Reject then Retreat

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.

People Need to Reciprocate

People have an overpowering need to reciprocate favors.

The rule of reciprocation states that people feel a responsibility to reimburse others in kind for whatever they’ve supplied to us. For it enabled our ancestors safe in the information that they’d be reciprocated after this inclination forms the basis of societies.

If a person does us a favor and it is not returned by us, we feel a mental weight. This is partly because, as a society, we’re disdainful of these who don’t reciprocate favors. We fear being labeled as such ourselves, and label them as ingrates or moochers.

Several experiments have demonstrated that folks are really so fantastic to rid themselves of this burden of debt that they’re going to perform favors that were bigger for little ones. As an example, when evaluation subjects were, purchased by a research worker, “Joe” a ten-cent Coke and afterwards requested them to purchase raffle tickets they reciprocated by buying 50 cents’ worth of tickets. It was twice the amount compared to if Joe not supplied any Coke . Because in the research scenario all the genuinely free picks were Joe’s clearly the possibility for exploitation exists here. He induced a debt onto the issues by purchasing them a Coke, but also chose their approach to reciprocation.

When they talented flowers to passersby on the road the Krishna organization used this strategy. Individuals frequently made contributions to the business to fulfill their demand to reciprocate the bloom though usually annoyed.

To fight back against efforts to benefit from the rule of reciprocation, it’s impossible to reject as you’d quickly become a cranky hermit all favors. Rather, identify for what they essentially are, whether real party favors or violent exploitation strategies, and simply afterward reciprocate in kind offers.