Compliance techniques (foot in the door, door in the face, low-ball)
Scripted sequences of requests that exploit consistency and reciprocity. Foot in the door: a small request first, then the big one. Door in the face: an outsized request that will be refused, then the real one presented as a concession. Low-ball: agreement at an attractive price, then terms change once the person is committed.
What drives it
Each one makes saying no to the target request feel inconsistent or ungracious. They work because the person's own sense of integrity or fairness is turned into leverage.
How it shows
Work
Foot in the door: 'Can you just look over this deck?' becomes 'Can you present it to the board?'. Door in the face: a consultant pitches a £500k programme, then 'a lighter version' at £120k, which was always the target. Low-ball: a job offer agreed verbally, then the equity or title shrinks at contract stage; a car deal where 'the manager won't approve' the original price. How to spot them: requests that grow in steps, a first ask so large it seems designed to be refused, and terms that change after you have said yes and told others.
Relationships
A partner who asks to stay one night, then a week, then moves in without a conversation. A relative who asks for a huge loan, then 'just a little' after you say no. Plans agreed in principle that turn out to cost much more once you are committed.
Self
You feel the 'I've already said yes' pull, or relief that the second request is so much smaller than the first. The tell is agreeing to something you would not have agreed to as an opening request.
What tells it apart
Commitment and consistency: The principle is the underlying drive; these techniques are deliberate sequences built on it. Look for a staged pattern of requests rather than a one-off pull.
Reciprocity: Door in the face uses reciprocity of concessions; foot in the door and low-ball use consistency. The order of requests tells you which: big then small, or small then big.
Gaslighting: Low-ball changes the terms openly once you are committed; gaslighting denies the original terms were ever different.
A test
Evaluate the final request as if it were the first and only one; if you would refuse it cold, the sequence was doing the work.
Questions to carry
- Looked at as the first and only request, how would the final one have been answered?
- Which small yes of mine led to a big yes I didn't want, and what made backing out feel impossible?
How strong the research is
moderate. Meta-analyses show these techniques work but with small and variable effects that depend on conditions (for example the same person making both requests for door-in-the-face, and a pro-social request for foot-in-the-door).
Where it comes from
Jonathan Freedman and Scott Fraser, 1966 (foot in the door); Robert Cialdini and colleagues, 1975 (door in the face), 1978 (low-ball); Jerry Burger, 1986 (that's-not-all)