![]() In the example of the judgment of the average annual temperature in New York City, they would answer the comparison question by recalling information that is compatible with the two values (the average annual temperature in New York City and 102 ☏) being equal ( Reference Klayman and HaKlayman & Ha, 1987). This means that in the standard anchoring paradigm people test, in a biased way, the hypothesis that the correct target value is equal to the anchor value when they answer the comparison question. In particular, the recently introduced scale distortion theory of anchoring ( Reference Frederick and MochonFrederick & Mochon, 2012 Reference Mochon and FrederickMochon & Frederick, 2013) is supposed to represent an alternative to the previously favored explanation of the anchoring effect-the selective accessibility model ( Reference Strack, Bahník and MussweilerStrack, Bahník & Mussweiler, 2016 Reference Strack and MussweilerStrack & Mussweiler, 1997).Īccording to the selective accessibility model, anchoring is a result of increased accessibility of information consistent with the anchor, which results from positive hypothesis testing. Even though it has been studied for more than 40 years, its underlying mechanism is still debated (e.g., Bahník & Strack, 2016 Reference Frederick and MochonFrederick & Mochon, 2012 Reference Harris and SpeekenbrinkHarris & Speekenbrink, 2016 Reference Lewis, Gaertig and SimmonsLewis, Gaertig, & Simmons, 2019 Reference Mochon and FrederickMochon & Frederick, 2013). Anchoring has been shown to be robust ( Reference Klein, Ratliff, Vianello, Adams, Bahník, Bernstein and NosekKlein et al., 2014) as well as relevant to various applied domains (e.g., Reference Englich, Mussweiler and StrackEnglich, Mussweiler & Strack, 2006 Reference Galinsky and MussweilerGalinsky & Mussweiler, 2001). ![]() The absolute judgment is assimilated toward the anchor value, and people thus provide higher estimates if they compared the temperature with 102 ☏ than if they had compared the temperature with a lower value. Then, they estimate the average annual temperature in New York City. For example, in a comparison question, people may be asked whether the average annual temperature in New York City is lower or higher than 102 ☏. In this paradigm, people are first asked to compare a target value with an anchor and then make an absolute judgment about the target value. Anchoring has been usually studied using the so-called standard anchoring paradigm. The anchoring effect refers to the assimilation of judgment toward a previously considered value - the anchor ( Reference Bahník, Englich, Strack and PohlBahník, Englich & Strack, 2017 Reference Tversky and KahnemanTversky & Kahneman, 1974). The results are in accord with the scale distortion theory of anchoring, but other theories may also account for the observed findings with additional adjustments. The debiasing procedure, based on providing reference points on the numerical scale, prevented the sequential anchoring effect. A comparison of a target with another object before the numerical estimate was not sufficient to elicit anchoring, but it might have increased the sequential anchoring effect. We replicated the anchoring effect using the sequential anchoring paradigm and showed that, when two anchors of opposite directions are presented, the second seems to influence a subsequent judgment somewhat more. ![]() We used several variations of the sequential anchoring paradigm, in which a numeric estimate influences a subsequent numeric estimate on the same scale, to investigate how anchoring is influenced by multiple anchors, a comparison question, and by a newly introduced debiasing procedure. The anchoring effect, the assimilation of judgment toward a previously considered value, has been shown using various experimental paradigms. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |