Door-in-the-face technique
The door-in-the-face (DITF) technique is a psychological strategy used to persuade individuals to agree to a request by first presenting an outrageous or unreasonable request, which is likely to be rejected. Following this, a more moderate request is made, which is what the requester actually seeks. This technique leverages the principles of reciprocity and guilt, as individuals may feel compelled to respond positively to the second, more reasonable request after initially refusing the first. Commonly applied in marketing, fundraising, and social interactions, the DITF technique can increase the likelihood of compliance significantly.
Historically, this method derives its name from the practice of door-to-door sales, where a salesperson might face rejection before making a more appealing offer. Research by social psychologist Robert Cialdini demonstrated its effectiveness through experiments, highlighting how individuals are more inclined to accept a request after declining an extreme version of it. While not infallible, the DITF technique illustrates the complexities of human social behavior and decision-making. It serves as one of several sequential request strategies, differing from others like the foot-in-the-door technique, which involves starting with a small request to subsequently make a larger one.
Door-in-the-face technique
The door-in-the-face technique, or DITF, is a psychology term for a way of persuading or manipulating a person into agreeing to a request. The requestor asks a person to do something that is so outrageous nearly anyone would refuse. This is followed by a request for something much more reasonable, which is what the requestor really wanted in the first place. The person is then more likely to agree to this second request.
There are several explanations for why DITF works. Guilt and a desire to be seen in a favorable light are thought to be the most likely reasons for agreeing to the second request. The DITF technique is used in marketing, fundraising, sales, and everyday life.
Background
The name for the technique comes from the days when people selling items literally went from house to house, knocking on doors to see if anyone wanted to buy their wares. The practice had existed for centuries, but experienced a huge surge in the United States between the 1880s and mid-1900s. Household goods and books were the most common items sold in the early days, but companies such as Avon began selling beauty products and other items in the late nineteenth century. Some salespersons continue to use this method in the present day. Though the practice was common and was often the most convenient way to purchase these items, not everyone appreciated the appearance of a salesperson on their doorstep. Salespeople who annoyed the homeowner or who were selling items deemed too expensive were likely to have the door slammed in their face.
Overview
The DITF technique was so named because the person making the request intentionally encourages the other person to “slam the door in their face” by asking for something excessive. Once the person says no, essentially slamming the door, the requestor asks for something much more reasonable. Researchers found that making the first outlandish request dramatically increased the likelihood of getting a favorable response to the second request.
For instance, an employee wants to have the following Saturday off to attend a concert. The employee asks the boss for the next two weeks as vacation time. When the boss refuses, the employee then asks for the Saturday off. While it is not a foolproof technique, studies have shown that this request is more likely to get a positive response. Similarly, a person who approaches a vendor at a flea market and offers $5 for an item priced at $100 is likely to get “no” as an answer. If the customer then offers $50, the vendor is more likely to agree, even if they would have thought that price too low originally.
The door-in-the-face technique is an example of a sequential request intended to improve the odds of gaining compliance with the request. A sequential request is a technique where the requestor asks for something other than what they actually want as a means of encouraging or manipulating another person into complying with the actual request. Other methods of sequential requests include the foot-in-the-door technique and the low-ball technique.
The foot-in-the-door technique also takes its name from the days of door-to-door salespeople. Some sellers would literally wedge their foot in the doorway to prevent customers from slamming the door and use that small opening to make their sales pitch. This technique is the opposite of the door-in-the-face technique in that the requestor asks for something small and then, once that request is agreed to, asks for something larger. An example might be a student who asks a classmate to borrow their notes from the day’s class. When the classmate agrees, the student might ask if the classmate will spend Saturday helping them to study for an upcoming test.
The low-ball technique is often used in sales. The salesperson might get the customer to agree to the purchase of a new computer by offering an irresistibly low price. When the time comes for the sale to be completed, the salesperson says he needs to get approval from the manager, then comes back and says the price needs to be higher. The customer has likely already imagined the computer as theirs and is more likely to make the purchase.
These types of persuasive techniques were the subject of the 1984 book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Arizona State University psychology professor Robert Cialdini. Cialdini conducted a famous experiment that illustrated the DITF technique. He and his associates asked people to commit to mentoring juvenile delinquents every week for two years, a commitment so great it was almost guaranteed to generate refusals. He then asked the same group if they would take the juveniles to the zoo for the day. Many more agreed than in the control group, which was only asked to volunteer for the zoo trip. In addition, a greater percentage of those who were asked through the DITF technique actually showed up to volunteer compared to the control group. The results of several meta-analyses in the 2000s and 2010s confirmed the impact of the door-in-the-face technique on compliance. A group of German researchers in the early 2020s also replicated Cialdini's findings.
Psychologists have offered several explanations for why the technique works. Cialdini noted that one factor might be that the person being asked sees the second request as representing a concession on the part of the requestor. The social conventions of many cultures encourage reciprocity and would indicate that this concession should be matched with a concession on the part of the person being asked.
Another possible explanation is guilt; the person feels guilty for turning down the first request and seeks to assuage that guilt by accepting the second request. This theory was borne out in studies that showed that people approached with DITF requests were more likely to agree to the second request if they had some time to reflect on their refusal before the second request was made. Another potential explanation applies when the requestor is someone known to the person being asked. Human nature makes people want to be liked and thought well of by friends and family. The idea of upsetting or disappointing a friend or family member can increase compliance with the second request.
Bibliography
Bhasin, Hitesh. “Door in the Face Marketing Technique.” Marketing 91, 4 May 2018, www.marketing91.com/door-in-the-face-marketing-technique. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
“Door in the Face (DITF).” Changing Minds, changingminds.org/techniques/general/sequential/ditf.htm. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
“The Door-in-the-Face Technique as a Compliance Strategy.” Psychologist World, 2019, www.psychologistworld.com/behavior/compliance/strategies/door-in-the-face-technique. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
Genschow, Oliver, et al. “Does Social Psychology Persist over Half a Century? A Direct Replication of Cialdini et Al.’S (1975) Classic Door-in-the-Face Technique.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 120, no. 2, 2021, pp. e1–e7, doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000261. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
Luttrell, Andy. “Reciprocity Technique #3: Door-in-the-Face.” Highbrow, gohighbrow.com/reciprocity-technique-3-door-in-the-face. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
McLeod, Saul. “Techniques of Compliance in Psychology.” Simply Psychology, 14 June 2023, www.simplypsychology.org/compliance.html. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
Tharakan, Kurian M. “Getting More Sales Conversions with Door in the Face Technique.” Strategy Peak, 2019, strategypeak.com/the-door-in-the-face-technique. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
Weinstein, Dorene. “Remember the Door-to-Door Sales Days?” Argus Leader, 29 Mar. 2014, www.argusleader.com/story/life/2014/03/28/remember-door-door-sales-days/7026505. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
Zaslove, Mira. “How to Use the ‘Door in the Face’ Technique to Get What You Want.” Huffington Post, 6 Dec. 2017, www.huffpost.com/entry/how-to-use-the-door-in-th‗b‗7225242. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.