door in the face experiment

Techniques of Compliance in psychology

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Compliance is a type of social influence where an individual does what someone else wants them to do, following his or her request or suggestion. It is similar to obedience , but there is no order – only a request.

According to Breckler, Olson, and Wiggins (2006, p. 307) “Compliance refers to a change in behavior that is requested by another person or group; the individual acted in some way because others asked him or her to do so (but it was possible to refuse or decline.)”

“Situations calling for compliance take many forms. These include a friend’s plea for help, sheepishly prefaced by the question “Can you do me a favor?” They also include pop-up ads on the Internet designed to lure you into a commercial site and the salesperson’s pitch for business prefaced by the dangerous words “Have I got a deal for you!” Sometimes the request is upfront and direct; what you see is what you get. At other times, it is part of subtle and more elaborate manipulation.”

(Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2011, p. 271)

Foot in the Door Technique

The foot-in-the-door technique is a compliance tactic that assumes agreeing to a small request increases the likelihood of agreeing to a second, larger request.

So, initially, you make a small request, and once the person agrees to this, they find it more difficult to refuse a bigger one (Freedman & Fraser, 1966).

For example, imagine one of your friends missed the last psychology class and asked to borrow your notes. This is a small request that seems reasonable, so you lend the notes to your friend.

A week later, the same friend asks to borrow all of your psychology notes. This is a large request – would you agree or not?

The foot-in-the-door phenomenon works on the principle of consistency . People prefer not to contradict themselves in both actions and beliefs. This means that as long as the request is consistent with or similar in nature to the original small request, the technique will work (Petrova et al., 2007).

Sherman (1980) called residents in Indiana (USA) and asked them if, hypothetically, they would volunteer to spend 3 hours collecting for the American Cancer Society.

Three days later, a second experimenter called the same people and actually requested help for this organization. Of those responding to the earlier request, 31% agreed to help. This is much higher than the 4% of a similar group of people who volunteered to help when approached directly.

Door-in-the-Face Technique

The door-in-the-face technique is a compliance method whereby the persuader attempts to convince the respondent to comply by making a large request that the respondent will most likely turn down.

This technique achieves compliance as refusing a large request increases the likelihood of agreeing to a second, smaller request.

Initially, you make a big request that a person can be expected to refuse. Then you make a smaller request that the person finds difficult to refuse because they feel they shouldn’t always say NO!

For example, negotiating a pay rise with your boss. First, you make a request that will not be met and ask for 20%. When this is refused, you make a more realistic request and ask for 10%.

Cialdini (1975) asked participants if they would escort a group of young criminals to the zoo; most refused (control group). In the control group, 2 participants were approached and asked to spend 2 hours per week as a peer counsellor to young criminals for around two years; again, most said no.

However, in the experimental condition, participants were asked to be peer counselors, and then the request was downgraded to escort children to the zoo (the target request). 50% agreed to the request.

It has been found the door-in-the-face technique produces high levels of compliance only when the same person makes the request and the requests are similar in nature.

This technique works due to the principle of reciprocity (Cialdini et al., 1975). Saying “no” to a large request may make the person feel they owe the other person who made the request a favor.

Low-Ball Technique

The low-balling technique is a compliance method in which the persuader gets a person to commit to a low-ball offer they have no intention of keeping; then, the price is suddenly increased.

Since a person has already committed, it is hard to say no to the new higher price demand.

For example, when buying a car, the salesman agrees on a price but must “check” with his manager if this is acceptable. While waiting, you think you have secured a good deal. The salesman returns and says the manager would not agree to the deal, and the price is raised. Most people agree with the higher price.

Cialdini (1978) asked students whether they would participate in a psychology experiment that started at 7 am and most participants refused (control group).

In an experimental condition, Cialdini asked participants whether they would participate in a psychology experiment, and even though they weren’t told a time, most participants agreed.

