内在锚与外在锚对锚定效应及其双加工机制的影响

通过2（外在锚类型：高锚VS低锚）×2（内在锚类型：有VS无）被试间设计,考察不同锚定信息来源：由外部世界提供的外在锚与个体自身内部产生的内在锚信息对锚定效应及其加工机制的影响。结果发现：（1）当内在锚不存在时,外在高低锚组的估计值有显著差异,当内在锚存在时此种差异变得不显著;（2）当内在锚存在时,外在高低锚组被试的答题反应时有显著差异,内在锚与外在锚一致时反应时比不一致时更快,当内在锚不存在时,此种差异变得不显著。实验结果表明,当锚定调整机制与选择通达机制同时存在时,前者更占优势;锚定信息一致性会影响不同加工机制的启动,一致的信息会激活选择通达机制,不一致的信息则会激活锚定调整机制。     

潜在锚定效应的加工机制初探

潜在锚定效应指的是阈限下的启动锚定数字导致的锚定效应现象.本研究探讨了潜在锚定效应的产生机制.采用2(潜在锚类型:高锚vs低锚)×2(词汇类型:夏天vs冬天)混合设计.结果发现,在潜在高锚情况下,夏天词汇的反应时(M=745.50)显著快于冬天词汇的反应时;在潜在低锚情况下,冬天词汇的反应时(M=697.47)显著快于夏天词汇的反应时.即被试对与启动锚定数字信息一致的词汇判断的反应时比不一致的更快.研究结果表明,潜在锚定效应的产生是由于锚定数字内部命题属性被激活导致的.     

锚定判断中的心理刻度效应：来自ERP的证据

当前主要有两种理论解释锚定效应的发生机制：锚定调整启发模型和选择通达模型。同样,锚值可能是自发产生的,也可能是外部提供的。本研究用两个ERP实验分别探讨了不同精细程度的心理刻度对自发锚定加工和外部锚定加工的影响。结果表明,只有在自发锚引起的锚定加工中才出现心理刻度效应：在目标呈现后250~800ms之间,精细心理刻度比粗糙心理刻度诱发一个更大的波形正走向,支持锚定调整启发模型。在外部锚引起的锚定加工中,没有出现心理刻度效应,却出现了一个与通达有关的N300成分,支持选择通达加工模型。总的结果支持了锚定加工的双重属性：锚定判断是主动调整还是选择通达取决于不同的情境     

锚定效应的研究范式、理论模型及应用启示

锚定效应是普遍存在的一种现象,它是指在不确定状态判断过程中,人们会以最初的信息作为参照点来调整对事件的估计,这往往会导致得出错误的判断。本文首先阐述了锚定效应的相关概念及经典研究范式,后者包括语意启动范式、数值启动范式、自发锚与外部锚启动范式等。然后对锚定效应的不充分调整启发模型、锚定调整模型、选择通达模型、双加工模型以及神经心理模型等进行了深入的探讨,并总结了锚定效应在经济管理等领域中的应用。最后指出了锚定效应的研究局限及未来的研究发展方向。     

锚定效应的种类、影响因素及干预措施

锚定效应是指个体在不确定情境下的决策会受到初始无关锚影响致使其随后的数值估计偏向该锚的一种判断偏差现象。不同种类的锚定效应其影响因素和干预措施不同, 如影响传统锚定效应的有锚定信息特征、能力变量、情绪因素及个体差异性等, 基本锚定效应的主要影响因素有知识技能与时间压力, 自发锚定效应则受动机变量、认知因素及内部信念等影响。未来研究可深入挖掘认知加工机制、类比推理过程和开发DDS系统等来帮助减少各种锚定偏差。     

