判断与决策中的锚定效应

versky和Kahneman提出锚定与调整启发式以来,锚定效应在不同领域判断与决策研究中得到广泛验证,提出了不同类型的锚定效应、多种研究范式、心理机制的不同理论观点,以及锚定效应作为有关心理现象的内在作用机制。文章阐述了锚定效应的最新研究进展,提出应深化对锚的种类和形态研究,以丰富的技术手段发展锚定效应神经心理机制研究,系统地进行锚定效应影响因素研究,深入探讨锚定现象对人的心理与行为的正负面影响以及锚定效应与其他有关心理现象间的关系     

Contextual effects in vowel perception II: Evidence for two processing mechanisms

Recent experiments have indicated that contrast effects can be obtained with vowels by anchoring a test series with one of the endpoint vowels. These contextual effects cannot be attributed to feature detector fatigue or to the induction of an overt response bias. In the present studies, anchored ABX discrimination functions and signal detection analyses of identification data (before and after anchoring) for an [i]-[I] vowel series were used to demonstrate that [i] and [I] anchoring produce contrast effects by affecting different perceptual mechanisms. The effects of [i] anchoring were to increase within-[i] category sensitivity, while [I] anchoring shifted criterion placements. When vowels were placed in CVC syllables to reduce available auditory memory, there was a significant decrease in the size of the [I]-anchor contrast effects. The magnitude of the [i]-anchor effect was unaffected by the reduction in vowel information available in auditory memory. These results suggest that [i] and [I] anchors affect mechanisms at different levels of processing. The [i] anchoring results may reflect normalization processes in speech perception that operate at an early level of perceptual processing, while the [I] anchoring results represent changes in response criterion mediated by auditory memory for vowel information.     

Anchoring unbound

An attitudes and persuasion perspective can broaden our understanding of anchoring by highlighting sources of variability in anchoring effects that have been largely overlooked. As the target article suggests, research guided by this perspective can help identify (1) different types of anchors that exert their influence through different underlying mechanisms, 2) important social psychological moderators of anchoring effects, and 3) sources of variability in the consequences of anchoring for judgment and choice. In this commentary, we take an even broader perspective on the types of anchors that are likely to influence judgment, suggesting four potentially distinct types—intuitive approximations, best/worst case scenarios, environmental suggestions, and magnitude priming. We conclude by discussing how an attitudes and persuasion perspective on anchoring may provide novel insights into the moderators and consequences of anchoring effects in everyday life.     

认知决策中锚定效应的量子模型研究

文章回顾了锚定效应研究中个体层面和群体层面的相关文献,认为选择易得性模型理论能够很好地解释锚定效应的发生机制。同时,通过回顾决策认知领域的最新研究观点——量子模型,包括从只利用量子论空间性质到使用薛定谔方程的两种表述,阐述了这一领域的研究趋势。并通过为锚定效应建立量子模型(个体层面和两人层面),拓展了锚定效应的研究。     

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.     

The role of occlusion in the perception of depth, lightness, and opacity

A theory is presented that explains how the visual system infers the lightness, opacity, and depth of surfaces from stereoscopic images. It is shown that the polarity and magnitude of image contrast play distinct roles in surface perception, which can be captured by 2 principles of perceptual inference. First, a contrast depth asymmetry principle articulates how the visual system computes the ordinal depth and lightness relationships from the polarity of local, binocularly matched image contrast. Second, a global transmittance anchoring principle expresses how variations in contrast magnitudes are used to infer the presence of transparent surfaces. It is argued that these principles provide a unified explanation of how the visual system computes the 3-D surface structure of opaque and transparent surfaces.     

Are adjustments insufficient?

Many judgmental biases are thought to be the product of insufficient adjustment from an initial anchor value. Nearly all existing evidence of insufficient adjustment, however, comes from an experimental paradigm that evidence indicates does not involve adjustment at all. In this article, the authors first provide further evidence that some kinds of anchors (those that are self-generated and known to be incorrect but close to the correct answer) activate processes of adjustment, whereas others (uncertain anchors provided by an external source) do not. It is then shown that adjustment from self-generated anchors does indeed tend to be insufficient, both by comparing the estimates of participants starting from different anchor values and by comparing estimates with actual answers. Thus, evidence is provided of adjustment-based anchoring effects similar to the accessibility-based anchoring effects observed in the traditional anchoring paradigm, supporting theories of social judgment that rely on mechanisms of insufficient adjustment.     

