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.     

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.     

Anchoring effects in the judgment of confidence: Semantic or numeric priming?

Over the last decade, researchers have debated whether anchoring effects are the result of semantic or numeric priming. The present study tested both hypotheses. In four experiments involving a sensory detection task, participants first made a relative confidence judgment by deciding whether they were more or less confident than an anchor value in the correctness of their decision. Subsequently, they expressed an absolute level of confidence. In two of these experiments, the relative confidence anchor values represented the midpoints between the absolute confidence scale values, which were either explicitly numeric or semantic, nonnumeric representations of magnitude. In two other experiments, the anchor values were drawn from a scale modally different from that used to express the absolute confidence (i.e., nonnumeric and numeric, respectively, or vice versa). Regardless of the nature of the anchors, the mean confidence ratings revealed anchoring effects only when the relative and absolute confidence values were drawn from identical scales. Together, the results of these four experiments limit the conditions under which both numeric and semantic priming would be expected to lead to anchoring effects.     

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.     

Taking the High (or Low) Road: A Quantifier Priming Perspective on Basic Anchoring Effects

ABSTRACT

Current explanations of basic anchoring effects, defined as the influence of an arbitrary number standard on an uncertain judgment, confound numerical values with vague quantifiers. I show that the consideration of numerical anchors may bias subsequent judgments primarily through the priming of quantifiers, rather than the numbers themselves. Study 1 varied the target of a numerical comparison judgment in a between-participants design, while holding the numerical anchor value constant. This design yielded an anchoring effect consistent with a quantifier priming hypothesis. Study 2 included a direct manipulation of vague quantifiers in the traditional anchoring paradigm. Finally, Study 3 examined the notion that specific associations between quantifiers, reflecting values on separate judgmental dimensions (i.e., the price and height of a target) can affect the direction of anchoring effects. Discussion focuses on the nature of vague quantifier priming in numerically anchored judgments.     

The durability of anchoring effects

Recent research suggests that judgmental anchoring is mediated by a selective increase in the accessibility of knowledge about the judgmental target. Anchoring thus constitutes one instance of the judgmental effects of increased knowledge accessibility. Such knowledge accessibility effects have repeatedly been demonstrated to be fairly durable, which suggests that the effects of judgmental anchoring may also persist over time. Consistent with this assumption, three experiments demonstrate that judgmental anchors influence judgment even if they were present one week before the critical judgment is made. In fact, the magnitude of anchoring was found to remain undiminished over this period of time. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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。     

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。     

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.     

Elaboration and consequences of anchored estimates: An attitudinal perspective on numerical anchoring

In the standard numerical anchoring paradigm, the influence of externally provided anchors on judgment is typically explained as a result of elaborate thinking (i.e., confirmatory hypothesis testing that selectively activates anchor-consistent information in memory). In contrast, theories of attitude change suggest that the same judgments can result from relatively thoughtful or non-thoughtful processes, with more thoughtful processes resulting in judgments that last longer over time and better resist future attempts at change. Guided by an attitudinal approach to anchoring, four studies manipulated participants’ level of cognitive load to produce relatively high versus low levels of thinking. These studies show that, although anchoring can occur under both high and low thought conditions, anchoring based on a higher level of thinking involves greater use of judgment-relevant background knowledge, persists longer over time, is more resistant to subsequent attempts at social influence, and is less likely to result from direct numeric priming.     

The effect of feedback on children’s metacognitive judgments: a heuristic account

In three experiments, we investigated whether the feedback effect on the accuracy of children’s metacognitive judgments results from an improvement in monitoring processes or the use of the Anchoring-and-Adjustment heuristic. Experiment 1 revealed that adding feedback increased the accuracy of young children’s (aged 4, 6, and 8 years) memory prediction. In Experiment 2, the influence of an external anchor on children’s metacognitive judgment was established. Finally, in Experiment 3, two memory tasks that differed in terms of difficulty were administered. Participants were randomly assigned to an anchoring (high/low/no anchor) and a feedback (feedback/no feedback) condition. Results demonstrated that children in the feedback condition adjusted their predictions toward the feedback, regardless of the task’s difficulty. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that external information provided by feedback is used as an anchor for judgment. This interpretation is strengthened by the correlation found between the two scores computed to assess participants’ susceptibility to anchoring and feedback effects, which indicates that children who are more sensitive to the anchoring effect are also more sensitive to the feedback effect.     

