Door-in-the-Face Technique: Definition, Origins & Examples

Have you ever been approached by someone who makes a huge request, knowing you’ll probably decline, and then immediately follows it up with a much smaller request?

It’s like when a friend asks to borrow your car for a week, and when you hesitate, they laugh it off and say, “Okay, okay, how about just for an afternoon?” Suddenly, that afternoon seems quite reasonable in comparison.

Isn’t it intriguing how our perspective changes so quickly? Can we truly trust our judgments, or are we easily swayed by clever tactics? What else might we agree to without realizing the subtle push?

What is the Door-In-The-Face Technique?

The Door-In-The-Face (DITF) technique is a persuasion tactic that involves initially making a very large request that is expected to be refused, followed by a much smaller request. The smaller request is what the requester actually hopes to have granted.

The curious name of this technique gives away a hint of its essence. Picture someone literally slamming a door in your face, only to slightly reopen it with a more modest proposition. The imagery might be a bit dramatic, but it paints a vivid picture of the initial rejection followed by a softer, more agreeable approach.

This tactic takes advantage of our innate desire to compromise and cooperate with others, ultimately increasing the likelihood of compliance with the smaller request.

Origins of the DITF Technique

In the 1970s, scholars Robert Cialdini and colleagues were intrigued by the ways people persuade one another. They designed a series of experiments to investigate this. One of these experiments gave birth to the concept of DITF.

College students were first asked if they would be willing to volunteer for two years as counselors for juvenile delinquents. An overwhelming majority said no (which was expected). But then, they were asked a smaller favor: to chaperone the same group of kids on a one-day trip to the zoo.

Had the smaller request been made outright, fewer participants would have complied. But when it was presented as a lesser alternative to a larger request, it seemed much more reasonable.

Mechanics of the DITF Technique

The Large Request

This initial request, often seen as excessive or unreasonable, is crucial to the DITF technique. It sets the stage by setting an expectation. While you might be taken aback by such a bold question, what you might not realize is that this large request is actually a setup for what’s to come next.

When faced with an unreasonable demand, your natural response might be to refuse it, creating a sense of relief when the smaller, more reasonable request follows.

Purpose: It sets a psychological anchor in the respondent's mind.
Anticipated response: Refusal by the majority of respondents.

The Reasonable Request

The second request is the reasonable one, where the compliance rate tends to be higher. After declining the first large request, you might feel a sense of guilt or social pressure to agree to the second, smaller request. This is the key to the Door-in-the-Face technique’s effectiveness.

Purpose: It appears much smaller in comparison to the large request, making it more likely for the respondent to agree.
Anticipated response: Higher rates of compliance than if the reasonable request was made on its own.

The Winning Strategy

To effectively use the DITF technique, you should follow these three steps:

1. Make an exaggerated request: Present a request that is likely to be rejected by the person you’re trying to persuade. This serves as an anchor for your real goal.
2. Receive a rejection: When the person refuses your initial request, acknowledge their response and respect their decision. Remember not to be pushy.
3. Present a smaller request: Once they’ve rejected the first request, introduce your actual, smaller request. It should be related to the initial one, but more moderate and reasonable.

Tips to Keep It Effective

• Don’t overuse this strategy—it’s less effective if people perceive you as constantly making unreasonable demands.
• Make sure the second request is genuinely more reasonable and achievable than the first.
• Present the second request soon after the rejection of the first one to capitalize on the contrast.

Psychological Principles Behind DITF

Principles of Reciprocal Concessions

In a social interaction, when one party makes a concession or compromise, the other party feels a certain pressure to reciprocate in kind. This reciprocity is deeply ingrained in our social behaviors and is considered a norm.

In the context of DITF, when the requester follows up the declined large request with a smaller one, it seems like they are making a concession. The subsequent smaller request creates an environment where the person being asked feels an urge to reciprocate the requester’s “compromise” by agreeing to the second, more reasonable ask.

This principle is underlined by our desire to maintain social balance and fairness. By making the second request appear as a concession, the requester positions themselves as being flexible, making the other party feel more inclined to meet them halfway.

The Contrast Principle

This principle is based on the human tendency to assess things relative to a reference point rather than in absolute terms. This is evident in many areas of our life, from shopping (where a sale item seems like a great deal next to a more expensive item) to visual illusions.

