The Journal of Psychology, 2014, 148(5), 569–576 C 2014 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright doi: 10.1080/00223980.2013.817963
Door-in-the-Face Technique and Delay to Fulfill the Final Request: An Evaluation With a Request to Give Blood ´ NICOLAS GUEGUEN Universit´e de Bretagne-Sud
ABSTRACT. We tested the Door-in-the-Face technique (DITF) on blood donation with a delay between the acceptance of the request and the real possibility of complying with it. University students were solicited to give blood during a special one-day drive. After the refusal to participate in a long-term donor program, participants were asked for a one unit blood donation. In the control condition, only the latter request was addressed. The participants were either solicited two or three hours before the blood drive (delay) or during the blood drive (no delay). Results showed the DITF technique to be associated with greater verbal compliance with the request. However, the DITF technique with no delay was associated with greater behavioral compliance than were both of the control conditions and the DITF with a delay condition. Keywords: door-in-the-face, compliance, blood donation
THE FRENCH NATIONAL BLOOD BANK (Etablissement franc¸ais du sang, EFS) is confronted with a chronic deficit of whole blood and blood products; this threatens the functioning of the entire health system. The World Health Organization estimates that if only 1% of the world’s population donated blood, this would be sufficient to cover the basic need for safe blood on a global scale. Blood loss during elivery is one of the leading causes of maternal death worldwide and the lack of blood available for the treatment of anemia, which threatens the lives of thousands of children suffering from malaria or malnutrition, is a primary cause of infant mortality in developing countries. In developed countries such as France, modern health care systems require increased quantities of blood that go far beyond mere vital necessity as they are now linked to scientific standing whether medical or surgical and also the aging population. Media campaigns regularly call on the generosity of potential blood donors, but perhaps because of the specificity of the act of donating blood (Gu´eguen et al., 2011) the number of donors decrease Address correspondence to Nicolas Gu´eguen, Universit´e de Bretagne-Sud, LSHS, 4, rue Jean Zay, BP 92116, Lorient, 56321 France; [email protected] (e-mail). 569
570
The Journal of Psychology
consistently. Indeed, the worldwide shortage of active blood donors (Barkworth, Hibbert, Horne, & Tagg, 2002) has driven researchers to investigate new ways of increasing blood donations. The challenge for the French National Blood Bank to secure the health system is to attract new donors and to strengthen their approach for retaining active donors. In France, there is a clear difference between attitudes and actions in blood donor behavior. While 98% of the French are in favor of giving, only 4.5% of all individuals are active donors (Activity report of the “Etablissement Franc¸ais du Sang, 2008). This raises two questions in particular. Firstly, how is intention transformed into commitment in the 4% of the population that actively donates blood? And secondly, what stops those individuals who are willing to give blood from transforming their attitudes into action? Door-in-the-Face Technique To increase compliance with a request, several techniques exist in social psychology literature (see Pratkanis, 2007 for a review). One of these techniques, the Door-in-the-Face (DITF), consists in making a substantially larger first request with a high probability of being refused, then submitting a less costly second request. This way, the second critical request has a greater probability of being accepted than if it were formulated directly (without the first costly request) to the individual (Cialdini et al., 1975). A meta-analysis (Pascual & Gu´eguen, 2005) has shown the DITF to be an effective technique for increasing compliance with a request.For Shanab and Isiono (1980) the effect of DITF is explained by contrast theory. According to this theory, the initial large request serves as an anchor point that leads one to perceive the second request as less costly than if it were to be made directly. Congruent with such an explanation, they found that when several minutes separated the presentation of the initial large request and the second request, the DITF technique was not efficient in gaining compliance whereas it was efficient when no delay separated the two requests. These authors concluded that participants were unable to make a contrast between the two requests when a delay occurred, leading them to perceive the real cost of the second request. Door-in-the-Face and Blood Donation Most of the studies on DITF have used requests for the benefit of human organization, health or charity (organizations collecting funds or food products for later distribution, association for the prevention of alcohol consumption, association with volunteers who help children for they academic homework . . . ) and succeed in increasing compliance. However, it has been found that DITF failed to increase blood donation. Cialdini and Ascani (1976) asked students to donate one unit of blood during a campus blood drive. In the DITF condition this request was preceded by the initial extreme request of asking the students to donate their blood once every two months for a period of three years. The authors found the DITF technique to be efficient in increasing verbal compliance (49.2% vs. 31.7%) but
Gu´eguen
571
