Social Influence by Manipulation

April 8, 2023 by Donald Gorassini, howinfluenceworks.com

Some forms of influence used in society are manipulative. Manipulation consists of social influence without informed consent. In this blog, I will describe one of the many manipulative techniques used in the world of influence. This one has been studied extensively by researchers.

The Foot-in-the-Door Technique

Consider the foot-in-the-door (FITD) technique, which consists of requesting a small favour and then requesting a large favour. As an example, a representative of an environmental organization asks a person to sign a petition against turning a green space into a parking lot and, if compliance with the request is gained, asks the person to donate to a legal fund. The first request is kept purposely small so that the recipient will likely comply. The act of complying with the first request is thought to increase the recipient’s susceptibility to comply with the large request to come.

The FITD technique has been shown over many studies to produce compliance greater than what occurs when only the large request is made. The increase is not usually large but this might not be a problem if, for example, FITD is applied in charitable giving. A large number of people canvassed on the internet can translate into considerable cash gains using FITD versus using the large request alone. For ethical reasons to be discussed later in this blog, I would not recommend using FITD. I talk about it here, not to promote its use, but to help you recognize and defend against it and so I can tell you why it is problematic.

The technique is effective because compliance with the small request alters how the recipient perceives the large request. What changes is the nature of gains the recipient expects will issue from complying with the large request. In the example above, signing the petition would define the recipient as a supporter of environmental causes. Once done, compliance with the large request becomes an opportunity to be good, show solidarity with the requester, not be fickle, prolong the pleasant interaction with the requester, or some combination of these outcomes; all things that promote going along again. The recipient would not have been as likely to perceive these opportunities if faced with the large request in the absence of the previous small request maneuver.

The interesting thing about FITD is that it can be delivered in many different ways while preserving its requisite structure of small request followed by large request. Some versions are more effective than others at securing compliance because of how perceptions of gain are shaped by the method of delivery used. For example, praising the recipient for complying with the small request, compared to offering a thank you, has been shown to enhance compliance with the large request. A jovial result of initial compliance suggests that subsequent compliance will also be pleasant, so the recipient complies with the second request for the purpose of prolonging the geniality. Other methods of delivering the small request (e.g., rude feedback) can backfire, leading to lowered compliance with the large request.

It is remarkable how a technique of such brevity and with so few components can be administered in so many different ways. In this sense, there are many FITD techniques. They have in common the small-large request sequence, but beyond that can differ consequentially. With subtle alterations, the technique can increase compliance, have no effect, or decrease compliance. Researchers thus know that FITD can be effective and why.

Ethics of the Foot-in-the-Door Technique

Is FITD manipulative? Yes, it is manipulative, as I argue below using ethical analysis. Even though manipulative, should it be used? I recommend against using FITD to influence people under any circumstances. If you are a charity, for example, should you manipulate your fellow humans to boost donations? It would be hypocritical for a charity to exploit some people to help others. If it was me running the charity, I would not use the FITD technique or any manipulative tactic. This would not mean using no method to increase donations. Indeed, you cannot not use a technique in an effort to influence people. Although FITD fails to satisfy ethical criteria, some tactics do satisfy all the criteria.

I will do a full ethical analysis of FITD, evaluating the technique in relation to the personal gain, good advising, and social benefit standards (see Lesson 6 of this website’s Tutorial). The conclusion that FITD is manipulative stems from its inevitable failure to meet the good advising standard. I will also propose use of a method of social influence that would meet all of the ethical criteria.

Personal Gain

Will the recipient enjoy a net gain from complying with the large request of an FITD sequence? Potentially, yes. Pride in helping a worthy cause even though this has a financial cost could be very pleasant for a person, who might never learn of having been tricked and so not be subjected to that humiliation. If they do learn about having been tricked, there could easily be a negative reaction of some type. Other applications of FITD come with a high likelihood of producing negative results. For example, cult recruiting involves making a series of requests, beginning small and gradually increasing in magnitude, culminating in major alterations in belief and behaviour of members. Although FITD can be harmful to a person, it is not intrinsically so, and can even be beneficial.

Good Advising

Ethical influence begins with the source adopting the advisor role. This demands seeking to maximize the power of the recipient to make an intelligent decision regarding compliance with the large request. Deviating from the advisor orientation makes the source a manipulator, one who interfere’s with the recipient’s capacity to make the decision. This is easy to illustrate. A vendor is selling a used car that displays fake mileage, fifty thousand instead of the actual two hundred thousand. The vendor, if adopting the advisor role, would divulge the actual mileage whereas a manipulator would not. Of course, coming clean would defeat the whole point of the ploy. As the world-wise know, some in the human family some of the time adopt the manipulator role from the outset and so have no intention of divulging their machinations.

In the case of the FITD effect, the source is using a disguised method to make the recipient more compliant. The source frames signing the petition as help, not as the susceptibility enhancement device that it is. This would be analogous to using the fake mileage reading and not divulging the true nature of the ploy. In using FITD, the source is being manipulative.

Manipulation comes in two varieties, either or both of which can be present in an influence attempt. One is control of information. An advisor would provide the recipient the best information on which to base a decision to comply, in this case with the large request. The source would divulge why the small request is being used. This revelation of course would be very odd because proper use of FITD demands not revealing the true reason for the small request. The FITD is intrinsically manipulative in its failure to disclose that a compliance-gaining technique is being applied. Control of information is the core of what makes FITD problematic.

The other type of manipulation is prevention of delving. There is no opportunity offered the recipient for independent study of the merits of complying. In the case of FITD, this would be most pronounced in the face-to-face application of the technique and take the form of affording recipients no time to think about or consult regarding the value of complying with the large request.

Social Good

The FITD can be used for social benefit. This would be obvious in cases of applications to charitable canvassing. Even in such instances, there would be downsides, which could include undermining a charity’s credibility if news were to emerge about the use of manipulation. This could easily result in a decrease in donations in the long run. As long as word did not get out of the charity using stunts, there would be a social benefit to using FITD. The technique can be harmful to the social good but is not intrinsically so.

Verdict

The ethical deficiency of using FITD lies in its inherent manipulativeness. FITD structure, specifically the use of a disguised susceptibility enhancement method, embodies manipulation. This violates the standard of good advising. Given its problematic character, FITD would be best shelved and a more defensible method for gaining compliance be used. In the case of charitable giving, the fact the charity has the built-in advantage of being a good cause, which could be displayed to potential donors in the clearest and most compelling ways, should work extremely well in helping elicit contributions. Such an approach would avoid violating the good advising standard and thus would allow for the possibility of satisfying all three ethical criteria, personal gain, good advising, and social good.

Summary

A much used and studied technique of compliance enhancement is foot-in-the-door. Although effective in some forms, it is inherently manipulative. I would recommend using in its place an effective technique that does not violate any of the ethical criteria.