Human interaction at its core can be described as a clash of wills. Different parties with different agendas come together, each hoping to get what they want with as little effort and cost as possible. Everyone wants something as cheap as possible. This is what motivated the exploration of the foot-in-the-door technique. The foot-in-the-door technique, also called the dimming technique, refers to the hypothesis that a person who has already granted a small request is more likely to agree to a larger one later. This technique contrasts significantly with others that aim to influence behavior in that it seeks to do so without resorting to "external pressure." Although much attention has been paid to pressure-based techniques, not as much emphasis has been placed on techniques such as the foot-in-the-door technique, leaving many questions about its effectiveness and its limits. This lack of investigation is what prompted Jonathan L. Freedman and Scott C. Fraser of Stanford University to perform their 1965 study on the foot-in-the-door technique. door technology. The study included two similar experiments. The first experience was quite simple. 136 housewives from Palo Alto, California, randomly selected from a telephone directory, were chosen as test subjects and divided into four groups. Members of the first two groups received a call from an experimenter claiming to be a representative of the California Consumers' Group. During the call, they were asked to participate in a survey regarding household soaps. This served as a “small request” with which the research attempted to incentivize compliance with a larger request. In the first group, called the performance condition, subjects who agreed......middle of article......initial request, agreed to the larger request. Additionally, as the researchers hypothesized, groups whose problem or task was similar had higher compliance percentages. However, even the group in which neither the task nor the problem were similar achieved more compliance than the control group. The results of the second experiment did little to confirm or refute the hypothesis developed in the first experiment that attachment to a person or person. This question plays an important role in increasing the compliance rate. After all, there was a marked increase in compliance in two groups whose first and second requests did not address the same issue. On this basis, the researchers hypothesized that it was possible that the attitude change brought about by involvement was not necessarily oriented toward a specific person or issue, but rather toward granting requests in general..