that it failed to increase the behavioral compliance (the number of donors who actually gave their blood) measured one day later (38.7% vs. 35%). Such discrepant results between verbal and behavioral compliance could be explained by the delay time between the requests made to the participants and the actual possibility of complying with the request. Several studies found the DITF technique to be totally ineffective if several minutes had passed between the two requests (Cialdini et al., 1975; Shanab & Isiono, 1980). The concession made by the requester will in turn lead the individual to make a concession and accept the second request. However, it seems that this pressure is momentary because if the requester makes his second request after a few minutes, it is no longer well-accepted compared to the control group. Consequently, this internal pressure to concede only lasts for a very short time. In the DITF blood study of Cialdini and Ascani (1976) no delay was used between the initial and target requests. However, delay between the verbal and behavioral compliance was long and could explain why these authors found no effect of blood donation after 24 hours. The initial pressure to comply with the request produced by DITF could have decreased with the delay, which in the end led the participant not to give his/her blood. However, if the participant had the opportunity to give his/her blood immediately we could then expect to obtain more behavioral compliance with the DITF technique. Thus, the delay associated with the possibility of achieving a request after using the DITF technique was manipulated in a study where behavioral compliance with a blood donation request was measured. Method Participants Study participants were 516 undergraduate students (254 in the 2 DITF groups and 262 in the 2 control groups) who were solicited to donate blood while entering a campus building at the University of Bretagne-Sud, in France. Most participants were female (59.2%). The participants were selected to be in the control or DITF conditions according to random distribution. Procedure Four undergraduate student assistants (2 men and 2 women) acted as requesters in the experiment, which was conducted during a one-day blood drive. As in previous years, announcements about the blood drive were posted in several places inside and outside the building in front of which arriving students were approached by a requester. The assistant received no instruction to select a participant. He/she was just instructed to approach a student entering in the building as soon as he/she was available to approach the participant. Of course, this method implied that the assistant was not occupied by a previous participant. Prior to beginning the interaction with a participant, the assistant was instructed to consult a list of letters (C or E print on one column with a number order associated) who
572
The Journal of Psychology
instructed him/her to use the control condition when a “E” was printed or the DITF condition when a “D” was printed. In the control and DITF with behavioral delay conditions the participants were solicited in the morning from 9:00 to 11:30 a.m. while the blood drive was carried out at the beginning of the afternoon from 2:00 to 5:30 p.m. In the control with behavioral delay condition, the requester stated: Hello, I have been sent by the blood bank of France to inform you of our blood drive, which is being conducted this afternoon here in this building, room C1, from 2:00 to 5.30 p.m. Would you like to participate by giving us just one unit of blood?” (Requester noted participant’s intent). “Please take this card with you (Experimenter offers a business card with information about the blood drive room and collection hours) and provide it as proof that we have spoken with you. Thanks very much and have a great day.
In the DITF with behavioral delay condition the requester stated: Hello, I have been sent by the blood bank of France. We’re currently asking students to become involved in a long-term donor program. A long-term donor is an individual who pledges to give a unit of blood once every two months (three months for a woman) for at least three years. This way we can be sure to have a continual supply of blood. Would you be willing to enroll in this long-term donor program? (after the participant declined, the experiment continued). Oh well! I understand but maybe you’d be interested in our blood drive, which is being conducted this afternoon here in this building, room C1, from 2:00 to 5:30 p.m. Would you like to participate by giving us just one unit of blood?” (Requester notes participant’s intent). “Please take this card with you (Experimenter offers a business card with information about the blood drive room and collection hours) and provide it as proof that we have spoken with you. Thanks very much and have a great day.
In the control and DITF without behavioral delay conditions the participants were solicited from 2:00 to 4:30 p.m. while the blood drive was taking place. In these two conditions rather than saying “ . . . our blood drive, which is being conducted this afternoon here in this building, room C1, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.”, the requester stated “ . . . our blood drive, which is going on right now in this building, room C1, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.” In order to later determine what group each participant was in, the business cards offered were slightly different. There was a top vertical bar on the right for the control group with delay and a top vertical bar on the left for the DITF group with delay. Similarly, there was a bottom vertical bar on the right for the control group with no delay and a bottom vertical bar on the left for the DITF group with no delay. To determine which group participants were in, a medical assistant who greeted potential donors as they entered the blood collection room was instructed to ask them if they had received cards and, if so, to collect them.
