Rejection-then-retreat is a devious strategy because it evokes reciprocation rule of comparison.
So also do we feel obliged to match concessions in discussions as we need to pay back favors. In case a boy scout asks one to obtain a five-dollar raffle ticket, but then escapes to requesting you just purchase a one-dollar sweet, you’re likely to choose the sweet to match his “concession,” not or whether you’re starving.
This is recognized as the rejection-then-retreat strategy, which is astonishingly strong in obtaining compliance. As well as our urge to reciprocate concessions, in addition, it evokes the comparison principle: the difference of the second to the very first is magnified when two things are presented one after the other. Therefore, the example that is sweet in the boy scout appears disproportionately low-cost subsequent to the raffle ticket.
The rejection-then-retreat strategy has even brought down presidents, including in the notorious Watergate scandal: In 1972, the reelection of President Richard Nixon appeared inescapable, yet somehow a guy called G. Gordon Liddy managed to convince the Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP) that they should give him 250,000 dollars to burglarize the offices of the Democratic National Committee.
This is a high-risk endeavor that is preposterously, but Liddy used the rejection-then-retreat strategy. He began by proposing a one-million-dollar scheme including mugging, kidnapping and hookers. Though his later second and third propositions were scandalous and very ill conceived, the CRP believed they’d to give Liddy something” for his concessions. Additionally, in comparison with the original excessive one-million dollar proposition, the 250,000-dollar scheme including “mere” no longer that was burglary seemed that bad. The ensuing scandal, following the burglars were captured, eventually forced Nixon to step down.
Rejection-then-retreat is a devious strategy for the reason that it evokes the rule of comparison as well as reciprocation.