Mother may I?

When I was in high school, I got away with many things. It was interesting how I could get away with so many bad things, just because I made my parents realize that it could be worse. Here’s what a typical conversation would look like when I asked my parents for permission for my weekend plans. First, let me give you some background information, Elizabeth was my best friend and Kyle was our good friend that moved four hours away.

Me: Can I go with Elizabeth to go visit Kyle for the weekend?

Parents: (laugh) You’re driving to Tyler?

Me: Yea! It’s going be a really fun road trip!

Parents: No! That’s too far away and y’all shouldn’t travel alone.

Me: UGH! You never let me do anything fun! (As I walk away to my room)

Then I proceed to call Elizabeth and tell her the news. Then we plan our second idea; tell our parents we’re spending the night at each other’s house, but in reality drive to Tyler. The conversation goes something like this:

Me: Since we’re not driving to Tyler anymore, we’re having a slumber party at Elizabeth’s. Can I go to that?

Parents: Yes! Have a good time!

Me: Thank you! (Wow! That was incredibly easy!)

When I was younger, I was not worried about why this technique was so effective. I was just glad it worked! I now have learned that this is a technique of compliance and that it is scientifically proven to be effective. Cialdini & Ascani (1976) have named it the “Door-in-the-face technique” it consists of asking for a very big request and once that one is rejected, asking for a smaller request. From other studies, compliance rates have increased more than double if the smaller request is preceded by the large outrageous effect.

There are two reasons why this technique works. The first one is called perceptual contrast (Cialdini et al., 1975). Perceptual contrast just says that the door-in-the-face technique works because the second request is smaller and more achievable than the first large request. In my own personal example, the fact that I was only going to be less than twenty minutes away instead of four hours made my parents more likely to comply with my simple request. The second reason why door-in-the-face technique works is because it involves the notion of reciprocal concessions. This concept infers that the person that turns down the first request feels guilty about it and therefore complies with the smaller request (O’Keefe & Figge, 1997). In the example illustrated above, my parents felt guilty about the fact that they “never let me do anything fun!” as I said to them, that they decided to comply with my smaller request.

This technique is a lesson to all. If you are the one asking for something, make sure that your first request is not too ridiculous otherwise it is not going to work. Also, make sure that you ask the same person; in my example it would not have worked if I had asked my dad the bigger request and then asked my mom for the smaller request. If you are the one being asked, think of it as a trick, that way you will not feel pressured to comply or guilty for not complying.

References:

Cialdini, R.B. & Ascani, K. (1976). Test of a concession procedure for inducing verbal, behavioral and further compliance with a request to give blood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 295-300.

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, 206-215.

O’Keefe, D.J. & Figge, M. (1997). A guilt-based explanation of the door-in-the-face influence strategy. Human Communication Research, 42, 64-81.