Gu´eguen
573
Results The dependent variables used in this experiment were the number of verbal agreements to blood donation requests during experimenter/participant interaction (verbal compliance) and the number of participants who actually went to the blood drive room to give a donation (behavioral compliance). As we found no difference between our experimental conditions and requesters or in participant gender, data were collapsed. The results obtained per experimental group are depicted in Table 1. With the verbal compliance data (DV1), a Loglinear analysis of 2 (DITF/ Control) × 2 (delay/no delay) design with compliance behavior as the dichotomous dependent variable was performed. A main effect of the DITF procedure was found (χ 2(1, N = 516) = 18.78, p < .001, ф = .19) revealing that overall in the combined DITF condition more verbal compliance with the request was found (61.8%) than in the combined control conditions (42.7%). However, neither the main effect of the delay (χ 2(1, N = 516) = 0.19, p = .66, ф = .02) nor the interaction between compliance procedures and delay (χ 2(4, N = 516) = 0.61, p = .96, ф = .04) were statically significant. Two behavioral dependent variables were considered. The first, (DV2) studied the “overall behavioral compliance” and considered the participants of the total sample regardless of whether they had verbally complied or not. The second, (DV3) studied “behavioral compliance” by conditions but only considered those who had verbally complied with the donation request. With both dependent variables, a Loglinear analysis of 2 (DITF/Control) × 2 (delay/no delay) design was utilized. When considering compliance with the total sample of participants (DV2), a main effect of the DITF procedure was found (χ 2(1, N = 516) = 7.02, p = .008,
TABLE 1. Percentage of Verbal and Behavioral Compliance Per Experimental Group (Frequency in Brackets) DITF Conditions
Verbal compliance (DV1) Behavioral compliance Versus total sample (DV2) Versus verbally compliant participants (DV3)
Control Conditions
Delay N = 129
No delay N = 125
Delay N = 129
No delay N = 133
62.8% (81/129) 16.3% (21/129)
60.8% (76/125) 25.6% (32/125)
39.5% (51/129) 10.1% (13/129)
42.1% (56/133) 14.3% (19/133)
25.9% (21/81)
42.1% (32/76)
25.5% (13/51)
33.9% (19/56)
574
The Journal of Psychology
ф = .12) revealing that overall in the combined DITF condition more behavioral compliance with the request was found (20.9%) than in the combined control conditions (12.2%). A significant effect of the delay was found (χ 2(1, N = 516) = 4.07, p = .044, ф = .09) revealing that overall in the no delay conditions more behavioral compliance with the request was found (19.8%) than in the combined delay conditions (13.2%). Post-hoc comparison revealed that the DITF no-delay condition appeared significantly different from the control delay condition (χ 2(1, N = 254) = 10.49, p = .001, ф = .20) and the control no-delay condition (χ 2(1, N = 258) = 5.20, p = .023, ф = .14) and slightly different from the DITF delay condition (χ 2(1, N = 254) = 3.34, p = .065, ф = .11). However, no further comparisons were significant. When considering the compliance of the participants who have comply verbally to the request (DV3), a significant effect of the delay was found (χ 2(1, N = 264) = 4.09, p = .043, ф = .12) revealing that in the no delay conditions more behavioral compliance with the request was found overall (37.2%) than in the combined delay conditions (25.7%). Neither the main effect of the DITF procedure was found (χ 2(1, N = 264) = 0.81, p = .37, ф = .05) nor were the interaction between compliance procedures and delay (χ 2(4, N = 264) = 6.35, p = .174, ф = .15) statistically significant. Post-hoc comparison revealed that the DITF no-delay condition appeared significantly different from the DITF delay condition (χ 2(1, N = 157) = 4.59, p = .032, ф = .17) and slightly different from the control delay condition (χ 2(1, N = 127) = 3.68, p = .055, ф = .17) but not with the control no-delay condition (χ 2(1, N = 132) = 0.91, p = .34, ф = .08). Again, no further comparisons were significant.
