EXPLAINING THE DOOR-IN-THE FACE: IS IT REALLY TIME TO ABANDON RECIPROCAL CONCESSIONS?: An article from: Communication Studies
Rate This Product :
This digital document is an article from Communication Studies, published by Central States Communication Association on September 22, 1999. The length of the article is 4415 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
From the author: 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, 1993) 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.
Citation Details
Title: EXPLAINING THE DOOR-IN-THE FACE: IS IT REALLY TIME TO ABANDON RECIPROCAL CONCESSIONS?
Author: Jerold L. Hale
Publication:Communication Studies (Refereed)
Date: September 22, 1999
Publisher: Central States Communication Association
Volume: 50 Issue: 3 Page: 203
Distributed by Thomson Gale
No comments:
Post a Comment