Later they were told that it started at 7 am and given the chance to drop out if they wanted. On the day of the experiment 95% turned up.

The success of this technique works on the principle of commitment . Because the person has said “yes” or agreed to an initial request, commitment has been given.

When the request changes or becomes unreasonable, the person will (to a degree) find it difficult to say “no” because of having originally committed themselves.

Learning Check

Which of the following is the best example of the foot-in-the-door persuasion technique?

A salesperson asks a homeowner if they can leave a small sign in their yard. After agreeing to this, the homeowner is later asked if they can host a product demonstration at their home.
A charity organization immediately asks for a large donation from a potential donor.
A store offers a big discount on a product, but only if the customer buys another, more expensive product first.
A politician makes a series of increasingly unrealistic promises to win votes.

Breckler, S. J., Olson, J. M., & Wiggins, E. C. (2006). Social Psychology Alive . Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Cialdini, R. B., Cacioppo, J. T., Bassett, R., & Miller, J. A. (1978). Low-ball procedure for producing compliance: commitment then cost . Journal of personality and Social Psychology , 36(5), 463.

Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J. E., Lewis, S. K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & Darby, B. L. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of personality and Social Psychology , 31(2), 206.

Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: the foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of personality and social psychology, 4(2), 195.

Kassin, S. M., Fein, S., & Markus, H. R. (2011). Social Psychology . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth – Cengage Learning.

Petrova, P. K., Cialdini, R. B., & Sills, S. J. (2007). Consistency-based compliance across cultures . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 104-111.

Sherman, S. J. (1980). On the self-erasing nature of errors of prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(2) , 211-221.

Learn More Psychology

The door-in-the-face technique as a compliance strategy, how the door-in-the-face technique is used to persuade people to comply with requests..

Permalink Print |

The door-in-the-face technique is a type of sequential request strategy. It is often used to increase compliance rates of a particular request. In contrast to the foot-in-the-door technique , which prefaces a request with a smaller request that the respondent is more likely to agree with, door-in-the-face requests involve asking a more demanding question, followed by the actual request.

Compliance Techniques

Foot-in-the-Door as a Persuasive Technique
Ingratiation as a Persuasive Strategy
Norm of Reciprocity and Persuasion
The Low-Ball Technique

The first request is an unrealistic demand, which a reasonable person would be likely to refuse. When the second, intended request is made, it appears the respondent to be reasonable in comparison to the first demand. In theory, a person is more likely to agree to it as a result.

The door-in-the-face technique can be observed in many situations - you may even have used it without realising.

In flea markets, for example, where prices are often negotiable, a man might ask an antique seller the price of a clock.

“The clock is priced at $500,” the seller tells the man.

Both parties realise that the price is unreasonable - the clock cannot be worth more than $50, a tenth of the asking price. The man politely declines the seller and turns to walk away - shutting a metaphorical ‘door in the face’ of the retailer.

Then, the seller calls after the man.

“But today, sir, I will sell the clock to you for just $100!”, he calls.

The man thinks that this second price is more reasonable, and purchases the clock. He thinks that the seller reducing the price has resulting in him winning a good deal. Yet, he has paid twice the price of $50 he originally estimated the clock to be worth. The seller is the person who has benefitted the most from the sale, using the door-in-the-face technique.

In another situation, a mother might ask her son, who is playing a game, to clean the living room, dining room and his bedroom whilst she prepares dinner. The boy might resist, claiming that there is too much to clean in such a short amount of time. The mother replies, “Very well, but can’t you at least clean your bedroom?”.

By comparison with the first request, the second seems reasonable to the boy, and he would agree. By using this persuasive technique, the mother has convinced her son to clean his bedroom rather than play games.

The door-in-the-face technique was tested in a 1975 study conducted by Robert Cialdini. A professor at Arizona State University, Caldini has led decades of research into persuasion . He is best known for his 1984 book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion .

