There are multiple types of persuasion and compliance gaining techniques that we utilize everyday in order to influence others, whether we do so consciously or sub-consciously. One of the most popular means of persuading others is the Door-In-The-Face method. This method consists of making a large request that will most likely be turned down. After the initial appeal is turned down, the persuader will offer a smaller request to the respondent, or the person who is being persuaded. The smaller request must precede the larger request in order to be effective. This method has been proven to be a very successful compliance method. According to Tusing and Dillard, “Door-In-The-Face has been found to increase compliance with the target request, compared to control conditions where only the target request is made,” (Tusing & Dillard, 2000, p. 5). The respondents are more willing to comply after being offered the smaller request, because in contrast to the large, initial request, the second request seems much more smaller and manageable. If the second request was offered alone, it would not produce the same effect.
In order to achieve the desired outcome with the Door-in-the-Face method, there are certain criteria that must be met. According to lecture, the first request must be substantial, but not so large that it seems implausible to the respondent. A study by Even-Chen, Yinon, and Bizman found that, “a large, but not inordinately large, initial request increase the chance of compliance with the subsequent critical request” (Even-Chen, Yinon & Bizman, 1978, p. 135). The respondents must believe that it is a reasonable request in order to take it seriously. Next, the persuasion attempt is most effective when it is made between two fr...
... middle of paper ...
...er my persuasion technique by allowing a bit more time to elapse. This way, when persuading people that I do not know as well as my family, such as friends or acquaintances, I can be more convincing and persuasive. In addition, I believe that by using what I learned from research and actually carrying out the persuasion attempt, I can persuade people more effectively in the future.
Works Cited
Tusing, K. J., & Dillard, J. P. (2000). The Psychological Reality of the Door-in-the-Face: It's Helping, not Bargaining. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,19(1), 5-25.
Even-Chen, M., Yinon, Y., & Bizman, A. (1978) The door-in-the-face techniques: Effects of the size of the initial request. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 135-140
Millar, M. (2002). Effects of a Guilt Induction and Guilt Reduction on Door in the Face. Communication Research,29(6), 666-680.
Heimowitz, Daniel. "Guilt." Psychology and Mental Health. Ed. A. Piotrowski Nancy, 3d ed. 5 vols. Pasadena, Calif.: Salem Press, 2009. Salem Health Web. 13 May. 2014.
Kerbel, Matthew R. (1993). An Empirical Test of the Role of Persuasion in the Exercise of
Tsank, Stephanie. "The Bell Jar: A Psychological Case Study." Iun.edu. N.P., Dec.-Jan. 2005. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
Goffman refers to his essay on face-work as ‘An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction’ (Goffman, p.5). He essentially sets out to prove to the reader that social interaction is a ritual game that we act out and play by the rules. The ...
Persuasion is the concept of changing someone’s mind or supporting a certain value, belief, or behavior.
Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers, 19 Oct. 2013. Web. 13 Apr. 2014. .
...onson, E., Wilson, T.D., & Akert, R.M. (2013). Social Psychology (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Myers, David G. “Chapter 14: Social Psychology.” Psychology. 10th ed. New York, NY US: Worth
In this context, face holds the same meaning as the metaphorical application of ‘saved my face,’ which would be applied to a situation in which an embarrassing situation is deftly avoided (88). However, the notion of ‘face’ in a metaphorical application finds its origins in word conducted by Erving Goffman. Based off of Goffman’s work, Brown and Levinson produced their politeness theory, which asserts: “The reason we are polite is that we are concerned with maintaining two distinct kinds of face: negative face [and] positive face” (88). Negative face means that one’s actions are unimpeded by others, and positive face means that one’s wants are desirable to at least some others (88). The notion of face, considered as a general term, is a widely accepted factor in the evaluation of politeness
Milgram found that the more interaction-physical, visual, or auditory-between the participants (teachers) and the confederates (learners), the less likely they would go all the way through to the highest level of shock (Kokot, 2001). Moreover, when the experimenters left the room, the participants would less likely to obey (Kokot, 2001). This shows that people have the pressure to conform when they have more interaction with the experimenters and less with the confederates.
In the world of communication, there are many theories which describe different ways people communicate. According to Doctor Thomas Hanitzsch, an associate professor of communication at the University of Munich in Germany, “Communication Theory is an international forum publishing high quality, original research into the theoretical development of communication from across a wide array of disciplines” (“Communication Theory”). A specific communication theory that will be highlighted is the Face-Negotiation theory developed by Stella Ting-Toomey. Simply stated, Dr. Ting-Toomey suggests that conflict is a consequence of identity management on an individual and cultural level, and occurs when an individual or group’s face is threatened. Similarly, people from individualistic, low context cultures interact differently from collectivist, high context cultures. This means that “people from collectivistic cultures with an interdependent self-image are concerned with giving ‘other-face’ or ‘mutual face,’ so they adopt a conflict style of ‘avoiding or integrating’” (Griffin “List”). Likewise, “people from individualistic cultures with an independent self-image are concerned with protecting self-face, so they adopt a conflict style of ‘dominating’” (Griffin “List”).
The dual process models of persuasion is a model that accounts for the two basic ways that attitude change occurs, which is either with or without thought. Furthermore, these two models are the central and peripheral models/routes of persuasion. The central route to persuasion is the way people are persuaded when they focus on the quality of the arguments in a message. This route requires effort and is argument based thinking. Attitude change in this route is likely to be stable and more resistant to change. People use the central route when they have both motivation and the ability to do so. On the other hand, the peripheral route to persuasion is the way people are persuaded when they focus on factors other than the quality of the arguments in a message. For example, they may instead just focus on the sheer number of arguments. In the peripheral route there is an absence of argument scrutiny, and is a shortcut based, conditioned response that yields to social
In closing, Persuasion is a powerful tool, both in trying to persuade others and being
Crisp, R, J. Turner, R, N. (2007). Essential Social Psychology. Sage Publications Limited. London. (UK). First Edition.
The foot-in-the-door technique, also called the gradation technique, refers to the assumption that a person who has already complied with a small request is more likely to agree to a larger one later. This technique contrasts significantly with others that aim to influence behavior in that it seeks to do so without the use of “external pressure.”