Summary: The door-in-the-face (DITF) technique is a persuasion method. Compliance with the request of concern is enhanced by first making an extremely large request that the respondent will obviously turn down, with a metaphorical slamming of a door in the persuader’s face. The respondent is then more likely to accede to a second, more reasonable request than if this second request were made without the first, extreme request. Cialdini (Cialdini, 2000) suggests this as a form of reciprocity, e.g. the first request creates a sense of debt or guilt that the second request offers to clear. Alternately, a reference point (or framing) construal may explain this phenomenon, as the initial bad offer sets a reference point from which the second offer looks like an improvement.

Read The Full Article Here

-

This study was the opposite of the Freedman and Fraswer studies. They first asked a large favor that would certainly be rejected, and then later asked a small favor.

This study explores the idea of “mutual reciprocal concessions” or “give and take” in negotiations. Previous studies showed that the idea of making an initial “firm” offer and holding pat was not an effective way to negotiate — start higher and “give and take” down to an equitable level.

It seems that initial extreme demands that are “backed off” cause the opponent to make increased mutual concessions as well.

“The hypothesis that is we were to begin by asking for an extreme favor which was sure to be refused by the other, and then we were to move to a smaller request, the other would feel a normative strain to match our concession with one of his own.”

Three conditions:

1. Rejection-Moderation condition. Subject was asked and refused first request, then asked a smaller favor.
2. Smaller Request Only control. Subject was asked only smaller request.
3. Exposure Control. Subject was described the big request and then asked for the smaller favor.

Results were that nobody agreed to the big request (ask to be a Big Brother or Sister at a detention center for two hours per week for two years). The smaller request was to chaperone a group of kids to the zoo.

Results were 1=50% compliance, 2=25% compliance, 3=16.7% compliance. A smaller request after a bigger request does improve compliance. Note that just telling them about the big request isn’t sufficient to build compliance.

Read The Full Article Here

If you enjoyed that why not find a job or read our guide to working in the 21st century. You can also join our Kiva team or hire me for your project.