从态度改变视角看锚定效应心理机制

随着锚定效应心理机制研究的深入,对不充分调整和选择通达两种解释机制的整合成为近年的研究热点,态度改变理论则为锚定效应心理机制研究提供了新视角。研究者从精细加工可能模型出发,提出高精细加工锚定效应和低精细加工锚定效应的划分,阐释了两种锚定效应的心理加工过程及相互关系。对极端锚值作用和锚定效应强度与持久性的考察等,也深化了锚定效应心理机制的解释内涵。未来从态度改变视角对锚定效应的研究应突破锚定效应的标准范式,进一步探讨其加工过程,并考察与真实社会情景联系的调节变量及锚定效应对非即时决策的影响。     

锚定效应的产生前提及作用机制

为了探讨锚定效应的产生前提以及基础锚定效应的理论解释,设计了两个实验。实验一选取高、低、无三种锚值,设置了15ms、45ms、75ms、1000ms四种呈现时间,结果发现只有15ms条件下未出现锚定效应,随着呈现时间增加,锚定效应不断增大,低锚下的锚定效应高于高锚下的锚定效应。实验二设置了语意相同但表述形式不同的两种水平的锚值,结果发现两者引发的锚定效应不同。锚定效应的产生前提是注意,数字启动假说可以更好地解释基础锚定效应。     

调整与通达:锚定效应心理机制的研究进展

调整和通达是锚定效应心理机制的两种代表性观点,近年来,关于这两种机制的研究不断推进,产生了有限理性观、社会认知理论、双加工理论、态度改变理论等研究视角。从调整或通达单一解释模型发展到对复合机制的检验;从单锚效应机制的阐释发展到对双锚效应心理过程的探讨。未来研究应在选择通达加工过程的思维层面和内涵、不同性质问题下锚定效应机制的差异性、锚定效应内外部影响因素及神经心理机制研究等方面进一步深化。     

被洞悉错觉中的锚定及其调节效应

根据锚定及其调节效应的理论解释,通过两个情境实验对被洞悉错觉产生过程中的锚定及其调节效应进行研究。研究表明,在紧张、愉快情绪状态下个体均倾向高估他人对自己内部状态的洞悉水平,即产生被洞悉错觉。内心感受强度,即锚定值对被洞悉错觉的产生有重要影响;而有无认知负荷,即认知状态在被洞悉错觉产生过程中与锚定值的调节水平无关,对被洞悉错觉是否发生亦没有明显作用。     

双向背景信息外部锚问题决策的眼动特征

采用正反双向背景信息日常生活外部锚问题,选取64名大学生,运用眼动技术,考察锚值及双向信息对外部锚问题决策的影响。结果发现：高、低锚组锚定效应指数均在0.76以上,且不存在显著差异。回答锚值比较问题时,从锚值向反向信息的眼跳次数和注视时间显著多于向正向信息的眼跳次数和注视时间。回答估计值问题时,从估计值问题向锚值的眼跳次数和注视时间显著多于向双向信息的眼跳次数和注视时间。研究表明,外部锚引起程度较高的锚定效应。反向信息在问题理解及决策中得到更多关注。锚值在回答锚值比较及估计值问题阶段均对决策产生显著影响。支持了选择通达和信息加工负性偏向观点。     

Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms

Judgmental anchoring—the assimilation of a numeric estimate towards a previously considered standard—is an exceptionally ubiquitous effect that influences human judgment in a variety of domains and paradigms. Three studies examined whether anchoring effects even occur, if anchor values are presented subliminally, outside of judges’ awareness. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate such subliminal anchoring effects: judges assimilated target estimates towards the subliminally presented anchor values. Study 3 further demonstrates that subliminal anchors produced a selective increase in the accessibility of anchor-consistent target knowledge. The implications of these findings for the ubiquity of judgmental anchoring, its different underlying mechanisms, and comparative information processing are discussed.     

