Anchoring effects on performance judgments

Thorsteinson, Todd J.; Breier, Jennifer M.; Atwell, Anna; Hamilton, Catherine; Privette, Monica

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.01.003

Cited by 65 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When the anchor value was 65 %, participants gave higher estimates than when the anchor value was 10 %. Similar anchoring effects have been found in a wide variety of situations, including ratings of university professors (Thorsteinson, Breier, Atwell, Hamilton, & Privette, 2008), salary negotiations (Thorsteinson, 2011), and medical judgments (Brewer, Chapman, Schwartz, & Bergus, 2007).…”

supporting

confidence: 67%

Resisting anchoring effects: The roles of metric and mapping knowledge

Smith

Windschitl

2015

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The biasing influence of anchors on numerical estimates is well established, but the relationship between knowledge level and the susceptibility to anchoring effects is less clear. In two studies, we addressed the potential mitigating effects of having knowledge in a domain on vulnerability to anchoring effects in that domain. Of critical interest was a distinction between two forms of knowledge-metric and mapping knowledge. In Study 1, participants who had studied question-relevant information-that is, high-knowledge participants-were less influenced by anchors than were participants who had studied irrelevant information. The results from knowledge measures suggested that the reduction in anchoring was tied to increases in metric rather than mapping knowledge. In Study 2, participants studied information specifically designed to influence different types of knowledge. As we predicted, increases in metric knowledge-and not mapping knowledge-led to reduced anchoring effects. Implications for debiasing anchoring effects are discussed.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 67%

Resisting anchoring effects: The roles of metric and mapping knowledge

Smith

Windschitl

2015

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It makes sense that students take peer performance information into consideration in making self-judgments of performance, although a heavy reliance on it is troubling. But there is evidence that irrelevant anchors also significantly affect people's judgments even when they are not asked to explicitly compare the anchor to the target value (e.g., Thorsteinson et al 2008;Wilson et al 1996). These effects are described as basic anchoring effects (see Englich 2008 for a discussion of standard versus basic anchoring effects).…”

Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These effects are described as basic anchoring effects (see Englich 2008 for a discussion of standard versus basic anchoring effects). For example, Thorsteinson et al (2008; Study 2) studied the effects of irrelevant anchors on student evaluation of instructor. The irrelevant anchor was an example evaluation form with ratings for five performance dimensions and overall performance.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anchoring effects on prospective and retrospective metacomprehension judgments as a function of peer performance information

Zhao

Linderholm

2010

Metacognition Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments were conducted to investigate anchoring effects on metacomprehension judgments as a function of fictitious information participants received about past peer performance. In Experiment 1 participants were randomly assigned to one of the three anchor groups that, in some cases, provided past peer performance averages in terms of a percentage: a high anchor (85%) a low anchor (55%), and no anchor. Results showed that relative to the no anchor group, the low anchor group made significantly lower prospective judgments whereas the high anchor group did not make significantly higher prospective judgments. With a high anchor of greater magnitude (95%), Experiment 2 demonstrated more pronounced anchoring effects on prospective judgments: Relative to the no anchor group, the low anchor group made significantly lower judgments and the high anchor group made significantly higher judgments. In addition, Experiment 2 showed that anchoring effects occurred even on retrospective judgments. Overall, the results showed that peer performance information can serve as an anchoring point for metacomprehension judgments and the anchoring effects are tenacious given that they can even affect retrospective judgments of performance.Keywords Anchoring . Prospective metacomprehension judgment . Retrospective metacomprehension judgment . Peer performance Who of us have not had the experience of reading a set of text materials and then realized that we have comprehended some texts better than others? Suppose there is an upcoming exam that tests our comprehension of the texts, we might expect better performance for Metacognition Learning (2011) 6:25-43

show abstract

“…Previous research has established that prior decisions/ judgments can exert considerable influence on subsequent ones (e.g., Sumer & Knight, 1996;Thorsteinson, Breier, Atwell, Hamilton, & Privette, 2008). The influence of previous decisions is of particular interest to organizational researchers given that repeated, but ideally independent, judgments are routine and accompanied by considerably high stakes.…”

Section: Effects Of Previous Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%