Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.19066/cogsci.2022.33.1.004

The effect of anchor extremity and question difficulty on anchoring effect  

Lee, Myoungjin (Yeungnam University)
Lee, Yoonhyoung (Yeungnam University)
Kim, Kyungil (Ajou University)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Cognitive Science / v.33, no.1, 2022 , pp. 77-93 More about this Journal
Abstract
Previous studies have reported that a plausible reference point has a greater anchoring effect than an extreme reference point. It is also known that the anchoring effect decreases when the individual's level of knowledge related to a given item is high. However, there has been no study examining the interaction of the plausibility of the reference point and the difficulty of the given question. Therefore, in this study, the effect of the reference plausibility and the difficulty of the questions on the anchoring effect were examined. The relationship between the response confidence and the anchoring effect was also examined. To do so, easy and difficult questions, plausible and extreme reference points were selected through preliminary research. The experiment was conducted following the 'standard anchoring task procedure'. As results, the extremity of the reference point and the difficulty of the question affected the size of the anchoring effect respectively. The difficulty of the question also affected the confidence of the response. Specifically, when a plausible reference point was presented and when a difficult question was presented, the anchoring effects were increased. In addition, the lower the confidence in one's performances, the greater the influence of the reference point when an extreme reference point was presented. These results show that the plausibility of the given reference point and the difficulty of the item have different effects on the magnitude of the anchoring effect and the degree of confidence. The results of this study support the attitude change perspective regarding the anchoring effect, which suggests that the anchoring effect varies depending on the characteristics of the reference point and the individual's knowledge.
Keywords
anchoring effect; anchor extremity; question difficulty; confidence of the response;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological science, 12(5), 391-396.   DOI
2 Lieder, F., Griffiths, T. L., Huys, Q. J., & Goodman, N. D. (2018). The anchoring bias reflects rational use of cognitive resources. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 25(1), 322-349.   DOI
3 Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). Numeric judgments under uncertainty: The role of knowledge in anchoring. Journal of experimental social psychology, 36(5), 495-518.   DOI
4 Bahnik, S., & Strack, F. (2016). Overlap of accessible information undermines the anchoring effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1).
5 Bokati, L., Kreinovich, V., & Le, C. V. (2021, January). How to Explain the Anchoring Formula in Behavioral Economics. In International Econometric Conference of Vietnam (pp. 28-34). Springer, Cham.
6 Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 79(2), 115-153.   DOI
7 Englich, B. (2008). When knowledge matters-differential effects of available knowledge in standard and basic anchoring tasks. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(5), 896-904.   DOI
8 Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2005). When effortful thinking influences judgmental anchoring: differential effects of forewarning and incentives on self generated and externally provided anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 199-212.   DOI
9 Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2005). The last word in court-A hidden disadvantage for the defense. Law and Human Behavior, 29(6), 705-722.   DOI
10 Caputo, A. (2014). Relevant information, personality traits and anchoring effect. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 13(1), 62-76.   DOI
11 Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), 1161-1166.   DOI
12 Markovits, H., Thompson, V. A., & Brisson, J. (2015). Metacognition and abstract reasoning. Memory & cognition, 43(4), 681-693.   DOI
13 Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Comparing is believing: A selective accessibility model of judgmental anchoring. European review of social psychology, 10(1), 135-167.   DOI
14 Mussweiler, T., Englich, B., & Strack, F. (2012). Anchoring effect. In Cognitive illusions (pp. 195-212). Psychology Press.
15 Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoringand-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 39(1), 84-97.   DOI
16 Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 41(5), 847.   DOI
17 Shynkaruk, J. M., & Thompson, V. A. (2006). Confidence and accuracy in deductive reasoning. Memory & cognition, 34(3), 619-632.   DOI
18 Smith, A. R., Windschitl, P. D., & Bruchmann, K. (2013). Knowledge matters: Anchoring effects are moderated by knowledge level. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(1), 97-108.   DOI
19 Smith, A. R., & Windschitl, P. D. (2011). Biased calculations: Numeric anchors influence answers to math equations. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(2), 139.
20 Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of consumer research, 10(2), 135-146.   DOI
21 Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of personality and social psychology, 73(3), 437.   DOI
22 Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.   DOI
23 Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(2), 188-200.   DOI
24 Yang, C., Sun, B., & Shanks, D. R. (2018). The anchoring effect in metamemory monitoring. Memory & Cognition, 46(3), 384-397.   DOI
25 Wegener, T., Petty, E., Blankenship, L., & Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2010). Elaboration and numerical anchoring: Implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 5-16.   DOI
26 Wegener, T., Petty, E., Detweiler-Bedell, T., & Jarvis, G. (2001). Implications of attitude change theories for numerical anchoring: Anchor plausibility and the limits of anchor effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(1), 62-69.   DOI
27 Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Matching versus mismatching attitude functions: Implications for scrutiny of persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(3), 227-240.   DOI
28 Smith, A. R., & Windschitl, P. D. (2015). Resisting anchoring effects: The roles of metric and mapping knowledge. Memory & cognition, 43(7), 1071-1084.   DOI
29 Thorsteinson, T. J. (2011). Initiating Salary Discussions With an Extreme Request: Anchoring Effects on Initial Salary Offers 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(7), 1774-1792.   DOI
30 Englich, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 31(7), 1535-1551.   DOI
31 Petty, R. E., Schumann, D. W., Richman, S. A., & Strathman, A. J. (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: Different roles for affect under high-and low-elaboration conditions. Journal of personality and social psychology, 64(1), 5.   DOI
32 Blankenship, K. L., Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B., & Macy, C. L. (2008). Elaboration and consequences of anchored estimates: An attitudinal perspective on numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(6), 1465-1476.   DOI
33 Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1994). The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7(4), 223-242.   DOI