» Articles » PMID: 26941684

Anchoring in Numeric Judgments of Visual Stimuli

Overview
Journal Front Psychol
Date 2016 Mar 5
PMID 26941684
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This article investigates effects of anchoring in age estimation and estimation of quantities, two tasks which to different extents are based on visual stimuli. The results are compared to anchoring in answers to classic general knowledge questions that rely on semantic knowledge. Cognitive load was manipulated to explore possible differences between domains. Effects of source credibility, manipulated by differing instructions regarding the selection of anchor values (no information regarding anchor selection, information that the anchors are randomly generated or information that the anchors are answers from an expert) on anchoring were also investigated. Effects of anchoring were large for all types of judgments but were not affected by cognitive load or by source credibility in either one of the researched domains. A main effect of cognitive load on quantity estimations and main effects of source credibility in the two visually based domains indicate that the manipulations were efficient. Implications for theoretical explanations of anchoring are discussed. In particular, because anchoring did not interact with cognitive load, the results imply that the process behind anchoring in visual tasks is predominantly automatic and unconscious.

Citing Articles

Exploring determinants of formation of cognitive anchors from altruistic messages: A fuzzy DEMATEL approach.

Liao C, Hsu C PLoS One. 2023; 18(11):e0293841.

PMID: 37930993 PMC: 10627445. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293841.


Perceptual anchoring effects: Evidence of response bias and a change in estimates sensitivity.

Garcia-Marques T, Fernandes A Brain Behav. 2023; 13(11):e3254.

PMID: 37830783 PMC: 10636401. DOI: 10.1002/brb3.3254.


What Influences People's Tradeoff Decisions Between CO Emissions and Travel Time? An Experiment With Anchors and Normative Messages.

Andersson H, Ahonen-Jonnarth U, Holmgren M, Marsh J, Wallhagen M, Bokman F Front Psychol. 2021; 12:702398.

PMID: 34955942 PMC: 8699112. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.702398.

References
1.
Kruger J . Lake Wobegon be gone! The "below-average effect" and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999; 77(2):221-32. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.77.2.221. View

2.
Wilson T, Houston C, Etling K, Brekke N . A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1996; 125(4):387-402. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.125.4.387. View

3.
Wong , Kwong . Is 7300 m Equal to 7.3 km? Same Semantics but Different Anchoring Effects. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2000; 82(2):314-333. DOI: 10.1006/obhd.2000.2900. View

4.
Epley N, Gilovich T . Are adjustments insufficient?. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2004; 30(4):447-60. DOI: 10.1177/0146167203261889. View

5.
Epley N, Gilovich T . The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychol Sci. 2006; 17(4):311-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01704.x. View