When effortful thinking influences judgmental anchoring: differential effects of forewarning and incentives on self‐generated and externally provided anchors

Two experiments examined the impact of financial incentives and forewarnings on judgmental anchoring effects, or the tendency for judgments of uncertain qualities to be biased in the direction of salient anchor values. Previous research has found no effect of either manipulation on the magnitude of anchoring effects. We argue, however, that anchoring effects are produced by multiple mechanisms—one involving an effortful process of adjustment from “self‐generated” anchors, and another involving the biased recruitment of anchor‐consistent information from “externally provided” anchors—and that only the former should be influenced by incentives and forewarning. Two studies confirmed these predictions, showing that responses to “self‐generated” anchors are influenced by both incentives and forewarnings whereas responses to “externally provided” anchors are not. Discussion focuses on the implications of these effects for debiasing efforts. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Semantics of Anchoring

Previous research has demonstrated that judgmental anchoring effects—the assimilation of a numeric estimate to a previously considered standard—are semantic in nature. They result because the semantic knowledge about the target object that is activated during the comparison with the anchor influences the absolute judgment. In addition to this semantic influence, the numeric anchor value itself may also yield an effect under specific conditions. The present research was designed to examine the relative strength of both mechanisms and explore their boundary conditions. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that semantic anchoring effects are more potent than purely numeric effects. Study 3 further suggests that purely numeric effects only operate if accessible semantic knowledge is inapplicable to the critical judgment so that semantic influences are incapacitated. The implications of these findings are discussed from the perspective of an integrative model which differentiates between two stages of anchoring. Whereas purely numeric influences appear to be limited to the stage of anchor selection, the actual comparison with the target involves more elaborate semantic processes.     

Trait perspective-taking and need for cognition in the formation of stereotypes about people who stutter

People who stutter (PWS) suffer from stereotypes portraying them as timid and anxious, which may affect their relationships and careers. One of the mechanisms for this stereotyping is the anchoring and adjustment heuristic, whereby individuals make judgements about PWS by using previous experiences for the initial judgement and then adjust accordingly. In the current study (n = 309) we replicate previous findings that individuals stereotype PWS by anchoring to experiences with episodic stuttering and adjusting toward typical non-stuttering individuals, although insufficiently. We extend this finding by testing whether trait perspective-taking and need for cognition moderate this relationship. The results show that trait perspective-taking decreases stereotyping of non-PWS, while having no effect on PWS stereotyping. However, need for cognition exhibited no consistent moderating effect on stereotyping.     

Organizational factors and the perception of motion in depth

When two stationary, stereoscopically separated targets are viewed in a completely dark surround, and no cues concerning their egocentric distances from the observer are salient, the farther target tends to be seen at the same distance it would have assumed if it were by itself. The nearer target is seen as being closer than it would have been if seen alone. The present studies extend this previous finding (now termed thefar-anchor effect) into the domain of targets that move in stereoscopic space. Observers viewed two small illuminated targets, which began at either the same or different stereoscopic distances. One of the targets was moved in depth and the observers identified the target that appeared to move. Conditions varied according to the initial depth location of the moving target. Significantly more correct responses were reported when the nearer target moved than when the farther one moved, consistent with the hypothesis that the perception of motion in depth is affected by the aforementioned perceptual anchoring effect of the farther target.     

How malleable is comparative self‐positivity? The effects of manipulating judgemental focus and accessibility

The present research investigated accessibility effects on comparative self‐positivity in the environmental domain. In a pretest we established comparative self‐positivity and a focus effect for environmental awareness. In the main study we aimed at shifting these effects by manipulating the accessibility of harmful behaviours of either the self or the typical student before obtaining comparative judgements. Specifically, we used two types of accessibility manipulations: anchoring and ease of retrieval. We predicted that judgements would be affected by content in the anchoring paradigm but by subjective ease in the ease of retrieval paradigm. We found the predicted pattern of effects, but it was strongest when participants focused on the typical student. The findings contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms underlying comparative biases and may have applied implications. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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。     

Does anchoring vary across cultures? Expanding the Many Labs analysis

Numerous investigations have examined anchoring effects, but most of them studied individuals from similar cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. Replication studies have shown that anchoring heuristics have heterogeneous effects across different cultural groups. In the present investigation, we examined this heterogeneity by looking for associations between effect size and cultural values orientation. We conducted pre-registered meta-analyses of four anchoring tasks, using open data provided by previous works and collected from 6,344 participants in 10 countries. The analyses confirmed that anchoring effects display strong heterogeneity between cultures. Moreover, specific cultural values orientations explained substantial amounts of variability in anchoring effect sizes between cultures: Intellectual Autonomy and Egalitarianism were negatively correlated with anchoring effect size, as we had expected. Surprisingly, Harmony was also negatively correlated with anchoring effect size, whereas Mastery had a positive association. These results suggest that cultural differences can play an important role in observed anchoring effect size.     

