|This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Davidson College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.|
What's the origin of the name Door in the face? --Aioth 02:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
DITF vs. FITD describes the large DITF request and the small FITD request, but not the actual target request. i don't have a subscription to access the cited study so could someone fill in this obvious blank please. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I am a Davidson College student working on the APS Wikipedia Initiative with my senior capstone class. As a part of the APS Initiative, I plan to improve this page by refining some of the existing information and adding more research about the topic. I will change wording and add references where they are missing in the existing information, as well as include more detail in general. I might move things around to make the format fit with all of the information I will be adding. My preliminary references are:
Chan, A., & Au, T. (2011). Getting children to do more academic work: Foot-in-the-Door versus Door-in-the-Face. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(6), 982-985. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.04.007
Dolinski, D. (2011). A rock or a hard place: The foot-in-the-face technique for inducing compliance without pressure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(6), 1514-1537. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00758.x
Eastwick, P. W., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Is it a game? Evidence for social influence in the virtual world. Social Influence, 4(1), 18-32. doi:10.1080/15534510802254087
Ebster, C., & Neumayr, B. (2008). Applying the door-in-the-face compliance technique to retailing. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 18(1), 121-128. doi:10.1080/09593960701778226
Guéguen, N. (2003). Fund-raising on the web: The effect of an electronic door-in-the-face technique on compliance to a request. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 6(2), 189-193. doi:10.1089/109493103321640383
Guéguen, N., Jacob, C., & Meineri, S. (2011). Effects of the Door-in-the-Face technique on restaurant customers' behavior.International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(3), 759-761. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.12.010
Lecat, B., Hilton, D. J., & Crano, W. D. (2009). Group status and reciprocity norms: Can the door-in-the-face effect be obtained in an out-group context?. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13(3), 178-189. doi:10.1037/a00149
MacDonald, G., Nail, P. R., & Harper, J. R. (2011). Do people use reverse psychology? An exploration of strategic self-anticonformity.Social Influence, 6(1), 1-14. doi:10.1080/15534510.2010.51728256
Millar, M. (2002). Effects of a guilt induction and guilt reduction on door in the face. Communication Research, 29(6), 666-680. doi:10.1177/009365002237831
Millar, M. G. (2002). The effectiveness of the door-in-the-face compliance strategy on friends and strangers. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(3), 295-304. doi:10.1080/00224540209603901
Pascual, A., & Guéguen, N. (2005). Foot-in-the-door and Door-in-the-face: A Comparative Meta-analytic Study. Psychological Reports,96(1), 122-128. doi:10.2466/PR0.96.1.122-128
Pascual, A., & Gueguen, N. (2006). Door-in-the-face technique and monetary solicitation: An evaluation in a field setting. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 103(3), 974-978.
Patch, M. E., Hoang, V. R., & Stahelski, A. J. (1997). The use of metacommunication in compliance: Door-in-the-face and single-request strategies. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(1), 88-94. doi:10.1080/00224549709595416
Turner, M., Tamborini, R., Limon, M., & Zuckerman-Hyman, C. (2007). The moderators and mediators of door-in-the-face requests: Is it a negotiation or a helping experience?. Communication Monographs, 74(3), 333-356. doi:10.1080/03637750701543469
Tusing, K., & Dillard, J. (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. doi:10.1177/0261927X00019001001
I'm hoping that my work will make this page much more useful and I'm open to any suggestions. Thanks!
Student edit timeline, Spring 2012
As a senior capstone project, students are working improve the content of selected articles. More details are on the course page. Student first edits are due April 20, then we'll spend a week reviewing. Final project is due by May 14, 2012. Thanks for your encouragement and support. Greta Munger (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Peer Evaluation: Psych 402 Class
Peer Review of First Draft:
I noticed a lot of grammatical and punctuation errors in the first few sections. Additionally, the opening paragraph could vary its word use and be tightened to be a more compelling introduction. In regards to formatting, the Recent Research: Mechanisms Underlying DITF section should be broken down into smaller components to make it more readable. Also, more keywords linking to Wikipedia pages could be used as a good way to cite related information. One question I ran into on my own page was whether to refer to experiments by the researchers’ names or simply by a more generalized “one study showed that…” I like the way the article flows without extraneous researcher names included, so you could keep it like that if you like. However, the Retail example was very specific and more explanation of its implications rather than methods might be useful.
I wasn’t sure which part of the page you had revised for this first draft, but I assume the well-written parts are yours. Moving forward I would clarify what you’ve done and plan to do before the final version. Also, I was interested by the foot-in-the-face technique and think that section could be longer if you found any good studies to cite. The DITF vs. FITD section is a bit too short to merit its own section, so I would either add to it or move it to a larger area.
Great job so far! This is a complicated page that is pretty long, so it’s impressive you chose to tackle it. I like your plan to improve the writing and use more credible references- that will definitely help the page. Good luck! SarDavis (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Second Peer Review
I thought the article was a little dense because of the way it was presented. It would be helpful if key terms were bolded or if some information could be easily digested in bulleted lists instead of paragraph forms, especially in the section about the mechanisms. A few presentation changes would make it easier to read, especially for a lot of our readers who want the main take away points. Like Sara said, I thought it would be helpful to have more of the implications of the study than descriptions of the methods.
I thought your article was interesting and I was glad to see all those citations to back up your statements. I found this topic very interesting in social psychology, so it was fun to learn more about it. It was especially cool to see all the different arenas where this technique has been found effective. Nice job! Sarah E. Daniels (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)