Overlap of accessible information undermines the anchoring effect
Journal Title: Judgment and Decision Making - Year 2016, Vol 11, Issue 1
Abstract
According to the Selective Accessibility Model of anchoring, the comparison question in the standard anchoring paradigm activates information that is congruent with an anchor. As a consequence, this information will be more likely to become the basis for the absolute judgment which will therefore be assimilated toward the anchor. However, if the activated information overlaps with information that is elicited by the absolute judgment itself, the preceding comparative judgment should not exert an incremental effect and should fail to result in an anchoring effect. The present studies find this result when the comparative judgment refers to a general category and the absolute judgment refers to a subset of the general category that was activated by the anchor value. For example, participants comparing the average annual temperature in New York City to a high 102 °F judged the average winter, but not summer temperature to be higher than participants making no comparison. On the other hand, participants comparing the annual temperature to a low –4 °F judged the average summer, but not winter temperature to be lower than control participants. This pattern of results was shown also in another content domain. It is consistent with the Selective Accessibility Model but difficult to reconcile with other main explanations of the anchoring effect.
Authors and Affiliations
Štěpán Bahník and Fritz Strack
Exploring the time-saving bias: How drivers misestimate time saved when increasing speed
According to the time-saving bias, drivers underestimate the time saved when increasing from a low speed and overestimate the time saved when increasing from a relatively high speed. Previous research used a specific typ...
The Regret Elements Scale: Distinguishing the affective and cognitive components of regret
Regret is one of the most common emotions, but researchers generally measure it in an ad-hoc, unvalidated fashion. Three studies outline the construction and validation of the Regret Elements Scale (RES), which distingui...
Reducing the impact bias in judgments of post-decisional affect: Distraction or task interference?
People overestimate their affective reactions to future events and decisions — a phenomenon that has been termed “impact bias.” Evidence suggests that completing a diary detailing events contemporaneous with the focal on...
Framing the frame: How task goals determine the likelihood and direction of framing effects
We examined how the goal of a decision task influences the perceived positive, negative valence of the alternatives and thereby the likelihood and direction of framing effects. In Study 1 we manipulated the goal to incre...
An examination of ambiguity aversion: Are two heads better than one?
Ambiguity aversion has been widely observed in individuals' judgments. Using scenarios that are typical in decision analysis, we investigate ambiguity aversion for pairs of individuals. We examine risky and cautious shif...