman, M. (1986). Compliance employing a combined foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face procedure. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 111-116. *Goldman, M. , & Creason, C. R. (1981). Inducing compliance by a two-door-in-the-face procedure and a self-determination request. Journal of Social Psychology, 114, 229-235. Goldman, M. , Gier, J. A. , & Smith, D. E. (1981). Compliance as affected by task difficulty and order of tasks. Journal of Social Psychology, 114, 75-83. *Goldman, M. , McVeigh, J. F. , & Richterkessing, J. L. (1984). Door-in-the-face procedure: Reciprocal concession, perceptual contrast, or worthy person. Journal of Social Psychology,