Discussion Our hypothesis was supported by the results. First, we found that overall, the DITF technique appeared to be effective in increasing the number of blood donators. This positive effect was found with the measure of participants’ verbal intention and confirmed the results found by Cialdini and Ascani (1976) with their own verbal intention variable. Second, we found that DITF remained efficient in increasing behavioral compliance but only when no delay existed between the use of this technique and the possibility for the participant to give his/her blood (DITF no delay condition). Such results are important given that Cialdini and Ascani failed to observe a positive effect of DITF on behavioral compliance. However, participants in their study were asked for blood donation one day before the blood drive. In the DITF with a delay condition of our experiment, the solicitation was done two to three hours before the beginning of the blood drive. However it seems that two to three hours are sufficient for decreasing the behavioral effect of DITF and thus, our results in the DITF with a delay condition confirmed those found in Cialdini and Ascani’s study. Thus, Cialdini and Ascani probably failed to observe
Gu´eguen
575
an increase in behavioral compliance because they performed the DITF one day before the blood drive. Such results have a theoretical implication in that the DITF technique appeared to be efficient only when there was no delay between verbal and behavioral compliance. Previous studies conducted on the DITF technique found that the delay is an important factor to control when using the DITF technique. Shanab and Isiono (1980) reported in a laboratory setting that a several minute delay between the first and the second request is associated with no statistical efficiency of the DITF technique. The effect of the delay was found in a recent study conducted by Gu´eguen, Jacob, and Meineri (2011) in a restaurant. After the refusal of dessert at the end of the meal, waitresses suggested tea/or coffee to the customers. This later proposition was addressed immediately after the refusal of the dessert or three minutes later. It was found that the number of customers who ordered coffee/tea was significantly higher in the no-delay condition. Of course, in our experiment the delay between the initial and the second request in DITF was not manipulated. However, our results showed that the delay between verbal and behavioral compliance is also an important factor. Thus, it seems that two delays are important to control when using the DITF technique: the first delay between the two requests and the second between the time of verbal compliance and the time between agreeing to do something and behaviorally following thru with it. According to Shanab and Isiono (1980), the DITF effect occurred when the individual could perceive a contrast between the first request and the second request, a contrast that led him/her to perceive the second request as less costly. It seems that when a delay occurred between verbal and behavioral compliance, this contrast effect disappeared and led the individual to perceive the second request at its real cost. In the DITF with no delay condition of our experiment, this contrast was activated with the DITF technique still in participant’s conscious and that is why he/she complied with the request by donating his/her blood. However, in the DITF condition with a delay between verbal and behavioral compliance, the initial contrast effect activated by the DITF technique could have decreased as the time elapsed and have led the participant to perceive the second request at its real cost. At this time, blood donation was perceived at its real cost—and previous studies reported that blood donation is perceived as a costly behavior (Barkworth et al., 2002; Foss & Dempsey, 1979; Gu´eguen et al., 2011)—that is probably why less participants came to the blood drive to donate their blood. This experiment has some practical applicability. Increasing the number of blood donations has become urgent (Barkworth et al., 2002), particularly in France where the number of donations per donor has decreased during the last decade (Danic & Lefr`ere, 2008). Thus, increasing the number of donors is becoming important to compensate for this reduction and to increase the number of blood products to treat people. Previous studies found that blood donation requests were difficult to influence by well-known compliance-growth procedures (Cialdini & Ascani, 1976; Foss & Dempsey, 1979; Gu´eguen et al., 2011). The researchers
576
The Journal of Psychology
explained this failure by arguing that although these techniques are probably effective for minimal forms of aid, it is unlikely to significantly affect willingness to comply with more substantial requests involving behaviors that are psychologically costly to perform, such as blood donation requests. Our study seems to show that the DITF technique with good control of the delay between the verbal acceptance of the request and the possibility to make the promised donation is an efficient method for increasing blood donation and reaching people’s resistance to blood donation. AUTHOR NOTE Nicolas Gu´eguen (Ph.D.) is a Professor of social behavior at the Universit´e de Bretagne-Sud. His research interests are compliance, gaining-procedures and nonverbal behavior. REFERENCES Barkworth, L., Hibbert, S., Horne, S., & Tagg, S. (2002). Giving at risk? Examining perceived risk and blood donation behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management, 18, 905–922. doi: 10.1362/0267257012930376. Cialdini, R., & Ascani, K. (1976). Test of a concession procedure for inducing verbal, behavioral and further compliance with a request to give blood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 295–300. doi: 10.1037/h0033368 Cialdini, R., Vincent, J., Lewis, S., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & Lee Darby, B. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206–215. doi: 10.1037/h0076284 Danic, B, & Lefr`ere, J.-J. (2008). De vous a` moi, donnez votre sang, le sang, le sang du don. Paris: Medi-Text. Foss, R., & Dempsey, C. (1979). Blood donation and the Foot-in-the-Door technique: A limiting case. