Reciprocal Concessions Procedure for Inducing Compliance: The Door-in-the-Face TechniqueThis article is published in the “Journal of Personality and Social Psychology” by a team of researchers who have conducted three experiments to test the effectiveness of the rejection rather than the moderation procedure. There were some different techniques used by the past researchers were also used. The Freedman and Fraser investigated the foot-in-the-door method in the year 1966. Another work of reciprocation which was completed by Gouldner in 1960. It was on the investigation of the concept of reciprocation which explained that this concept exists in approximately all the societies. Chertkoff and Conley in 1967 also conducted an experiment in which the bargaining situation is described and its effect on the opponent’s concessions. In the very next year on this study, Komorita and Brenner also conducted a research in which they concluded, if one individual reaches to a fair price the others don’t find it compelling overall to agree on it.In a precise explanation, the paper is composed after the experiments in which the authors have conducted three tests in which initially an extreme favor is asked which is commonly rejected and then the smaller favor is requested which is accepted. This technique is known as the rejection-then-moderation procedure. They verified that by understanding the other person’s strategy by self-perception would be useful. Some separate experiments were conducted which were also referred to let the reader understand the primary purpose of the paper and the tests being performed.The first experiment was to check the efficiency of including compliance. The main experiment theme was that the individual who has initially requested for an extreme favor and finds refusal would find acceptance on the smaller request rather than the person who only applied for a more modest request. Seventy-two individuals were included in which both male and female gender was included. The meetings and interviews with university students were conducted (Interview technique for the collection of data). The prediction was that the initial central theme would be correct. Results explained that none expressed positive response towards extreme favor. 50% refused entirely, there was only 25% of the exposure control, and 16% approved a smaller request.In the second experiment, the scenario is slightly changed. One person is conducting the first request for the extreme favor and the second person undertakes the second request for the smaller favor. The targeted individual would not perceive enough conceding and thus there would be no reciprocation mediated in the tendency. In total fifty-eight participants contributed to the study. They were all male candidates. Experimenter 1 asked for an extreme favor and experimenter two asked for a smaller favor. The prediction was similar to the experiment 1, but the results were entirely different. There was rejection-moderation condition compliance was 55%. The two requester control was 10.5%, and the smaller request control was also 31%. These results significantly favored than that of the first experiment.The third experiment was different from the first two. In this experiment, the two requests of the favor were being asked by the two different tests. Both requests were the smaller favors. Seventy-two participants were being included in this experiment in which both male and female participants were included. The third experiment resulted comparatively close to the first experiment. The compliance was being seen in the Rejection-moderation condition as 54%. The Equivalent request control was only 33.3, and similarly, the smaller request only controlled to 33.3%. The results included that 22 out of 24 subjects responded to both requests similarly.In a general discussion, all the experiments are analyzed and discussed in detail. It is evaluated that all of the three tests have indicated that the proposal of the extreme request and then moving towards the smaller request after rejection increases the compliance with the smaller request as it is easy to handle. This effect is explained to be highly applicable and powerful for inducing the compliance. The study of Freedman and Fraser conducted in 1966 is reminded that the tendency seen in the method of the foot-in-the-door similar to the experiments performed in this study. It is preferred that if the critical request would be counted as a smaller request concerning the initial request. The requester would not be entertained for the critical request mostly even if it is asked initially. These methods are highly being studied and are practiced in the common world. The rejection-then-modification procedure has another benefit that it is effective and would provide positive results in the average life.The feelings of the targeted person are also discussed as an advantage towards the outcome of the interaction. Benton, Kelley, and Liebling’s study conducted in 1972 is referred in which it is explained that the person who has been applied for the request will feel more confident and relaxed with the outcome of the specified techniques. The bargaining faced by the opponents who demand the maximum, moderate and failure and getting some payoff for themselves in an allocation of the agreement.The end of the discussion proceeded with the future research guidance in which the operationalization, as well as moderation from the more significant and extreme requests to the smaller one’s benefits, are explained. The two concepts are being discussed in which the target will no doubt will be perceived and the second one revealed that they would only be gained by the process being discussed above. Further investigation is required for the determination of the whether the aspects of concession induces compliance involves the granting of something, or anything like that or maybe both.