Dlaczego kotwica kotwiczy? Przegląd mechanizmów i zasad działania heurystyki zakotwiczenia

• Autorzy: Paweł Tomczak

Warianty tytułu

Why Does the Anchor Anchor? Review of Mechanisms and Principles Underlying the Anchoring Heuristic

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

Celem niniejszego artykułu jest przegląd wiedzy dotyczącej heurystyki zakotwiczenia. Mimo silnego ugruntowania empirycznego wytłumaczenia efektu zakotwiczenia nie można sprowadzić do działania jednego mechanizmu psychologicznego. W pierwszej części artykułu zostaną omówione klasyczne mechanizmy kotwiczenia - mechanizm niewystarczającego dopasowania i model selektywnej dostępności. Przeanalizowane będą również alternatywne podejścia teoretyczne do wytłumaczenia tego efektu. W drugiej - procedury eksperymentalne wykorzystywane do badania efektu kotwiczenia. Według literatury kluczowe aspekty determinujące skuteczność kotwiczenia to m.in. ilość zasobów uwagowych poświęconych wartości kotwiczącej i spójność kotwicy z celem szacowania. Jednakże zestawienie zasad kotwiczenia z rezultatami eksperymentów wykorzystujących różne procedury wyraźnie pokazuje, że zasady te nie mają charakteru uniwersalnego. Wskazane problemy natury teoretycznej stanowią propozycję kierunku dalszych badań nastawionych na ujęcie efektu zakotwiczenia w ramach jednego mechanizmu psychologicznego. (abstrakt oryginalny)

EN

This paper reviews the literature regarding the anchoring heuristic. Despite substantial empirical background the anchoring effect cannot be fully explained with just one psychological mechanism. In the first part of the article the classical mechanisms of anchoring are discussed - the insufficient adjustment mechanism and the selective accessibility Additionally, alternative theoretical explanations of the anchoring effect are discussed. In the second part of the article experimental procedures that are used to investigate the anchoring effect are revised. According to the literature paying sufficient attention to the anchor or compatibility between the anchor and the estimation target determine the effectiveness of the anchoring. However, collating those conditions with results obtained with different anchoring procedures show that those rules are not universal. Highlighted theoretical questions indicate a possible direction for further research aimed at finding one psychological mechanism that fully explains the anchoring effect. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Metody heurystyczne; Heurystyka zakotwiczenia; Przegląd literatury