Cialdini asked a group of participants a large initial request: whether they would agree to be mentors for prisoners for two years. He then asked this of another group, then followed up the question with a request for them to escort children around a zoo. The participants tended to agreed to this second, smaller request. Even though it also required time and effort, it was more reasonable than the initial two-year commitment request ( Cialdini et al, 1975 ).

But why does this method of persuasion tend to produce increased compliance?

Explanations

A number of explanations have been suggested for the efficacy of the door-in-the-face technique.

One explanation is that the refusal of an initial request, even if it is unreasonable, leads respondents to experience a sense of guilt . O’Keefe and Figgé (1999) noted that guilt reduction can motivate compliance with an ultimate demand. The belief that agreeing to a second request will help to reduce our sense of guilt motivates us to comply.

Robert Cialdini also suggested that people interpret the lowering in demand between the first and second requests as a sign of compromise on the part of the person asking the favor. As they believe that this reduction has been made in order to help them out, they feel obliged to follow the norm of reciprocity - a social norm whereby favors are returned. To repay the goodwill, people subjected to the door-in-the-face technique feel the need to compromise themselves by agreeing to the second request.

Another explanation of the compliance rates gained from this technique regards more self-centered motives.

We generally want our friends, family and peers to maintain a positive impression of us, whilst many celebrities pursue that age-old, Machiavellian goal of being loved by the masses, making high-profile charitable gestures and giving interviews to improve their public image. This desire is often referred to as a need for positive self-presentation , and may explain why we agree to a second reasonable request but not the first. We often feel reluctant to refuse people’s requests, for fear of appearing selfish or unkind, and our refusal of the first question in a door-in-the face sequence leads us feel that the person making the request will see us in a negative light. The second question, in the mind of the subject, provides an opportunity to prove that we are not as uncharitable as the first question led us to appear, and so we agree to it ( Pendleton and Batson, 1979 ).

Contributing Factors

Factors relating to the structuring of a door-in-the-face request can affect compliance rates. These factors include the length of delay between the first and the second questions.

In 1999, an experiment was conducted at Santa Clara University to test the technique on two groups of participants. One group was asked the second question immediately after the first, whilst a second group was given time between the questions. The researchers found that a delay increased compliance with the second request ( Chartrand et al, 1999 ).

One explanation for the effect of a delay is that it gives recipients time to consider their response to the first request. During this time, they may realize that their own self-presentation has been tarnished by their refusal to comply. The absence of a delay does not give a person time to realise how they may have appeared to the person making the request.

At the University of Nevada, Murray Millar (2000) measured compliance rates when the relationship between the person making the request and the responder differed. Millar found that when a familiar person made the request, they would be more likely to comply with a door-in-the-face question than they would if the person asking the favor was not known to them. As we tend to care more about what friends and family (members of our in-group ) think about us than how strangers ( out-group observers) view us, this finding supports the role of self-presentation in our decision making ( Millar, 2000 ).

Cialdini, R.B., Vincent, J.E., Lewis, S.K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D. and Darby, B.L. (1975). Reciprocal Concessions Procedure for Inducing Compliance: The Door-in-the-Face Technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 31 (2). 206-215.
O'Keefe, D.J. and Figgé, M. (1999). Guild and expected guilt in the door-in-the-face technique. Communications Monographs . 66 (4). 312-324.
Pendleton, M.G. and Batson, C.D. (1979). Self-Presentation and the Door-in-the-Face Technique for Inducing Compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin . 5 (1). 79-81.
Chartrand, T., Pinckert, S. and Burger, J.M. (1999). When Manipulation Backfires: The Effects of Time Delay and Requester on the Foot-in-the-Door Technique. Journal of Applied Social Psychology . 29 (1). 211-221.
Millar, M.G. (2000). The Effectiveness of the Door-in-the-Face Compliance Strategy on Friends and Strangers. Journal of Social Psychology . 142 (3). 295-304.