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 37, 580–590. doi:10.1037/00223514.37.4.580 Gu´eguen, N., Affifi, F., Brault, S., Charles-Sire, V., Leforestier P. M., Morzedec, A., & Piron, E. (2011). Failure of tactile contact to increase request compliance: The case of blood donation behavior. Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis, 77–84. Gu´eguen, 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 Pascual, A., & Gu´eguen, N. (2005). Foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face: A comparative meta-analytic study. Psychological Reports, 96, 122–128. doi:10.2466/PR0.96 Pratkanis, A. R. (2007). The science of social influence. New York, NY: Psychological Press. Rapport d’activit´e, Etablissement Franc¸ais du Sang (Activity report of the “Etablissement Franc¸ais du Sang). (2008). Retrieved from www.dondusang.net/media593 dYpkLEiJKmeiqLK.pdf? Shanab, M., & Isonio, S. (1980). The effects of delay upon compliance with socially undesirable requests in the Door-in-the-Face paradigm. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 76–78. doi: 10.3758/BF03334470
Original manuscript received February 8, 2013 Final version accepted June 19, 2013
Door-in-the-Face Technique and Delay to Fulfill the Final Request: An Evaluation With a Request to Give Blood ´ NICOLAS GUEGUEN Universit´e de Bretagne-Sud
ABSTRACT. We tested the Door-in-the-Face technique (DITF) on blood donation with a delay between the acceptance of the request and the real possibility of complying with it. University students were solicited to give blood during a special one-day drive. After the refusal to participate in a long-term donor program, participants were asked for a one unit blood donation. In the control condition, only the latter request was addressed. The participants were either solicited two or three hours before the blood drive (delay) or during the blood drive (no delay). Results showed the DITF technique to be associated with greater verbal compliance with the request. However, the DITF technique with no delay was associated with greater behavioral compliance than were both of the control conditions and the DITF with a delay condition. Keywords: door-in-the-face, compliance, blood donation
THE FRENCH NATIONAL BLOOD BANK (Etablissement franc¸ais du sang, EFS) is confronted with a chronic deficit of whole blood and blood products; this threatens the functioning of the entire health system. The World Health Organization estimates that if only 1% of the world’s population donated blood, this would be sufficient to cover the basic need for safe blood on a global scale. Blood loss during elivery is one of the leading causes of maternal death worldwide and the lack of blood available for the treatment of anemia, which threatens the lives of thousands of children suffering from malaria or malnutrition, is a primary cause of infant mortality in developing countries. In developed countries such as France, modern health care systems require increased quantities of blood that go far beyond mere vital necessity as they are now linked to scientific standing whether medical or surgical and also the aging population. Media campaigns regularly call on the generosity of potential blood donors, but perhaps because of the specificity of the act of donating blood (Gu´eguen et al., 2011) the number of donors decrease Address correspondence to Nicolas Gu´eguen, Universit´e de Bretagne-Sud, LSHS, 4, rue Jean Zay, BP 92116, Lorient, 56321 France; [email protected] (e-mail). 569
570
The Journal of Psychology
consistently. Indeed, the worldwide shortage of active blood donors (Barkworth, Hibbert, Horne, & Tagg, 2002) has driven researchers to investigate new ways of increasing blood donations. The challenge for the French National Blood Bank to secure the health system is to attract new donors and to strengthen their approach for retaining active donors. In France, there is a clear difference between attitudes and actions in blood donor behavior. While 98% of the French are in favor of giving, only 4.5% of all individuals are active donors (Activity report of the “Etablissement Franc¸ais du Sang, 2008). This raises two questions in particular. Firstly, how is intention transformed into commitment in the 4% of the population that actively donates blood? And secondly, what stops those individuals who are willing to give blood from transforming their attitudes into action? Door-in-the-Face Technique To increase compliance with a request, several techniques exist in social psychology literature (see Pratkanis, 2007 for a review). One of these techniques, the Door-in-the-Face (DITF), consists in making a substantially larger first request with a high probability of being refused, then submitting a less costly second request. This way, the second critical request has a greater probability of being accepted than if it were formulated directly (without the first costly request) to the individual (Cialdini et al., 1975). A meta-analysis (Pascual & Gu´eguen, 2005) has shown the DITF to be an effective technique for increasing compliance with a request.For Shanab and Isiono (1980) the effect of DITF is explained by contrast theory. According to this theory, the initial large request serves as an anchor point that leads one to perceive the second request as less costly than if it were to be made directly. Congruent with such an explanation, they found that when several minutes separated the presentation of the initial large request and the second request, the DITF technique was not efficient in gaining compliance whereas it was efficient when no delay separated the two requests. These authors concluded that participants were unable to make a contrast between the two requests when a delay occurred, leading them to perceive the real cost of the second request. Door-in-the-Face and Blood Donation Most of the studies on DITF have used requests for the benefit of human organization, health or charity (organizations collecting funds or food products for later distribution, association for the prevention of alcohol consumption, association with volunteers who help children for they academic homework . . . ) and succeed in increasing compliance. However, it has been found that DITF failed to increase blood donation. Cialdini and Ascani (1976) asked students to donate one unit of blood during a campus blood drive. In the DITF condition this request was preceded by the initial extreme request of asking the students to donate their blood once every two months for a period of three years. The authors found the DITF technique to be efficient in increasing verbal compliance (49.2% vs. 31.7%) but
