Getting Your Foot in the Door

One aspect of the law of dissonance is the urge to remain consistent with our commitments. Even if someone begins with a small request then follows it up with a larger request, we still tend to remain consistent in our behavior and answers. This technique of capitalizing on such a principle has been called by several names, including ‘‘foot-in-the-door’’ (FITD), self-perception theory, or the ‘‘sequential request.’’ Basically, it is a means of using a person’s self-perception to motivate her to partake of the desired action. When an individual complies a first time, she perceives herself to be helpful.

If she is asked to comply a second time in an even greater way, she is likely to consent. In an effort to maintain consistency with the first impression and with her own self-perception, she agrees to give even more of themselves.

The following outline highlights three key principles in learning how to use this technique:

1.

Small commitments often later lead to large commitments. For example, salespeople often focus first on securing an initial order, even if it’s a small one. Once this is accomplished, the customer will be more likely to commit to buying from them again.

2.

Written commitments are usually more powerful than verbal commitments. We know the power of the written word. When contracts are signed and promises put into writing, the commitment level correspondingly increases tenfold.

3.

Public commitments are stronger than private commitments. Taking a public stand that is witnessed by others compels us to continually endorse that commitment. Otherwise, we risk being seen as inconsistent, weak, or dishonest. For example, as mentioned earlier, many weight-loss centers have their clients write down and share their goals with as many people as possible, thereby decreasing the likelihood of failure.

The key to using FITD is to get the person to initially grant a small request. For example, if you were to ask someone, ‘‘Can I have just thirty seconds of your time?’’ most individuals would respond affirmatively. According to self-perception theory, the person would observe his own behavior and, in regard to this interaction, consider himself to be a helpful person. The second step in the FITD principle is making another, more involved request. ‘‘Can I try this on the stain on your carpet?’’ The person feels he should consent to the second request because he is ‘‘that kind of person.’’ He has already seen himself do other behaviors in support of the product or service, so he willingly complies with the second request.

A 1966 study by psychologists Jonathan Freedman and Scott Fraser highlights just how effective FITD is. In their study, a researcher posing as a volunteer canvassed a California neighborhood, asking residents if they would allow a large billboard reading ‘‘Drive Carefully’’ to be displayed on their front lawns. So they’d have an idea of what it would look like, the volunteer showed his recruits a picture of the large sign obstructing the view of a beautiful house.

Naturally, most people refused, but in one particular group, an incredible 76 percent actually consented. The reason for their compliance was this: Two weeks prior, these residents had been asked by another volunteer to make a small commitment to display a three-inch-square sign that read ‘‘Be a Safe Driver’’ in their windows. Since it was such a small and simple request, nearly all of them agreed. The astounding result was that the initial small commitment profoundly influenced their willingness to comply with the much larger request two weeks later.

With another group of homeowners, Freedman and Fraser sent petitions requesting their signatures in support of helping to keep California beautiful. Of course, nearly everyone signed. Two weeks later, another volunteer went

around and asked them if they’d allow the big ‘‘Drive Carefully’’ sign to be placed in their yards. Amazingly, about half of the homeowners consented, even though their previous small commitment was to state beautification and not safety.[11]

Freedman and Fraser were also interested in discovering whether or not they could persuade homemakers to carry out a very large request. They asked the women of the house if they would permit a group of five or six strangers to freely look through their cupboards and storage spaces for two hours, for the purpose of classifying the women’s household products. Prior to this request, however, researchers had asked some of the women to take a survey about household products. Of those surveyed, approximately 50 percent consented to allowing the men to go through their household products. Of the women who had not been surveyed, only 25 percent agreed to let the men examine their storage spaces.

Another study involved testing to see whether introductory psychology students would rise early to take part in a 7:00 ?.?. study session on thinking processes. In one group, the students were told at the beginning of the call that the session would begin promptly at 7:00 ?.?. Of these students, only 24 percent agreed to participate. In the second group, the students were first told what the study was and that their participation was desired. The 7:00 ?.?. time was not mentioned until after they had consented to take part, which 56 percent of them did. When the opportunity to change their minds was presented to them, however, none of them took advantage of it. Ninety-five percent of students actually followed through and showed up for the 7:00 ?.?. session.[12]

In another case, social psychologist Steven J. Sherman wanted to see if he could increase the number of people who would be willing to collect door-to-door donations for the American Cancer Society. He called a sample of residents and simply asked them what their response would be if they were asked to volunteer three hours of their time to collect charitable donations for the American Cancer Society. Not wanting to seem uncharitable, many responded that they would indeed volunteer. The final outcome? When a representative of the American Cancer Society actually called and asked for volunteers, there was a 700 percent increase of individuals agreeing to participate.[13]

Using FITD Effectively

When utilizing this technique, you must first determine exactly what end result you are seeking. This will be the big commitment you ask for. You should then create several small and simple requests that are related to your ultimate request, making sure they can be easily satisfied. As the examples above demonstrate, taking these measures will greatly increase the likelihood that your ultimate request will be granted.

Here are some more key points to remember in using FITD:

1.

