We know how simple it was to fall into the net of an individual who wants to manipulate us and how dangerous it was, in particular, to be subjected to the « door-in-the-face » technique. Let’s remember that this manipulation mainly uses two principles: contrast and reciprocity. We should therefore be wary of people who make excessive demands on us, which we can only refuse (this is the intention), and then, in the face of our angry reaction, follow up with a more reasonable request. If this approach provokes all sorts of unpleasant reactions, irritation, disdain, irony…, its little sister, the « foot-in-the-door » technique, presents itself as soft and progressive, on the verge of going unnoticed, that is to say under the level of our radar.
It seems important to me to make it clear once again that the purpose of this article is certainly not to give readers ideas or even techniques for manipulation. That would be unacceptable. Its goal is the awareness of what is sometimes played next to us and sometimes with us, as the main actor, not aware, not consulted and most probably not agreeing.
To understand how this technique works, imagine the following scene: you are walking in a city centre, for no particular reason. Perhaps it is the desire to do nothing. Perhaps you want to let your mind wander. Or is it the need to exercise? Whatever the purpose, you are wandering the streets, with no specific goal in mind. You pass by a group of people and their conversation catches your attention. You stop and, without giving the impression of staring at them, you position yourself so that you can hear their conversation and, from the corner of your eye, you observe discreetly. The two elderly ladies are listening to a young girl talking about animals. She asks them if they like dogs and cats. Amused and intrigued at the same time, the grannies answer in the affirmative. The student then goes on to hold up a notebook and opens it. From your observation post, just a few metres away, you can see pictures. They represent injured or dead animals. At this distance, you cannot see the details. The faces of the « targets » are animated by all sorts of expressions, from sadness to disgust and surprise.
Suddenly, the young lady takes her notebook back and closes it, while the two grannies are still busy looking at the photos. Surprised, they look up and see that the student is holding up a document. It’s about making a donation, » she explains. The money raised will be used to help an organisation protecting animals create a hospital where your most familiar pets will receive the best care. How much do you want to give, she asks them? She adds: if you don’t want to accept, feel free to refuse. If you decide to do so, even a very small amount would already help. The trap closes and the two elderly women sign.
In this interaction, no less than 4 techniques are used and their combination is very powerful. First of all, the way of making contact, which is not mentioned here, plays a role. Then there is the question about loving animals. By answering « yes », the principle of « commitment and consistency » is triggered. Then come the scenes of wounded or dead animals, which is likely to soften the « targets ». This is followed by the use of the « illusion of freedom », which theoretically makes « victims » believe they can refuse the request. Finally, « even a small amount » gives credibility to insignificant amounts and stimulates people to give more. Statistically, such an approach produces results.
Here is an alternative that takes place in the same environment as in the previous case:
- Ladies hello, how are you today?
- Uh, fine, thank you.
- That’s good to hear. I take care of animals… Do you like animals?
- Uh, yeah, I do… I do too! Adds the second woman.
- Good! Would you agree to wear these little pins? In support of suffering animals?
- Yes, of course
- Thank you ladies, it’s very helpful. Let me help you put it on your jacket.
- Come to think of it, you have the kindness to advertise for a good cause, do you think you could devote 30 minutes of your valuable time to take care of a dog or a cat that needs comfort and caresses?
- Uh, yeah, why not. Weekends are the best moments for us.
- Great, I suggest you go to this address (she’s hands out a business card to the elderly ladies) this Saturday around 2pm.
On Saturday at 2pm, the two grannies arrive at the address indicated and they still wear their pins.
- Ah I’m pleased to see that you still have your pins!
- Yes, of course.
- Congratulations! Take a look around our premises and tell me which animal you agree to take care of for half an hour.
Just as the ladies are about to leave the place, the same student comes to meet them and thanks them:
- If only we had more people like you, the animals would be happier. I can think of something additional you could do. And by the way you would be more comfortable at home. Would you agree to sponsor an animal?
- Sponsor? What would it consist of?
- Would you be willing to make a donation contributing to build for them a hospital where they could be cared for properly? Here is a document to fill out.
- Oh yes, why not!
A funny illustration :
What are the elements in action in « the foot-in-the-door »? Mainly one: the principle of commitment and compliance, although like any manipulation, it can be combined with other techniques to increase the probability of success. The first request(s) must be small enough, even insignificant, so it does not even generate hesitation. Each subsequent request, slightly larger than the previous one, is based on the acceptance of the previous one and assumes that for the sake of consistency, an unconscious mechanism, the « target » will find it normal to grant the next request since it has committed itself by accepting the previous one.
For this manipulation to work, it must take into account the following elements:
- The first request (preparatory act) must be small enough to generate an easy commitment.
- The following ones (up to the one that really interests the person behind the manipulation) must be about the same topic
- The time elapsed between two successive requests must allow « targets » not to forget their previous commitment(s).
- The person making the next request does not have to be specifically the same person who made the previous one.
Let’s keep in mind the key question to ask anyone who comes to us with a request, no matter how small: what specifically do you want from me, in the end? Let’s combine it with a key question that we must answer sincerely: would I have done it without the other person’s intervention?
Add comment