Gu´eguen
571
that it failed to increase the behavioral compliance (the number of donors who actually gave their blood) measured one day later (38.7% vs. 35%). Such discrepant results between verbal and behavioral compliance could be explained by the delay time between the requests made to the participants and the actual possibility of complying with the request. Several studies found the DITF technique to be totally ineffective if several minutes had passed between the two requests (Cialdini et al., 1975; Shanab & Isiono, 1980). The concession made by the requester will in turn lead the individual to make a concession and accept the second request. However, it seems that this pressure is momentary because if the requester makes his second request after a few minutes, it is no longer well-accepted compared to the control group. Consequently, this internal pressure to concede only lasts for a very short time. In the DITF blood study of Cialdini and Ascani (1976) no delay was used between the initial and target requests. However, delay between the verbal and behavioral compliance was long and could explain why these authors found no effect of blood donation after 24 hours. The initial pressure to comply with the request produced by DITF could have decreased with the delay, which in the end led the participant not to give his/her blood. However, if the participant had the opportunity to give his/her blood immediately we could then expect to obtain more behavioral compliance with the DITF technique. Thus, the delay associated with the possibility of achieving a request after using the DITF technique was manipulated in a study where behavioral compliance with a blood donation request was measured. Method Participants Study participants were 516 undergraduate students (254 in the 2 DITF groups and 262 in the 2 control groups) who were solicited to donate blood while entering a campus building at the University of Bretagne-Sud, in France. Most participants were female (59.2%). The participants were selected to be in the control or DITF conditions according to random distribution. Procedure Four undergraduate student assistants (2 men and 2 women) acted as requesters in the experiment, which was conducted during a one-day blood drive. As in previous years, announcements about the blood drive were posted in several places inside and outside the building in front of which arriving students were approached by a requester. The assistant received no instruction to select a participant. He/she was just instructed to approach a student entering in the building as soon as he/she was available to approach the participant. Of course, this method implied that the assistant was not occupied by a previous participant. Prior to beginning the interaction with a participant, the assistant was instructed to consult a list of letters (C or E print on one column with a number order associated) who
572
The Journal of Psychology
instructed him/her to use the control condition when a “E” was printed or the DITF condition when a “D” was printed. In the control and DITF with behavioral delay conditions the participants were solicited in the morning from 9:00 to 11:30 a.m. while the blood drive was carried out at the beginning of the afternoon from 2:00 to 5:30 p.m. In the control with behavioral delay condition, the requester stated: Hello, I have been sent by the blood bank of France to inform you of our blood drive, which is being conducted this afternoon here in this building, room C1, from 2:00 to 5.30 p.m. Would you like to participate by giving us just one unit of blood?” (Requester noted participant’s intent). “Please take this card with you (Experimenter offers a business card with information about the blood drive room and collection hours) and provide it as proof that we have spoken with you. Thanks very much and have a great day.
In the DITF with behavioral delay condition the requester stated: Hello, I have been sent by the blood bank of France. We’re currently asking students to become involved in a long-term donor program. A long-term donor is an individual who pledges to give a unit of blood once every two months (three months for a woman) for at least three years. This way we can be sure to have a continual supply of blood. Would you be willing to enroll in this long-term donor program? (after the participant declined, the experiment continued). Oh well! I understand but maybe you’d be interested in our blood drive, which is being conducted this afternoon here in this building, room C1, from 2:00 to 5:30 p.m. Would you like to participate by giving us just one unit of blood?” (Requester notes participant’s intent). “Please take this card with you (Experimenter offers a business card with information about the blood drive room and collection hours) and provide it as proof that we have spoken with you. Thanks very much and have a great day.
In the control and DITF without behavioral delay conditions the participants were solicited from 2:00 to 4:30 p.m. while the blood drive was taking place. In these two conditions rather than saying “ . . . our blood drive, which is being conducted this afternoon here in this building, room C1, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.”, the requester stated “ . . . our blood drive, which is going on right now in this building, room C1, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.” In order to later determine what group each participant was in, the business cards offered were slightly different. There was a top vertical bar on the right for the control group with delay and a top vertical bar on the left for the DITF group with delay. Similarly, there was a bottom vertical bar on the right for the control group with no delay and a bottom vertical bar on the left for the DITF group with no delay. To determine which group participants were in, a medical assistant who greeted potential donors as they entered the blood collection room was instructed to ask them if they had received cards and, if so, to collect them.
