Watergate: The Psychological Forces Behind The Scandal

“How could we have been so stupid?”

Jeb Stuart Magruder uttered this upon hearing the Watergate burglars had been caught.

Magruder, in addition to nine others, was a participant in what some would call the most baffling political decision of our time.

For those that need a quick refresher: in 1972, members of Richard Nixon’s administration broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex.

Their mission? Steal documents and gather information to help Nixon’s re-election campaign.

So yea…back to the original question.

Why would these men, who were by all means intelligent and accomplished, agree to do something so foolish?

The answer may lie in a little-discussed fact and widely-used persuasion technique.

First, a quick step back.

***

Suppose you want me to agree to a certain request.

I want to see if Kevin will lend me his car for a few hours.

One way to increase your chances that I’ll say yes is to first make a larger request – one that I will likely turn down.

Kevin, can I borrow your car for the next few days?

After I’ve refused (sorry), you make a smaller request – the one you were interested in all along.

No worries, I totally understand. Would it be possible for me to just borrow it for a few hours tomorrow?

Psychologists refer to this as the rejection-then-retreat technique.

Research shows that more than likely I’ll agree to the second request.

Why? The principle leverages the psychological tendency of people to reciprocate and the principle of contrast.

When someone makes a large initial request that is likely to be rejected, they are setting up a situation where the other person feels more inclined to say yes to the more reasonable second request as a way of showing cooperation and balancing the social exchange.

It’s hard to reject someone twice in a row. The large initial request (that’s denied) creates a sense of indebtedness in the person being asked.

In addition, when the second and more reasonable request is presented after the first, it appears much smaller and more acceptable in comparison.

In simpler terms, if you want your boss to give you a $5,000 raise, you’re best off first asking for $10,000 (with the caveat that you’re not a terrible employee and you somewhat deserve it).

***

Could this technique help explain Watergate?

The idea was that of G. Gordon Liddy, who was in charge of intelligence-gathering operations for the Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP).

His proposal was costly – requiring a budget of $250,000.

But, here’s the one little-discussed fact: the $250,000 plan wasn’t Liddy’s first proposal.

Nor was it his second.

The first of Liddy’s proposals were made to Magruder, John Mitchell and John Dean. It was a $1 million plan that included a specially equipped communications “chase plane”, break-ins, kidnapping and mugging squads and a yacht featuring “high-class call girls” to blackmail Democratic politicians.

Woah. Easy man.

After that request was rejected, Liddy’s second plan eliminated some of the special requests (good call) and reduced the cost to $500,000.

Yet again, Mitchell, Magruder and Dean rejected it.

It was only after these two rejected proposals that Liddy submitted his “bare-bones” $250,000 plan to Mitchell, Magruder and Frederick LaRue.

This time, the plan was approved.

Why was the third time a charm?

Hmm…maybe the rejection-then-retreat technique played a role here?

Well, if we look closer at Magruder’s testimony – who was considered by most Watergate investigators to provide the most realistic account of the meeting where Liddy’s proposal was accepted – there are some clues that lead me to believe that yes – quite possibly, yes it did.

Magruder said, “after starting at the grandiose sum of $1 million, we thought that $250,000 would probably be an acceptable figure…we were reluctant to send him away with nothing.”

He continued, “if he had come to us at the outset and said, ‘I have a plan to burglarize and wiretap Larry O’Brien’s office, we might have rejected the offer out of hand.’

“Instead, he came to us with his elaborate call-girl, kidnapping, mugging/sabotage/wiretapping scheme. He asked for the whole loaf when he was quite content to settle for half or even a quarter.”

I promise these quotes are not made up.

If that sounds like a near textbook example of the rejection-then-retreat technique to you – I agree with ya.

***

And one final thing.

Though he eventually agreed, one member of the group expressed strong disapproval of the final proposal – LaRue.

The kicker? Of the three, LaRue was the only one to not attend the first two meetings.

Perhaps then, LaRue was also the only one who saw the final proposal for what it really was and unlike the other two, wasn’t influenced by the two psychological forces working together to increase Liddy’s persuasive powers – reciprocity and contrast.

Makes ya think.