时距估计中的锚定效应

采用两种时距估计方法,检验时距锚定值对时距估计的影响,并探讨了时距信息的心理表征方式。63名在校大学生参加了本次实验。实验1采用口头报告法,表明较大的时距锚定值（5s,5000ms）条件下,被试估对时距的估计值较大,而较小时距锚定值（1s,1000ms）条件下被试估计的时距值较小;语义相同但表述方式不同的锚定值（1s与1000ms,5s与5000ms）条件下的时距估计值没有显著差异。实验2采用产生法,进一步表明时距表述方式对产生时距没有显著影响。以上结果表明,时距估计受时距锚定值的影响,时距信息可能以语义形式进行表征,而不是简单的数字加单位的表层表征形式     

Anchoring in time estimation

In two experiments, an anchoring account of the misestimation of future task duration was tested. This account states that such misestimation occurs because previous task duration serves as an anchor for predictions, leading to underestimation when a longer task follows a shorter one and overestimation when a shorter task follows a longer one. Before estimating the duration of a focal task, participants selected a figure (anchor) of a longer or shorter duration produced by other participants in previous research on the same task (Experiment 1) or a different task (Experiment 2). In both experiments, misestimation differed according to the relative duration of the anchor to the focal task. Underestimation occurred with the shorter anchor and overestimation occurred with the longer one, suggesting that estimates were distorted in the direction of the anchors. This finding is discussed in relation to the role of prior task experience in moderating this anchoring effect.     

The More You Ask For,the More You Get: Anchoring in Personal Injury Verdicts

The ‘anchoring and adjustment’ bias was demonstrated in a personal injury case using mock jurors. In Experiment 1, the ad damnum, or requested compensation, was manipulated across participants. In Experiment 2, anchors were operationalized as the strength of the legal evidence. Both monetary and causal anchors systematically influenced judgments of the probability that the defendant caused the plaintiff's injuries, compensation awarded, and perceptions of the litigants. These results indicate that anchoring occurs in legal applications, and that plaintiffs would do well to request large compensation awards. In addition, anchors expressed on one scale affected judgments expressed on another scale. This cross-modality anchoring stands in contrast to previous studies. Finally, these anchoring effects are unlikely to be explained by either demand effects or perceived relevance of the anchor.     

Anchoring effects on performance judgments

Three studies were conducted investigating the effects of irrelevant anchors on performance judgments. Both a lab and field study demonstrated that an alternative anchoring manipulation that did not involve an explicit comparative question had effects on performance judgments similar to a traditional anchoring manipulation. The final study examined whether the anchoring effects were more likely when the anchor was highly applicable to the final judgment. The results indicated that both highly applicable and low applicable anchors produced an anchoring effect, but the highly applicable anchors had a larger effect on performance judgments. Evidence was also found for asymmetrical anchoring effects. In two of the three studies, high anchors increased performance judgments relative to the control group, whereas low anchors were not significantly different from the control group.     

不同形式的锚定值对时距估计决策过程的影响

采用基本锚定范式,以时间词和物理时距分别作为数字锚定值和物理锚定值,探讨了不同形式和大小的锚定值如何影响产生法（实验1）和口头估计法（实验2）中的时距估计的决策过程。55名在校大学生参加了本次实验。实验结果表明,数字锚定值被作为时距估计的调整起始点,对决策过程中的数值估计产生同化影响;物理锚定值则被作为时距估计的比较标准,同化产生法中的决策估计值,对口头估计法中的决策估计值却产生对比影响。     

Anchoring,Activation, and the Construction of Values

Anchoring is a pervasive judgment bias in which decision makers are systematically influenced by random and uninformative starting points. While anchors have been shown to affect a broad range of judgments including answers to knowledge questions, monetary evaluations, and social judgments, the underlying causes of anchoring have been explored only recently. We suggest that anchors affect judgments by increasing the availability and construction of features that the anchor and target hold in common and reducing the availability of features of the target that differ from the anchor. We test this notion of anchoring as activation in five experiments that examine the effects of several experimental manipulations on judgments of value and belief as well as on measures of cognitive processes. Our results indicate that prompting subjects to consider features of the item that are different from the anchor reduces anchoring, while increasing consideration of similar features has no effect. The anchoring-as-activation approach provides a mechanism for debiasing anchoring and also points to a common mechanism underlying anchoring and a number of other judgment phenomena.