Gu´eguen
573
Results The dependent variables used in this experiment were the number of verbal agreements to blood donation requests during experimenter/participant interaction (verbal compliance) and the number of participants who actually went to the blood drive room to give a donation (behavioral compliance). As we found no difference between our experimental conditions and requesters or in participant gender, data were collapsed. The results obtained per experimental group are depicted in Table 1. With the verbal compliance data (DV1), a Loglinear analysis of 2 (DITF/ Control) × 2 (delay/no delay) design with compliance behavior as the dichotomous dependent variable was performed. A main effect of the DITF procedure was found (χ 2(1, N = 516) = 18.78, p < .001, ф = .19) revealing that overall in the combined DITF condition more verbal compliance with the request was found (61.8%) than in the combined control conditions (42.7%). However, neither the main effect of the delay (χ 2(1, N = 516) = 0.19, p = .66, ф = .02) nor the interaction between compliance procedures and delay (χ 2(4, N = 516) = 0.61, p = .96, ф = .04) were statically significant. Two behavioral dependent variables were considered. The first, (DV2) studied the “overall behavioral compliance” and considered the participants of the total sample regardless of whether they had verbally complied or not. The second, (DV3) studied “behavioral compliance” by conditions but only considered those who had verbally complied with the donation request. With both dependent variables, a Loglinear analysis of 2 (DITF/Control) × 2 (delay/no delay) design was utilized. When considering compliance with the total sample of participants (DV2), a main effect of the DITF procedure was found (χ 2(1, N = 516) = 7.02, p = .008,
TABLE 1. Percentage of Verbal and Behavioral Compliance Per Experimental Group (Frequency in Brackets) DITF Conditions
Verbal compliance (DV1) Behavioral compliance Versus total sample (DV2) Versus verbally compliant participants (DV3)
Control Conditions
Delay N = 129
No delay N = 125
Delay N = 129
No delay N = 133
62.8% (81/129) 16.3% (21/129)
60.8% (76/125) 25.6% (32/125)
39.5% (51/129) 10.1% (13/129)
42.1% (56/133) 14.3% (19/133)
25.9% (21/81)
42.1% (32/76)
25.5% (13/51)
33.9% (19/56)
574
The Journal of Psychology
ф = .12) revealing that overall in the combined DITF condition more behavioral compliance with the request was found (20.9%) than in the combined control conditions (12.2%). A significant effect of the delay was found (χ 2(1, N = 516) = 4.07, p = .044, ф = .09) revealing that overall in the no delay conditions more behavioral compliance with the request was found (19.8%) than in the combined delay conditions (13.2%). Post-hoc comparison revealed that the DITF no-delay condition appeared significantly different from the control delay condition (χ 2(1, N = 254) = 10.49, p = .001, ф = .20) and the control no-delay condition (χ 2(1, N = 258) = 5.20, p = .023, ф = .14) and slightly different from the DITF delay condition (χ 2(1, N = 254) = 3.34, p = .065, ф = .11). However, no further comparisons were significant. When considering the compliance of the participants who have comply verbally to the request (DV3), a significant effect of the delay was found (χ 2(1, N = 264) = 4.09, p = .043, ф = .12) revealing that in the no delay conditions more behavioral compliance with the request was found overall (37.2%) than in the combined delay conditions (25.7%). Neither the main effect of the DITF procedure was found (χ 2(1, N = 264) = 0.81, p = .37, ф = .05) nor were the interaction between compliance procedures and delay (χ 2(4, N = 264) = 6.35, p = .174, ф = .15) statistically significant. Post-hoc comparison revealed that the DITF no-delay condition appeared significantly different from the DITF delay condition (χ 2(1, N = 157) = 4.59, p = .032, ф = .17) and slightly different from the control delay condition (χ 2(1, N = 127) = 3.68, p = .055, ф = .17) but not with the control no-delay condition (χ 2(1, N = 132) = 0.91, p = .34, ф = .08). Again, no further comparisons were significant.
