Foot-in-the-Door technique (FIDT)

J L Freedman & S C Fraser (1966) identified this effective compliance tactic that involves getting a person to agree to a large request by first setting them up by having that person agree to a modest request. It takes advantage of the foot-in-the-door phenomenon: "the tendency for people who have first agreed to a small request to comply later with a larger request" (D G Myers, 2007).

The technique is used by children ("Can I go over to Suzy's house for an hour?" is followed shortly by "Can I stay the night"), roommates ("Can I borrow the car to go to the store?" may be followed by "Can I borrow the car for the weekend?"), students ("May I turn in the paper a few hours late?" may be followed by "May I turn it in next week?"), charities ("Would you sign this petition for our cause?" is followed by "Would you donate to our cause?"), and bosses ("Would you do me this little favour?" later leads to "Would you do me this big favour?"). A related trick is the Bait-&-Switch, also known as the ‘Low-Ball’ technique.

A team of psychologists telephoned housewives in California and asked if the women would answer a few questions about the household products they used. 3 days later, the psychologists called again. This time, they asked if they could send 5 or 6 men into the house to go through cupboards and storage places as part of a 2-hour enumeration of household products. The investigators found these women were more than twice as likely to agree to the 2-hour request than a group of housewives asked only the larger request. (Freedman & Fraser, 1966)

Low-Ball

This works by first gaining commitment to the idea or item at lower costs which you are confident that the other person will accept, then using the fact that people will behave consistently with their beliefs to sustain the commitment when you change the agreement at a higher level.

This strategy is an illusion of irrevocability whereby a person believes that a decision made (at lower costs) cannot be reversed - they may consider a handshake instead of handing over the money as the final transaction to close that deal hence they have a responsibility to commit to it to the very end.

Besides, agreeing to a low price creates excitement and not buying after this state is induced may lead to an equally low mood which the person may avoid by continuing with the more expensive but reasonable purchase. When the final price is not that much higher than elsewhere, the person weighs up the inconvenience of going elsewhere with the short-term benefit of holding their purchase.

• First propose an attractive price on an idea/item which you are confident that the other person/buyer will not turn it away but will accept the deal
• Maximize their buy-in, in particular by getting both verbal and public commitment to this e.g. hand-shaking
• Make it clear that their decision to purchase is from their own free will
• Change the agreement to a higher level which you really want. The person/buyer may complain but they should agree to the change finally if the low-ball is done correctly

The trick of a successful low-ball is in the balance of making the initial request attractive enough to gain agreement, whilst not making the second request so outrageous that the other person refuses

Robert Cialdini, John Cacioppo, Rodney Bassett & John Miller (1978) asked students to participate in an experiment and 56% agreed. They then told the volunteers that the study was scheduled at 7 AM and the volunteers could withdraw at their free will. None did so and 95% turned up at the scheduled time (the Low-Ball group). Nonetheless, when a control group was asked to participate and were told the unsocial timing of the experiment up front, only 24% agreed to participate.

Door in the Face (DITF)

This 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. The respondent is then more likely to accede to a second, more reasonable request than if this second request were made with out the first, extreme request. There is also a feeling of guilt associated with the DITF technique of sequential requests (Cialdini, 2000). A person is also more likely to agree with the second request because they feel guilty for having rejected the first request. A reference point (or framing) construal can also explain this phenomenon, as the initial bad offer sets a reference point from which the second offer looks like an improvement.

Eg:-

• “Will you donate $1000 to our organization?” [Response is no].
  “Oh. Well could you donate $10?''
• “Can you help me do all this work?”
  “Well can you help me with this bit?''
• “Can I stay out until 4am?”
  “OK. How about midnight?''

Cialdini asked students to volunteer to council juvenile delinquents for two hours a week for two years. After their refusal, they were asked to chaperone juvenile delinquents on a one-day trip to the zoo. 50% agreed to chaperone the trip to the zoo as compared to 17% of participants who only received the zoo request (Robert B. Cialdini, Joyce Vincent, Stephen Lewis, José Catalan, Diane Wheeler & Betty Lee Darby, 1975).

Ingratiation

Ingratiation is a strategic attempt to get someone to like you in order to obtain compliance with a request (Graham Vaughan & Michael Hogg, 2008). Ingratiation is generally conceptualised as a variant of impression management tactics (David Buss, M Gomes, D S Higgins & K Lauterbach, 1987).

According to Edward E Jones (1966), the 3 major tactics for ingratiation are other-enhancement, opinion conformity, and self-presentation.

• Other-enhancement means flattery. People use this tactic to gain compliance by flattering an individual or reasoning with him or her instead of forcing compliance. The person focuses and often exaggerates the positive side and ignores the negative side, with the goal to communicate the idea that the ingratiator thinks highly of the other person. This tactic succeeds often because people find it difficult not to like people who think highly of them. Basically, the ingratiatory wants to be liked by showing liking and modesty, making themselves physically attractive and generating similarity towards the target person.
•  Opinion conformity is conforming to the various ways of the target person. The belief is that people like those with apparently similar values. Allow the target to ‘convince’ you of their opinion. Either consistent conformity or conformity preceded by sufficient resistance is both good strategies at ingratiation.
•  Self-presentation is to present one's own attributes in a manner that the target would approve and like. The level of status between the ingratiator and target are important. “Relatively high status individuals were more modest when induced to become ingratiating, while relatively low status individuals were more self-enhancing but only in predictable respects” (Eugene Burnstein, 1966).

Developed initially from Wilkipedia articles under the GNU Free Documentation Licence