Multiple anchoring of category rating scales

A psychophysical experiment compared the effects of two different kinds of anchoring upon category ratings of the sizes of squares: (1) single anchoring in which the same square was presented on every anchoring trial, and (2) multiple anchoring in which squares of different sizes were presented on anchoring trials. Subjects did not rate the anchors, only those squares presented on alternate trials as the series stimuli. The major finding was that the two kinds of anchoring have similar effects. As with the single anchor, the multiple anchor establishes a new endpoint for the scale of judgment. The previously demonstrated relationship of increasing and then decreasing contrast as a function of the remoteness of the single anchor (Sarris, 1967, 1976) was found also for multiple anchoring.     

Anchoring in 4- to 6-year-old children relates to predictors of reading

Previous studies suggest that anchoring, a short-term dynamic and implicit process that allows individuals to benefit from contextual information embedded in stimulus sequences, might be causally related to reading acquisition. Here we report findings from two experiments in which two previously untested predictions derived from this anchoring hypothesis were tested: (a) that anchoring facilitates rapid naming and phonological short-term memory in children prior to the onset of formal reading instruction and (b) that anchoring makes a unique contribution to performance in two early predictors of reading (letter knowledge and phonological awareness). In line with those predictions, naming times were faster and memory spans were longer under conditions that encouraged the use of anchoring processes than under conditions that afforded little anchoring. Furthermore, performance in the anchoring-affording condition predicted significant amounts of variance in phonological awareness and letter knowledge even after controlling for the contribution of the conditions that did not afford anchoring. Therefore, we suggest that anchoring might contribute to the development of reading-related processes during the preschool years independent of the development of specific reading-related skills such as phonological processing.     

The malleability of anchoring effects

Anchoring effects--the assimilation of a numeric estimate to a previously considered standard--are typically described as very robust and persistent. Based on the assumption that judgmental anchoring involves a hypothesis-testing process in which judges actively seek and generate judgment-relevant target knowledge, it was assumed that anchoring effects might at the same time be fairly malleable. Specifically, subtle influences that change the nature of the tested hypothesis are likely to affect the magnitude of anchoring. Using a procedural priming task, judges were induced to focus on similarities versus differences during a series of anchoring tasks. The results demonstrate that the magnitude of the obtained effect critically depended on this manipulation. In particular, a more pronounced anchoring assimilation effect resulted for judges with a similarity rather than a difference focus. Implications of these findings for models of anchoring as well as for the nature of the anchoring phenomenon are discussed.     

When knowledge matters—differential effects of available knowledge in standard and basic anchoring tasks

The present research examines whether anchoring effects—the assimilation of a numeric estimate towards a previously considered standard—depend on judges' available knowledge in the target domain. Based on previous research, I distinguish two types of anchoring effects. Standard anchoring is obtained if judges are explicitly asked to compare the anchor to the target. Basic anchoring results if the accessibility of the anchor is increased prior to judgments about the target. I expected that only basic but not standard anchoring is reduced by providing judges with judgment‐relevant knowledge. Using a standard versus basic anchoring paradigm, 112 participants were confronted with a high versus low anchor before estimating the average price of a German midsize car. Prior to this task, participants were provided with information about prices of cars (relevant knowledge) versus kitchens (irrelevant knowledge). Results demonstrate that this knowledge only influenced the magnitude of basic but not standard anchoring effects. This finding demonstrates that knowledge has differential effects in different types of anchoring. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Can genes modulate anchoring effect?

The anchoring effect is a well-known decision bias, referring that initial irrelevant number (anchor) can impact late estimation. Anchoring effect can be explained as people starting from the anchor and stopping incremental adjustment too early—in other words, jumping into the conclusion impulsively. High impulsivity is associated with AA genotype of rs806379. Therefore, we hypothesized that rs806379 polymorphism can exert an influence on the anchoring effect. The subjects completed an experimental task of anchoring effect and provided saliva for genotyping. As expected, we found that subjects with AA genotype of rs806379 demonstrated stronger anchoring effect. This is the first article that explores the anchoring effect from the gene perspective. Our finding suggests that nature plays a role in anchoring effect.