The First Request: The first request needs to be ‘‘of sufficient size for the foot-in-the-door technique to work,’’[14] but, on the other hand, it cannot be so big that it seems inappropriate and/or is not easily and readily accomplished. Basically, you want to present the largest possible request that will still realistically be accepted.

2.

Your Prospect’s Viewpoint: The FITD tactic is not effective if your prospect senses that you are acting in your own self-interests instead of in hers or society’s. What is in it for you? Why are you requesting this from her?

3.

External Incentives: The FITD technique loses impact if your prospect is offered external incentives for agreeing to your first request. Researchers typically use self-perception theory to explain this phenomenon.[15 ]For example, if you are given a gift for listening to a salesperson, you will not consciously or subconsciously perceive yourself to be one who is willing to readily listen and agree to the salesperson’s offer. Instead, you agree to listen only for the incentive being offered to you.

4.

The Source of the Request: Having different people employ the initial and subsequent requests when using the FITD technique can be an effective strategy. This way, the same person isn’t required to make both the initial and the follow-up requests and your prospects won’t feel like they are being taken advantage of.

[11]J. L. Freedman and S. C. Fraser, ‘‘Compliance Without Pressure: The Foot-in-the-Door Technique,’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1966): 195–203.

[12]R. B. Cialdini, J. T. Cacioppo, R. Bassett, and J. A. Miller, ‘‘Low-Ball Procedure for Producing Compliance: Commitment Then Cost,’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1978): 463–476.

[13]S. J. Sherman, ‘‘On the Self-Erasing Nature of Prediction,’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1980): 211–221.

[14]C. Seligman, M. Bush, and K. Kirsch, ‘‘Relationship Between Compliance in the Foot-in-the-Door Paradigm and Size of First Request,’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33 (1976): 517–520.

[15 ]J. P. Dillard, J. E. Hunter, and M. Burgoon, ‘‘Sequential-Request Persuasive Strategies: Meta-Analysis of Foot-in-the-Door and Door-in-the-Face,’’ Human Communication Research 10 (1984): 461–488.

Three Steps to Using the Law of Dissonance

Step One: Get a Commitment

You can create or reveal commitments in your prospects by ensuring that the commitments are public, affirmative, voluntary, and effortful (PAVE).

Public

Make your prospect’s stand as public as possible. Get a written commitment and make that written commitment public. Involve family and friends in the proposed action. Engage your customer in a public handshake to seal the deal in front of other employees and customers.

Affirmative

You want to get as many ‘‘yes’’ answers as possible because yeses develop consistency within the person that will carry over into your major request. This technique reduces dissonance and makes it easier for prospects to say yes to your final proposal. Even if it is a watered-down, easy request, getting a yes to any request makes it easier to evoke the same response down the road.

Close with a series of questions—ideally six—that all end with a yes. Desire increases with each yes, and decreases with each no. Every time we say yes to a benefit, our desire goes up.

Voluntary

When getting commitments, start small and build up to larger commitments later. You cannot force commitments. Long-term approval has to feel like it comes from your prospects’ own will, something they want to do or say. They have to volunteer to test drive the car, write on the contract, or request more information. When they make a commitment, you can make the action more voluntary and solidify the commitment by saying things like, ‘‘Are you serious? Do you really mean that? You’re not just pulling my leg, are you?’’

Effortful

The more effortful and public the commitment is, the more commitment it will create down the line. The more effort your prospects exert in making the commitment, the more it seals the deal. You don’t want to ask a prospect to do something extreme but you do want them to exert extra effort.

Remember the car dealer example? Car dealers often offer a great deal on a car just to get people in the lot. The prospect then makes a commitment to come in and look at the car only to find that it’s already been sold. Already committed to being there, they browse the lot and find another car they like. They then start to fill out the paperwork, talking terms and completing forms. These are all small effortful commitments that later lead to full commitment. Many times, the car dealer will continue obtaining these small commitments only to come back and say he can only give $2,000 for the trade in instead of $2,500 like he promised. At this point, the buyer has exerted so much effort and has created so many small commitments that the extra $500 won’t break the deal.

Step Two: Create Dissonance

Once you have the commitment, you can create the dissonance. You create that dissonance or imbalance by showing your prospects they have not kept or are not keeping their commitment. For example, ‘‘You said you needed this right away. Why do you have to think it over and come back tomorrow?’’ The person’s self-image is squeezed from

both sides by consistency pressures. The prospect feels great internal pressure to bring self-image in line with action. At the same time, there is pressure from the outside to adjust this image according to the way others perceive us.

Step Three: Offer a Solution

As a Master Persuader, whenever you create dissonance, you always need to offer a way out. You need to show, prove, or explain how your product or service can reduce the dissonance your prospect feels. For example, ‘‘If you donate right now, we can continue to feed the homeless children in Africa.’’

Keep in mind that the final solution or major request is what you ultimately want to accomplish. You prepare your whole persuasive presentation around the moment when you will ask for that major request. Once your prospects accept the solution, they have convinced themselves that they made the right and only choice. As a result, they feel great about their decision. This makes the cognitive dissonance disappear. The decision was their personal choice and they have solved the dilemma in their own minds. They know exactly what to do.

The solution is your call to action.