Demonstrate a Concept.... getting what you want :)

In the video above is of an interaction between my older sister (Kaylee) and I. Kaylee and I have a pretty good relationship in that we are always there for each other and want to help each other out in what ever way possible. In the video above I was hoping she would lend me a little money for gas. In order to get her to agree to lending me some money for gas I asked first for a more outrageous amount of money, knowing that rent is due and she wouldn't have an excess of cash. First, I asked Kaylee for a hundred dollars to pay off my parking tickets. It seemed she felt bad but told me she didn't have that much money to give. Then, i asked for a smaller amount, the amount that i had been wanting to begin with, 20 dollars for gas. Because Kaylee felt bad for already saying no once, and because the second request seemed very reasonable compared to the first, Kaylee agreed to lend me 20 dollars.

The video of my sister and I demonstrates the door-in-the-face technique (Cialdini, Vincent, Lewis, Catalan, Wheeler & Darby, 1975). The door-in-the-face technique is a compliance strategy that works using two steps. First, you should ask for something you know the other person will not or cannot give you. Then, after they refuse request something that seems more reasonable (the thing you really want). By comparison the second request will seem much more doable and the person will more than likely comply with the second request, this concept is called perceptual contrast ( Cialdini et al., 1975). In addition, the door-in-the-face technique works because of reciprocal concessions (Cialdini et al., 1975). That is, it seems the person making the request is making an effort to give a little or bargain, when this happens the other person feels pressure to agree with the new better deal.

Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J. E., Lewis, S. K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & Darby, B. L. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206-215