Endorsing dual-process theories of human reasoning, Kahneman (2011) noted that anchoring results from both automatic activations of anchor-consistent knowledge and re-adjustments from anchor as distinct cognitive processes – the first, fast and intuitive (Type 1), and the second, more demanding, slow and effortful (Type 2). Recently, several attempts were made to integrate two competing accounts of anchoring (see e.g. Information that is consistent with the anchor is more easily accessible on successive estimation task, which in turn affects final estimates ( Chapman & Johnson, 1999 Mussweiler & Strack, 1999 Strack & Mussweiler, 1997). intuitive search for pieces of evidence that confirm anchor as a possible true answer for target quantity.
THE ANCHORING EFFECT PSYCHOLOGY DEFINITION SERIAL
Anchoring is seen as a consequence of this prematurely ended serial process.Īn alternative explanation of anchoring assumes that anchor automatically cues positive test strategy, i.e. A number of steps is often insufficient since people stop adjusting as soon as they reach the first answer that seems acceptable. Estimates are made starting from anchor value which is then adjusted in a deliberate fashion, step by step until the satisfactory answer is reached. Besides, the larger effect was observed for anchors set above, in comparison to anchors set below correct answer ( Hardt & Pohl, 2003 Jacowitz & Kahneman, 1995 Jasper & Christman, 2005).Īccording to Tversky and Kahneman (1974), anchoring effect is the product of anchoring and adjustment heuristic. However, it seems that relation between anchor distance and the size of the anchoring effect is curvilinear - moderate anchors lead to stronger effect in comparison extreme ones ( Mussweiler & Strack, 2001 Wegener, Petty, Detweiler-Bedell, & Jarvis, 2001). “Did Gandhi lived to be 140?”) affect judgments. Anchoring effect is so pervasive that even highly implausible anchors (e.g.
percentage of African countries in the UN was estimated on 25 and 45 for groups that were presented with anchors 10 and 65, respectively).Įxceptional easiness of experimental elicitation of the anchoring effect was demonstrated in various domains, in both laboratory and real-world settings, and for both novice and expert subjects (for reviews of literature, see Bokulić & Polšek, 2010 Furnham & Boo, 2011). Results showed notable effect of arbitrary values on participants’ estimates (e.g. Subjects were then asked to provide their own numerical estimates for the very same quantity. First, people were instructed to make a judgment if some quantity, such as the percentage of African countries in the UN, is higher or lower than value randomly generated by spinning a wheel of fortune in their presence. A simple two-step procedure, usually referred to as a standard paradigm of anchoring, was initially introduced in the seminal work of Tversky and Kahneman (1974). This finding indicates that, at least for some subjects, effortful cognitive process of adjustment plays role in the emergence of the anchoring effect, which is in line with expectations of dual-process theories of human reasoning.Īnchoring effect refers to a systematic influence of initially presented numerical values on subsequent judgments of uncertain quantities, even when presented numbers are obviously arbitrary and therefore unambiguously irrelevant. However, in a group of more reflective subjects, substantial negative correlation between intelligence and anchoring was detected.
Obtained measures of individual differences in susceptibility to anchoring were fairly reliable but shared only small portion of variability with intelligence, cognitive reflection, and basic personality traits.
Results confirmed the robustness of phenomenon in extended paradigm and replicated previous findings on anchor’s direction and distance as significant experimental factors of the anchoring effect size. The present research seeks to remedy methodological shortcomings of foregoing research by employing modified within-subject anchoring procedure. Yet, first correlational studies yielded inconsistent results, failing to identify any predictors that have a systematic effect on anchored decisions. Although the anchoring effect is one of the most reliable results of experimental psychology, researchers have only recently begun to examine the role of individual differences in susceptibility to this cognitive bias.
0 kommentar(er)
