This theory relies on priming, another prevalent effect in psychology. In these situations, the literature favors a phenomenon known as selective accessibility. 6 However, in cases where an anchor is provided by some external source, the anchor-and-adjust hypothesis is not so well supported. Tversky and Kahneman’s explanation works well to explain anchoring bias in situations where people generate an anchor on their own. The group who was given the descending sequence was working with larger numbers to start with, so their partial calculations brought them to a larger starting point, which they became anchored to (and vice-versa for the other group). (The correct answer is 40,320.) Tversky and Kahneman argued that this difference arose because the students were doing partial calculations in their heads, and then trying to adjust these values to get to an answer. The media estimate for the first problem was 2,250, while the median estimate for the second was 512. Within five seconds, the students were asked to estimate the product:Īnother group was given the same sequence, but in reverse: To back up their account of anchoring, Tversky and Kahneman ran a study where they had high school students guess the answers to mathematical equations in a very short period of time. This has become known as the anchor-and-adjust hypothesis. Anchoring bias happens because the adjustments usually aren’t big enough, leading us to incorrect decisions. In a 1974 paper called “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Tversky and Kahneman theorized that, when people try to make estimates or predictions, they begin with some initial value, or starting point, and then adjust from there. The original explanation for anchoring bias comes from Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, two of the most influential figures in behavioral economics. When we come up with anchors ourselves: The anchor-and-adjust hypothesis We can become anchored to all kinds of values or pieces of information, whether we came up with them ourselves or we were provided with them, 4 but apparently for different reasons. Its causes are still being debated, but the most recent evidence suggests that it happens for different reasons depending on where the anchoring information comes from. Given its ubiquity, anchoring appears to be deeply rooted in human cognition. 9 Anchoring bias also hold up when anchors are obtained by rolling some dice or spinning a wheel, and when researchers remind people that the anchor is irrelevant. People whose digits amounted to a higher number were willing to pay significantly more for the same products, compared to those with lower numbers.
Significance of the anchoring group series#
After that, the researchers asked what the maximum amount was that the participants would be willing to pay.Įven though somebody’s social security number is nothing more than a random series of digits, those numbers had an effect on their decision making. For example, if somebody’s number ended in 34, they would say whether or not they would pay $34 for each item. For each item, participants indicated whether they would be willing to pay the amount of money formed by their two digits. Next, they were shown a number of different products, including things like computer equipment, bottles of wine, and boxes of chocolate.
In one study, for example, people were asked for the last two digits of their social security number.
Many studies have confirmed its effects, and shown that we can often become anchored by values that aren’t even relevant to the task at hand.
Anchoring bias is one of the most robust effects in psychology.
0 kommentar(er)