When applying the DITF technique, the first request serves as a reference point. Even if the smaller request might have been seen as somewhat large or unreasonable on its own, when compared against the initial request, it appears to be a much better deal.

In essence, our perception of value, size, or reasonableness is influenced by what we’ve just been exposed to. The DITF technique exploits this cognitive bias, leading individuals to feel more favorable towards the subsequent request because of the obvious contrast.

Guilt

Guilt, in the context of DITF, can be seen as the emotional byproduct of rejecting the first request. In many cultures, outright rejection or refusal can be associated with feelings of guilt or discomfort.

When the second, smaller request is presented, it provides an opportunity for the individual to alleviate this guilt. Agreeing to the second request serves as a form of redemption, allowing the person to balance out their previous refusal.

Practical Applications of DITF

Impact on Sales

You’ve probably been a target of the DITF technique without even realizing it. Ever been to a store where a salesperson first offers a high-priced item, only to follow up with a more affordable option?

• Downselling: If a customer declines the initial, pricier offer, they’re more likely to accept the cheaper alternative, believing it to be a better deal. This can result in higher overall sales, as customers feel they’re getting value for their money.
• Promotions and bundles: Retailers might introduce a high-priced bundle of items and then, upon decline, offer a simpler, cheaper bundle. By doing this, the smaller bundle seems like a much more attractive offer in comparison.

Fundraising and Donations

• Donations: A charity might first ask potential donors for a sizable donation, and when declined, they then propose a smaller amount or simpler way to assist.
• Volunteering: This technique can also be applied to time, not just money. When an organization initially asks for a week of volunteering and then scales down to just one day, individuals are more inclined to agree.

Role of Managers and Assistants

• Delegating tasks: By initially presenting a larger, more complex task and then scaling it down to the actual desired task, employees are more likely to accept and complete the work, finding it more manageable in comparison.
• Feedback and reviews: When managers seek feedback, starting with a broad and potentially overwhelming request like, “Can you provide a comprehensive review of the project?” and then narrowing it down to, “Could you share your thoughts on this specific section?” makes it easier for team members to provide input.

Social and Personal Interactions

• Making plans: One might suggest taking a two-week vacation together and, when met with hesitation, follow up with a weekend getaway proposal. The latter seems more feasible and likely to be accepted.
• Seeking favors: Need a friend’s assistance for a day? Start by asking them for a week’s commitment. When they balk at the week-long request, trim it down to a single day. Your actual requirement appears much more reasonable in comparison.

Everyday Interpersonal Interactions

• Parenting: If a child wants to stay up late, a parent might initially set an extremely early bedtime, only to “compromise” to a slightly earlier time than the child originally wanted.
• Educational settings: Teachers can use the DITF method to assign homework or projects. By first suggesting a hefty assignment and then scaling it down to what they originally intended, students are more likely to view the task as manageable.
• Relationships: If one partner wants to dine out every week, the other might suggest dining out once a month. Then, they can compromise to once every two weeks, which might have been the desired frequency from the start.

Limitations and Critiques

Situations Where DITF Might Not Work

• Inappropriate audience: The effectiveness of DITF largely hinges on the audience. For those who recognize the technique, the intended influence may be rendered ineffective or even produce negative sentiments.
• Overuse: Repeatedly using DITF on the same person or audience can lead to diminishing returns. People may become wary or suspicious, thereby reducing the likelihood of compliance.
• Mismatched requests: The initial request should be significant but not outrageously so. If the initial request is too extreme, it may alienate the target rather than setting up the subsequent smaller request.
• Cultural differences: DITF might not be effective across all cultures. In some societies, the principle of reciprocity may not hold as much weight, or making such direct requests might be seen as impolite.

Ethical Considerations

• Manipulation: At its core, DITF is a persuasive technique that can be viewed as manipulative. It can be argued that using such tactics without the other party’s awareness breaches ethical boundaries.
• Informed decision making: By presenting an intentionally extreme initial request, DITF can potentially distort a person’s ability to make an informed decision based on the true value or implications of the second request.
• Potential misuse: Like many psychological techniques, DITF can be misused in contexts that could harm individuals, especially when used for personal gain at the expense of others.

With that, while the Door-In-The-Face technique can be a powerful tool for persuasion, it’s essential to be aware of its limitations and potential pitfalls. As with all psychological strategies, ethical considerations should always be at the forefront of its application.