EN

Heuristics methods; Anchoring heuristic; Literature review

• Czasopismo: Decyzje
• Rocznik: 2017
• Numer: nr 28
• Strony: 93--110

Twórcy

autor

Paweł Tomczak

• SWPS Uniwersytet Humanistycznospołeczny we Wrocławiu

Bibliografia

• Alards-Tomalin, D., Walker, A.C., Shaw, J.D., & Leboe-McGowan, L.C. (2015). Is 9 louder than 1? Audiovisual cross-modal interactions between number magnitude and judged sound loudness. Acta psychologica, 160, 95-103.
• Anderson, N.H., & Butzin, C.A. (1974). Performance= Motivation× Ability: An integrationtheoretical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(5), 598.
• Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). Coherent arbitrariness: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73-106.
• Birnbaum, M. H. (1999). How to show that 9>221: Collect judgments in a between-subjects design. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 243.
• Brewer, N. T., & Chapman, G.B. (2002). The fragile basic anchoring effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(1), 65.
• Chapman, G.B., & Johnson, E.J. (1994). The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7(4), 223-242.
• Chapman, G.B., & Johnson, E.J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 79(2), 115-153.
• Cheek, N.N., Coe-Odess, S., & Schwartz, B. (2015). What have I just done? Anchoring, selfknowledge and judgments of recent behavior. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(1), 76.
• Critcher, C. R., & Gilovich, T. (2008). Incidental environmental anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(3), 241-251.
• 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.
• Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2010). Anchoring unbound. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 20-24.
• Frederick, S.W., & Mochon, D. (2012). A scale distortion theory of anchoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 124.
• Friedlander, M.L., & Stockman, S.J. (1983). Anchoring and publicity effects in clinical judgment. Journal of clinical psychology, 39(4), 637-644.
• Furnham, A., & Boo, H.C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(1), 35-42.
• Graesser, C.C., & Anderson, N.H. (1974). Cognitive algebra of the equation: Gift size= generosity= income. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103(4), 692.
• Greenberg, D.L., Bishara, A.J., & Mugayar-Baldocchi, M. A. (2017). Anchoring effects on early autobiographical memories. Memory, 1-6.
• Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Vol. 3. Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41-58.
• Higgins, E.T., Rholes, W.S., & Jones, C.R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(2), 141-154.
• Higgins, E.T., & Brendl, C.M. (1995). Accessibility and applicability: Some" activation rules" infl uencing judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(3), 218-243.
• Jacowitz, K.E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), 1161-1166.
• Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness (No. 6). Harvard University Press.
• Kaustia, M., Alho, E., & Puttonen, V. (2008). How much does expertise reduce behavioral biases? The case of anchoring effects in stock return estimates. Financial Management, 37(3), 391-412.
• Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.W. (1987). Confi rmation, disconfi rmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological review, 94(2), 211.
• Kristensen, H., & Gärling, T. (1997). The effects of anchor points and reference points on negotiation process and outcome. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(1), 85-94.
• Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confi dence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human learning and memory, 6(2), 107.
• Kruger, J. (1999). Lake Wobegon be gone! The" below-average effect" and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77(2), 221.
• LeBoeuf, R. A., & Shafi r, E. (2006). The long and short of it: Physical anchoring effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(4), 393-406.
• Lopes, L.L. (1982). Toward a procedural theory of judgment (No. WHIPP-17). Wisconsin human information processing program Madison.
• Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(2), 136-164.
• Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). Numeric judgments under uncertainty: The role of knowledge in anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(5), 495-518.
• Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2001). The semantics of anchoring. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 86(2), 234-255.
• Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1142-1150.
• Mussweiler, T., & Englich, B. (2005). Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 133-143.
• 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.
• Oppenheimer, D.M., LeBoeuf, R.A., & Brewer, N.T. (2008). Anchors aweigh: A demonstration of cross-modality anchoring and magnitude priming. Cognition, 106(1), 13-26.
• Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion (pp. 1-24). Springer New York.
• Quattrone, G.A., Lawrence, C.P., Finkel, S.E., & Andrus, D.C. (1984). Explorations in anchoring: The effects of prior range, anchor extremity, and suggestive hints. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.
• Reitsma-van Rooijen, M., & Daamen, D.D. (2006). Subliminal anchoring: The effects of subliminally presented numbers on probability estimates. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(3), 380-387.
• Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2013). Taking the High (or Low) Road: A Quantifi er Priming Perspective on Basic Anchoring Effects. The Journal of social psychology, 153(4), 424-447.
• Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of personality and social psychology, 73(3), 437.
• 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.
• Snyder, M., & Swann, W.B. (1978). Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(11), 1202.
• Surber, C.F. (1980). The development of reversible operations in judgments of ability, effort, and performance. Child Development, 1018-1029.
• Tomczak, P., & Dulemba, K. (2016). Heurystyka zakotwiczenia z wykorzystaniem bodźców fi zycznych - czy cięższe jest warte więcej? Psychologia Ekonomiczna, 9, 51-60.
• Tomczak, P., & Korotusz, P. (2017). Efekt zakotwiczenia za pomocą przedmiotów nacechowanych w wymiarach wagi i wartości. Psychologia Ekonomiczna, 10, 15-23.
• Tomczak, P., & Traczyk, J. (2017). The mechanism of non-numerical anchoring heuristic based on magnitude priming: is it just the basic anchoring effect in disguise?. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 48(3), 401-410.
• Trope, Y., & Liberman, A. (1996). Social hypothesis testing: Cognitive and motivational mechanisms. In: Higgins, E.T. , Kruglanski, A.W. (Eds.) Social Psychology. New Jork: Guilford Press Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
• Wallsten, T.S., Budescu, D.V., Rapoport, A., Zwick, R., & Forsyth, B. (1986). Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(4), 348.
• Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 12(3), 129-140.
• Wason, P. C., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1972). Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content (Vol. 86). Harvard University Press.
• Wegener, D.T., Petty, R.E., Detweiler-Bedell, B.T., & Jarvis, W.B.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.
• Wilson, T.D., Houston, C.E., Etling, K.M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125(4), 387.
• Wong, K.F.E., & Kwong, J.Y.Y. (2000). Is 7300 m equal to 7.3 km? Same semantics but different anchoring effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(2), 314-333.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.96