Others’ opinions count, but not all of them: anchoring to ingroup versus outgroup members’ behavior in charitable giving
Journal Title: Judgment and Decision Making - Year 2013, Vol 8, Issue 6
Abstract
Because of the large amount of information and the difficulty in selecting an appropriate recipient in the context of charitable giving, people tend to make extensive use of heuristics, which sometimes leads them to wrong decisions. In the present work, we focused on exploring how individuals are influenced by anchoring heuristics and how group membership interacts with this heuristic. In Experiment 1, two different groups of participants were informed about low versus high average donations of other people, and a third control group did not receive any information about the others’ donations. The results showed that participants were willing to donate significantly more in the high-anchor condition compared to the low-anchor condition, as well as about the same amount of money in the low-anchor condition and no-anchor condition. Experiment 2 and 3 showed that high anchors are more effective when the information about others’ donations reflects members of the ingroup rather than the outgroup. Other variables related to these results are further discussed.
Authors and Affiliations
Dorina Hysenbelli, Enrico Rubaltelli and Rino Rumiati
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP678101
- DOI -
- Views 128
- Downloads 0
What have I just done? Anchoring, self-knowledge, and judgments of recent behavior
Can numerical anchors influence people’s judgments of their own recent behavior? We investigate this question in a series of six studies. In Study 1, subjects’ judgments of how many anagrams they were given assimilated t...
Integrating theories of law obedience: How utility-theoretic factors, legitimacy, and lack of self-control influence decisions to commit low-level crimes
We conducted two studies using a sample of students (Experiment 1, N=84) and the general public (Experiment 2, N=412) to assess the relative and unique effects of factors suggested by three major theories of law obedienc...
Pair-wise comparisons of multiple models
Often research in judgment and decision making requires comparison of multiple competing models. Researchers invoke global measures such as the rate of correct predictions or the sum of squared (or absolute) deviations o...
Are good reasoners more incest-friendly? Trait cognitive reflection predicts selective moralization in a sample of American adults
Two studies examined the relationship between individual differences in cognitive reflection (CRT) and the tendency to accord genuinely moral (non-conventional) status to a range of counter-normative acts — that is, to t...
Conflict of interest and the intrusion of bias
This paper explores the psychology of conflict of interest by investigating how conflicting interests affect both public statements and private judgments. The results suggest that judgments are easily influenced by affil...