Read Methods of Persuasion: How to Use Psychology to Influence Human Behavior for Free Online Page B

request nearly tripled to 50 percent. The large request created an anchor from which people could judge the size of the zoo trip. With such a large anchor established, the zoo trip was perceived to be much smaller, thereby leading to a higher rate of compliance.
    Convey High Expectations. Although I might be biased, I truly believe that this book is very informative, helpful, and interesting. I’d even go so far as to say that you’ll rate it a 10 out of 10.
    The two previous strategies in this chapter (i.e., presenting a decoy and the door-in-the-face technique) involved contrast effects; there wasn’t any “assimilation” toward an anchor point. However, one strategy that does involve our tendency to adjust our judgment toward an anchor point involves conveying the appropriate expectations, such as the suggestion that you’ll rate this book a 10 out of 10.
    How can you apply this strategy in your own life? Suppose that you’re submitting an essay to your professor, and your professor asks you how you think it turned out. What would you say? To secure the highest grade possible, you could take advantage of anchoring by making a joke that you think your paper is “worthy of an A.” On the surface, it seems like an innocent remark. But as the devious persuasion mastermind you are, you realize that mentioning an “A” establishes an anchor point that your professor will use when grading your paper. With his perception anchored toward the high end of the grading scale, his grade will likely be higher than if he didn’t receive that anchor point. If legal experts with thirty years of experience are influenced by anchoring, there’s no reason why professors would be any different.
    Conveying high expectations can be an extremely powerful persuasion tool for many reasons. This strategy is so powerful that I devoted the next chapter to it.
    A MIND READER’S PERSPECTIVE: HOW I USE ANCHORING IN A $100 DEMONSTRATION
    In the opening demonstration of my mind reading show, I play a game where one of three volunteers can win one hundred dollars (and unbeknownst to the audience, I use anchoring to put the odds in my favor).
    Hanging from my table are four envelopes (each are labeled “1”, “2”, “3”, and “4”, respectively), and I explain that one of those envelopes contains a one hundred dollar bill. I bring three volunteers on stage and ask each of them to choose an envelope, and I explain that if they choose the envelope with the money, then they can keep it. When I ask the first volunteer to choose an envelope, I say:
I’ve performed this demonstration many times on stage. And for the last five times that I’ve performed it, the money has been in envelope number three. Now why am I telling you that? Am I trying to influence you to pick envelope number three, or am I trying to use reverse psychology to try to nudge you toward a different envelope?
    Except for a few very rare cases, the volunteer in this scenario usually chooses the second envelope. Why? Ask a friend to think of a number between one and four. Chances are high that the person will choose two or three (with the number three being chosen more often). People very rarely choose one or four because they stick out too much (and not to mention that you subtly imply that they should choose a number “between” one and four).
    But why do volunteers choose envelope two, and not envelope three? If you notice, my scripting discourages people from choosing the third envelope because I bring the volunteer’s attention to it. By outwardly mentioning that the money has frequently been in the third envelope, people no longer feel comfortable selecting it; if they choose the third envelope, they’ll appear gullible in the eyes of the audience (a perception that they try to avoid). Because people still feel compelled to choose an option from the middle, they pick the only remaining option in the middle: envelope number two.
    After the first volunteer chooses