Government’s Psychological Strategy
It’s no wonder that many government policies now often provoke public reactions, especially after and throughout the 2024 election era. In this social media age, the government can easily provide stimuli and receive reactions. Interestingly, the government is very adept at playing this game. I’ve realized this since the pandemic.
On December 16, 2020, I wrote on my phone, “the government seems to have a strategy to make people willing to get vaccinated.”
In the second week of December 2020, the then Minister of Health, Mr. Terawan, said that Indonesia’s vaccination target was 107 million people aged 18–59. The plan was that 30% would participate in the government’s free vaccination program, while the remaining 70% would pay. There was a lot of controversy, demanding it to be free for everyone. After the uproar on social media for a few days, the government finally announced that the vaccine would be free for everyone.
From there, I thought the government could inform that the vaccine is indeed free for everyone, but in reality, what the government did was different. They issued a policy where some were free and some had to pay first. If the government didn’t do that, and instead provided it for free to everyone, the public reception would definitely be different. People might object and find other problems. Here, whether the government designed/planned it or not, it is clear the government is applying the Door-in-the-Face (DITF) technique.
The Door-in-the-Face (DITF) Technique
DITF is a technique in social psychology that has recently become famous for use in marketing or sales. This technique is a way to persuade people to comply with requests that may seem unreasonable and likely to be rejected. Through this method, the initially unreasonable request becomes more reasonable in the second request conveyed.
There was a study by Cialdini, R.B., Vincent, J.E., and colleagues in 1975 entitled “Reciprocal Concessions Procedure for Inducing Compliance: The Door-in-the-Face Technique.” They researched compliance that arises after this DITF technique is applied. Here’s an example of the DITF technique experiment: the researchers divided the respondents into three groups. The first group was asked by the researchers to give advice to a naughty child for two hours every week for a period of two years (first request). It was definitely rejected, then they were asked again to take the naughty child for a day out to the zoo (second request/main request). The second group was directly asked for the second request. The third group was asked to fulfill the second request, but the researchers also explained the second request. And the results show that the response to the main request is that about 50% of respondents from the first group agreed, only 17% from the second group agreed, and 25% of respondents from the third group agreed.
Real-World Applications of DITF in Government Policies
I tried to summarize that this DITF technique has a pattern of requests, requests with the worst/bad scenarios that are likely to be rejected + the actual request. This has been repeatedly done by the government recently, in moments and situations as urgent as the current pandemic. PSBB (Large-Scale Social Restrictions), PPKM (Enforcement of Restrictions on Community Activities), reduction of PCR test prices, reduction of swab antigen test prices recently stipulated, and other policies. Whether this assumption is correct or not, LOL, but clearly psychologically, sometimes we are influenced because we feel benefited when we are actually offered a choice between the bad and the worst. We will definitely choose the better one even though there may be other better options beyond that or even we have the right not to choose at all.
The Ethical Dilemma
While the government’s psychological tactics may be effective in the short term, they erode trust and transparency in the long run. By understanding these strategies, citizens can critically evaluate government decisions and demand greater accountability.
In the age of information, awareness is our most potent weapon. By recognizing the government’s manipulative tactics, we can resist their influence and advocate for a more transparent and democratic decision-making process.
The Importance of Public Awareness
The Indonesian government’s adeptness at utilizing psychological strategies like DITF raises important questions about the ethics of manipulation in public policy. While these tactics may achieve immediate compliance, they ultimately undermine public trust and limit the scope of debate. As citizens, we must remain vigilant and informed, using our knowledge to demand transparency and hold our leaders accountable.
Looking Beyond Compliance
The government’s strategy of utilizing psychological tactics such as DITF not only highlights their strategic prowess but also underscores a critical aspect of modern governance — the need for ethical consideration in policy-making. It’s easy to see how such strategies can lead to compliance, but the larger question remains: at what cost?
Balancing Strategy and Ethics
The effectiveness of DITF and similar techniques is undeniable. They can quickly rally public support, smooth over potential backlash, and ensure compliance. However, these strategies can also be seen as manipulative, potentially leading to a breakdown in trust between the government and its citizens. Trust, once eroded, is difficult to rebuild.
The Role of Media and Communication
In today’s digital age, the role of media and communication cannot be overstated. The government’s ability to quickly disseminate information and gauge public reaction is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it allows for swift action and response; on the other, it opens the door for potential misuse of power.
Case Studies of Manipulative Tactics
Examining specific case studies where the government has employed DITF can provide further insight. For instance, during the pandemic, policies around lockdown measures were often met with initial resistance. By proposing stricter measures first, and then “compromising” with slightly less severe restrictions, the government managed to secure public compliance more easily. This tactic, while effective, left many questioning the integrity of the decision-making process.
The Future of Policy-Making
Looking ahead, it’s crucial for policy-makers to balance effectiveness with ethics. Strategies like DITF should be used judiciously, ensuring that they do not become the norm but are reserved for situations where they are genuinely needed. Transparency in decision-making processes and clear communication with the public are essential to maintain trust and cooperation.
Citizen Engagement and Advocacy
As citizens, our role doesn’t end at understanding these tactics. Active engagement in the political process, advocating for transparency, and holding our leaders accountable are imperative. By doing so, we can ensure that while the government may use psychological strategies, they do so with ethical considerations and in the best interest of the public.
Reflecting on the Broader Implications
Whether this assumption is correct or not, LOL, but clearly psychologically, sometimes we are influenced because we feel benefited when sometimes we are actually offered a choice between the bad and the worst. We will definitely choose the better one even though there may be other better options beyond that or even we have the right not to choose at all.
As we continue to navigate the complexities of modern governance, it’s essential to reflect on the broader implications of these psychological strategies. Are we, as a society, becoming too accustomed to being manipulated for compliance? Are we losing our ability to critically evaluate policies and make informed decisions? These are questions that require deep thought and ongoing dialogue.
By understanding the nuances of techniques like DITF, we can become more conscious of how we are influenced and take steps to ensure that our choices are truly our own. Let’s challenge ourselves to think critically, demand transparency, and advocate for ethical practices in governance. Only then can we foster a political environment that respects and upholds the principles of democracy.