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。     

Anchors aweigh: a demonstration of cross-modality anchoring and magnitude priming

Research has shown that judgments tend to assimilate to irrelevant "anchors." We extend anchoring effects to show that anchors can even operate across modalities by, apparently, priming a general sense of magnitude that is not moored to any unit or scale. An initial study showed that participants drawing long "anchor" lines made higher numerical estimates of target lengths than did those drawing shorter lines. We then replicated this finding, showing that a similar pattern was obtained even when the target estimates were not in the dimension of length. A third study showed that an anchor's length relative to its context, and not its absolute length, is the key to predicting the anchor's impact on judgments. A final study demonstrated that magnitude priming (priming a sense of largeness or smallness) is a plausible mechanism underlying the reported effects. We conclude that the boundary conditions of anchoring effects may be much looser than previously thought, with anchors operating across modalities and dimensions to bias judgment.     

Uninformative Anchors Have Persistent Effects on Valuation Judgments

Anchoring effects influence a wide range of numeric judgments, including valuation judgments, such as willingness‐to‐pay (WTP). However, prior research has not established whether anchoring only temporarily distorts responses or exerts persistent influence on preferences. This article presents three incentive compatible experiments examining the long‐term effects of random anchoring on WTP. Study 1 evaluated the persistence of anchoring effects over long durations, and showed that the strength of the effect decayed but did not disappear completely even 8 weeks later. In Study 2, a random anchor significantly influenced WTP after one week, regardless of whether WTP was also elicited immediately following the anchoring procedure, showing that consistency motivations do not account for persistence of anchoring effects. Study 3 showed relatively low anchors resulted in more stable valuations, compared with participants who reported WTP with no anchoring procedure. Together with the pattern of decay over time in Study 1, this suggests that anchoring facilitates the “imprinting” of valuation judgments for later retrieval. These studies show that anchoring effects can lead to lasting changes in valuation judgments, providing the first demonstration of long‐term persistence of constructed preferences as a result of an uninformative and arbitrary manipulation.     

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     

Effects of salience and time pressure on ratings of social causality

A model is proposed to account for the effects of a target person's salience on judgments of that target. It is argued that salience leads to more extreme inferences in the direction implied by prior knowledge that is relevant to the judgment. This knowledge may include both specific information about the target being rated and general information about the class of stimuli to which the target belongs. Two experiments supported these hypotheses. When subjects were under time pressure to make judgments of a target person's influence in a social situation, their judgments increased with the salience of the target when they had prior knowledge that the target was generally high in social influence. However, their judgments decreased with the target's salience when subjects had prior knowledge that the target was generally low in social influence. When subjects were given ample time to make their judgments, however, the effects of target salience were attenuated. Possible implications of these findings for prior research on salience effects are discussed.     

Effects of Accuracy Motivation and Anchoring on Metacomprehension Judgment and Accuracy

The current research investigates how accuracy motivation impacts anchoring and adjustment in metacomprehension judgment and how accuracy motivation and anchoring affect metacomprehension accuracy. Participants were randomly assigned to one of six conditions produced by the between-subjects factorial design involving accuracy motivation (incentive or no) and peer performance anchor (95%, 55%, or no). Two studies showed that accuracy motivation did not impact anchoring bias, but the adjustment-from-anchor process occurred. Accuracy incentive increased anchor-judgment gap for the 95% anchor but not for the 55% anchor, which induced less certainty about the direction of adjustment. The findings offer support to the integrative theory of anchoring. Additionally, the two studies revealed a “power struggle” between accuracy motivation and anchoring in influencing metacomprehension accuracy. Accuracy motivation could improve metacomprehension accuracy in spite of anchoring effect, but if anchoring effect is too strong, it could overpower the motivation effect. The implications of the findings were discussed.     

The De‐biasing Effect of Incidental Anger on Other‐provided Anchors

The current research investigates the effect of incidental anger on anchoring bias. We hypothesized that feeling angry will make people less influenced by other‐provided anchors because of the moving against action tendency associated with anger. That is, individuals in an angry state will be likely to perceive a given anchor as a viable target for their desire to attack and actively seek out anchor‐inconsistent information, thereby committing less anchoring bias. To examine our hypothesis, in Study 1, we manipulated emotions using film clips and administered a general knowledge task with other‐provided anchors. As predicted, participants in the anger condition showed less anchoring bias to the other‐provided anchors than those in the sad or neutral condition. Study 2 replicated the finding with a different emotion manipulation technique and different anchoring questions. More important, consistent with the moving against action tendency explanation, we also found that people in an angry state committed more anchoring bias for self‐generated anchors, compared with people in a sad or neutral state. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.