Being inconsistent and compliant: The moderating role of the preference for consistency in the door-in-the-face technique

Katarzyna Cantarero , Małgorzata Gamian-Wilk , Dariusz Doliński


Preference for consistency (PFC) refers to individual differences in the desire to be congruent, to be perceived as such, and the preference for others to be consistent. There are studies that show PFC as a moderator of consistency- based social influence strategies. The present article proposes PFC as amoderator of the social influence technique known as “door-in-the-face” (DITF), and suggests that DITF effectiveness also depends on consistency processes. The results of our study (N = 191) indicate that although the DITF effect was generally strong, the technique was most effective when PFC was low. These results are in line with theoretical assumptions that posit a preference for consistency. Low PFC individuals prefer change and unpredictability, and therefore tend to display inconsistent behavior. As a consequence, their refusal of an initial request leads to a higher probability that they will consent to the target one. These results are the first to show individual differences in DITF and reliance on (in)consistency in the effectiveness of the technique.
Author Katarzyna Cantarero (Wydział Zamiejscowy w Sopocie)
Katarzyna Cantarero,,
- Wydział Zamiejscowy w Sopocie
, Małgorzata Gamian-Wilk (USSH)
Małgorzata Gamian-Wilk,,
- SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities
, Dariusz Doliński (Filia we Wrocławiu / II Wydział Psychologii we Wrocławiu)
Dariusz Doliński,,
- II Wydział Psychologii we Wrocławiu
Journal seriesPersonality and Individual Differences, ISSN 0191-8869, (A 35 pkt)
Issue year2017
Publication size in sheets0.5
Keywords in EnglishDoor-in-the-face technique, Social influence, Compliance, Preference for consistency, Individual differences
ASJC Classification3200 General Psychology
Languageen angielski
PAID (2).pdf 271.61 KB
Score (nominal)35
Score sourcejournalList
Publication indicators Scopus SNIP (Source Normalised Impact per Paper): 2016 = 1.183; WoS Impact Factor: 2017 = 1.967 (2) - 2017=2.39 (5)
Citation count*2 (2020-12-03)
Share Share

Get link to the record

* presented citation count is obtained through Internet information analysis and it is close to the number calculated by the Publish or Perish system.
Are you sure?