Discussion Our hypothesis was supported by the results. First, we found that overall, the DITF technique appeared to be effective in increasing the number of blood donators. This positive effect was found with the measure of participants’ verbal intention and confirmed the results found by Cialdini and Ascani (1976) with their own verbal intention variable. Second, we found that DITF remained efficient in increasing behavioral compliance but only when no delay existed between the use of this technique and the possibility for the participant to give his/her blood (DITF no delay condition). Such results are important given that Cialdini and Ascani failed to observe a positive effect of DITF on behavioral compliance. However, participants in their study were asked for blood donation one day before the blood drive. In the DITF with a delay condition of our experiment, the solicitation was done two to three hours before the beginning of the blood drive. However it seems that two to three hours are sufficient for decreasing the behavioral effect of DITF and thus, our results in the DITF with a delay condition confirmed those found in Cialdini and Ascani’s study. Thus, Cialdini and Ascani probably failed to observe
Gu´eguen
575
an increase in behavioral compliance because they performed the DITF one day before the blood drive. Such results have a theoretical implication in that the DITF technique appeared to be efficient only when there was no delay between verbal and behavioral compliance. Previous studies conducted on the DITF technique found that the delay is an important factor to control when using the DITF technique. Shanab and Isiono (1980) reported in a laboratory setting that a several minute delay between the first and the second request is associated with no statistical efficiency of the DITF technique. The effect of the delay was found in a recent study conducted by Gu´eguen, Jacob, and Meineri (2011) in a restaurant. After the refusal of dessert at the end of the meal, waitresses suggested tea/or coffee to the customers. This later proposition was addressed immediately after the refusal of the dessert or three minutes later. It was found that the number of customers who ordered coffee/tea was significantly higher in the no-delay condition. Of course, in our experiment the delay between the initial and the second request in DITF was not manipulated. However, our results showed that the delay between verbal and behavioral compliance is also an important factor. Thus, it seems that two delays are important to control when using the DITF technique: the first delay between the two requests and the second between the time of verbal compliance and the time between agreeing to do something and behaviorally following thru with it. According to Shanab and Isiono (1980), the DITF effect occurred when the individual could perceive a contrast between the first request and the second request, a contrast that led him/her to perceive the second request as less costly. It seems that when a delay occurred between verbal and behavioral compliance, this contrast effect disappeared and led the individual to perceive the second request at its real cost. In the DITF with no delay condition of our experiment, this contrast was activated with the DITF technique still in participant’s conscious and that is why he/she complied with the request by donating his/her blood. However, in the DITF condition with a delay between verbal and behavioral compliance, the initial contrast effect activated by the DITF technique could have decreased as the time elapsed and have led the participant to perceive the second request at its real cost. At this time, blood donation was perceived at its real cost—and previous studies reported that blood donation is perceived as a costly behavior (Barkworth et al., 2002; Foss & Dempsey, 1979; Gu´eguen et al., 2011)—that is probably why less participants came to the blood drive to donate their blood. This experiment has some practical applicability. Increasing the number of blood donations has become urgent (Barkworth et al., 2002), particularly in France where the number of donations per donor has decreased during the last decade (Danic & Lefr`ere, 2008). Thus, increasing the number of donors is becoming important to compensate for this reduction and to increase the number of blood products to treat people. Previous studies found that blood donation requests were difficult to influence by well-known compliance-growth procedures (Cialdini & Ascani, 1976; Foss & Dempsey, 1979; Gu´eguen et al., 2011). The researchers
576
The Journal of Psychology
explained this failure by arguing that although these techniques are probably effective for minimal forms of aid, it is unlikely to significantly affect willingness to comply with more substantial requests involving behaviors that are psychologically costly to perform, such as blood donation requests. Our study seems to show that the DITF technique with good control of the delay between the verbal acceptance of the request and the possibility to make the promised donation is an efficient method for increasing blood donation and reaching people’s resistance to blood donation. AUTHOR NOTE Nicolas Gu´eguen (Ph.D.) is a Professor of social behavior at the Universit´e de Bretagne-Sud. His research interests are compliance, gaining-procedures and nonverbal behavior. REFERENCES Barkworth, L., Hibbert, S., Horne, S., & Tagg, S. (2002). Giving at risk? Examining perceived risk and blood donation behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management, 18, 905–922. doi: 10.1362/0267257012930376. Cialdini, R., & Ascani, K. (1976). Test of a concession procedure for inducing verbal, behavioral and further compliance with a request to give blood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 295–300. doi: 10.1037/h0033368 Cialdini, R., Vincent, J., Lewis, S., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & Lee Darby, B. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206–215. doi: 10.1037/h0076284 Danic, B, & Lefr`ere, J.-J. (2008). De vous a` moi, donnez votre sang, le sang, le sang du don. Paris: Medi-Text. Foss, R., & Dempsey, C. (1979). Blood donation and the Foot-in-the-Door technique: A limiting case. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 37, 580–590. doi:10.1037/00223514.37.4.580 Gu´eguen, N., Affifi, F., Brault, S., Charles-Sire, V., Leforestier P. M., Morzedec, A., & Piron, E. (2011). Failure of tactile contact to increase request compliance: The case of blood donation behavior. Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis, 77–84. Gu´eguen, 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 Pascual, A., & Gu´eguen, N. (2005). Foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face: A comparative meta-analytic study. Psychological Reports, 96, 122–128. doi:10.2466/PR0.96 Pratkanis, A. R. (2007). The science of social influence. New York, NY: Psychological Press. Rapport d’activit´e, Etablissement Franc¸ais du Sang (Activity report of the “Etablissement Franc¸ais du Sang). (2008). Retrieved from www.dondusang.net/media593 dYpkLEiJKmeiqLK.pdf? Shanab, M., & Isonio, S. (1980). The effects of delay upon compliance with socially undesirable requests in the Door-in-the-Face paradigm. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 76–78. doi: 10.3758/BF03334470
Original manuscript received February 8, 2013 Final version accepted June 19, 2013
