Close One Door, Open Another
Persuasion and negotiation with a "door in the face"
Our mediation had gotten off to a bad start. And it was about to get worse.
I was mediating a lawsuit between a plaintiff who had been injured at work, on the one side, and on the other a defendant employer and its insurance company. The plaintiff’s attorney was bombastic and antagonistic, and his initial demand was, to put it delicately, extremely high.
The defense attorney on the case was an extremely competitive type. He negotiated with a chip on his shoulder and habitually operated in a smug, aggressive fashion.
My job, as a neutral party, was to help the litigants find common ground, recognize the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases, and move towards a constructive agreement.
As negotiations proceeded, the plaintiff lowered his demand in minute increments. Contrary to my suggestions (which, to his credit, the lawyer at least requested), the defense counsel responded in kind, offering only paltry increases in their settlement offer.
So our scenario was a caricature of a flubbed negotiation: An absurdly exaggerated initial anchor, followed by an insultingly low response, leaving the parties flailing, hundreds of thousands of dollars apart. Sure, each attorney knew the numbers needed to move if they had a prayer of reaching resolution, but the two refused to cede any meaningful ground.
But why? If you know your numbers are unreasonable, why not display good faith and start moving in the right direction? What’s the downside in extending an olive branch and putting something on the table that makes the other side stop to think?
Why dig into an indefensible position and refuse to budge?
In not so many words, I asked the defense lawyer these questions. His response got my attention:
“It works for Trump, doesn’t it?”
Well, I can tell you that it assuredly didn’t work for this fellow. The mediation crashed and burned quickly, with neither lawyer willing to offer anything of value to the other side. Try as I might, I was unable to get these stubborn parties un-stuck, at least not that day.
The Ol’ “Door in the Face”
I was reminded of this mediation just recently, when I came across a Psychology Today article about the psychology behind Donald Trump’s negotiation strategy.
Let me start by stating that this is not a political post. This is about negotiation lessons, pure and simple.
That said . . . the article’s author links Mr. Trump’s negotiating style to the “door in the face” (DITF) technique, which we’ve examined here before.
The DITF idea is simple: To get a person to do something as you’d like, first make a larger request; when the person rejects the (arguably) excessive request, follow with your true, lesser request, and the person will be more apt to comply.
In the 1970s, Dr. Robert Cialdini and colleagues at Arizona State University identified the DITF technique of persuasion. In his classic book, Influence, Cialdini refers to this technique also as “rejection-then-retreat.” Notably, Cialdini’s original study was replicated by German researchers in 2021, which strongly supports the validity of the original study.
In this latest article about President Trump’s approach, the author concludes that the DITF technique works well when: (1) negotiating parties have an expectation of trust (another key topic we’ve also just recently highlighted here); (2) the initial request seems reasonable; and (3) everyone is motivated by prosocial considerations. The author further notes that if an initial proposal is insulting, or the negotiator is perceived as self-serving, then DITF can backfire — damaging the relationship’s trust and goodwill, and decreasing the success of future interactions.
Keeping these caveats in mind, let’s review how negotiators (that is, any of us, whenever we’d like to persuade) can successfully utilize the DITF principle. Start with a less favorable proposal, then work your way down to something more appealing, and your counterpart will be more apt to comply with your target request.
Making an Offer They Can’t Accept
You need a ride to your mechanic a mile up the road. First, you strategically ask a colleague to take you to the airport at rush hour on a Friday afternoon, perhaps even anticipating her polite rejection. Next, when your colleague demurs, you then inquire if she wouldn’t mind just giving you a lift to the nearby garage. Off the hook to make an airport run, how can your colleague deny you a trip to the local auto shop?
Want your teenager to do his homework? Ask him to do his homework, clean his room, cook dinner, take out the trash, and go to bed by 9 p.m. Well, if he can’t possibly do all of those things, he can certainly at least do his homework and clean his room. You get the idea.
Of course, your use of DITF will be highly context-dependent. If your counterpart views you as untrustworthy or excessively self-serving, you’ll face some challenges. If you have no ongoing relationship with your negotiating partner and will be “one and done” after a single exchange, again, your considerations are different.
However, in the right circumstances, the DITF technique can work quite well.
Why it Works: Reciprocity and Contrast
There are at least a couple of concepts explaining why DITF can be effective: (1) reciprocal concessions; and (2) the contrast effect.
The idea of reciprocity is that when we do something for someone else, the other person will be more inclined to do something for us in return. In a negotiation, or in a situation where you’re trying to influence another person’s behavior, moving from the “high ask” to your lower, true request can be viewed as a concession. When you execute this maneuver skillfully, it’s almost as if you’re doing the other person a favor, or compromising, by making only the more reasonable request. In turn, recognizing your willingness to concede, the other person will be more likely to offer a reciprocal concession and agree to your more modest ask.
According to the contrast effect, the first request establishes a standard to which the second request is compared; by comparison to the first, the ultimate request is relatively more attractive and therefore more likely to be well-received. Without the initial request, the target action (i.e., what you really want the other person to do) would stand in comparison to the alternative of doing nothing. Instead, after you establish a more onerous standard with an ambitious opening proposal, your true request will then appear relatively attractive in contrast to the less palatable option.
Taking these two concepts together, we find a coherent, plausible explanation for why the DITF approach works. Creating a “cushion” between what you initially request and the behavior you actually desire provides an opportunity to both (1) foster a cooperative negotiation process and (2) set a baseline for comparison and contrast.
Understanding our basic tendencies to reciprocate and appreciate contrasts, with care you can employ this science-based approach — the DITF — and enhance your persuasive skills.