The Robustness of the Anchoring Effect in Valuation Tasks

• Autorzy: Magdalena Brzozowicz

Warianty tytułu

Siła efektu zakotwiczenia w zadaniach związanych z wyceną produktów

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

I examined the robustness of the anchoring effect with respect to the method of valuation, type of anchor and the availability of information about the presented product. In four different laboratory experiments, I elicited consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for cosmetic product manipulating anchoring conditions (low vs. high anchor or no anchor vs. high anchor). I observed that only the market anchor (the real price of a similar product) had an impact on WTP. I also found that the strength of the anchoring effect is lower in incentivized valuation tasks compared to hypothetical anchoring questions (I observed a significant anchoring effect only in experiment with declarative valuations). My findings suggest that the robustness of the anchoring effect is limited. (original abstract)

W niniejszym artykule zbadano stabilność efektu zakotwiczenia, uwzględniając użytą metodę wyceny, typ kotwicy i dostępność informacji o prezentowanym produkcie. W czterech różnych eksperymentach laboratoryjnych pozyskano graniczne ceny kupna (WTP) produktu kosmetycznego, manipulując przedstawioną uczestnikom kotwicą (niska vs. wysoka kotwica lub brak kotwicy vs. wysoka kotwica). Zaobserwowano, że jedynie kotwica rynkowa (realna cena podobnego produktu) miała wpływ na WTP za prezentowany produkt. Wskazano również, że siła efektu zakotwiczenia, w porównaniu z wyceną hipotetyczną, jest mniejsza w przypadku zastosowania zachęt finansowych do wskazywania rzeczywistej wyceny. Zaobserwowano istotny statystycznie efekt zakotwiczenia jedynie w eksperymencie z wyceną deklaratywną. Wnioski z badania sugerują, że odporność efektu zakotwiczenia jest ograniczona. (abstrakt oryginalny)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Anchoring heuristic; Scientific experiment; Valuation

PL

Heurystyka zakotwiczenia; Eksperyment badawczy; Wycena

• Czasopismo: Decyzje
• Rocznik: 2020
• Numer: nr 33
• Strony: 5--23

Twórcy

autor

Magdalena Brzozowicz

• University of Warsaw

Bibliografia

• Alevy, J.E., Landry, C.E., List, J.A. (2015). Field Experiments on Anchoring of Economic Valuations. Economic Inquiry, 53(3), 1522-1538. 10.1111/ecin.12201.
• Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., Prelec, D. (2003). 'Coherent Arbitrariness': Stable Demand Curves without Stable Preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73-106. 10.1162/00335530360535153.
• Becker, G.M., DeGroot, M.H., Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral science, 9(3), 226-232.
• Bergman, O., Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M., Svensson, C. (2010). Anchoring and Cognitive Ability. Economics Letters, 107 (1), 66-68. 10.2307/1061360.
• Bodenhausen, G.V., Gabriel, S., & Lineberger, M. (2000). Sadness and susceptibility to judgmental bias: The case of anchoring. Psychological Science, 11(4), 320-323.
• Brewer, N.T. Chapman, G.B. (2002). The fragile basic anchoring effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(1), 65-77. 10.1002/bdm.403.
• Chapman, G.B., Johnson, E.J. (1994). The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 223-42. 10.1002/bdm.3960070402.
• Chapman, G.B., Johnson, E.J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(2), 115-153. 10.1006/obhd.1999.2841.
• Croson, R. and Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448-474.
• Englich, B., Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under Uncertainty: Anchoring Effects in the Courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1535-1551. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02687.x.
• 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. 10.1111/1467-9280.00372.
• Frederick, S.W., Mochon, D. (2012). A scale distortion theory of anchoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 124.
• Fudenberg, D., Levine, D.K., Maniadis, Z. (2012). On the Robustness of Anchoring Effects in WTP and WTA Experiments. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4(2), 131-145. 10.1257/ mic.4.2.131.
• Galinsky, A.D., Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 657-669. 10.1037/00223514.81.4.657.
• Gilbert, D.T., Pelham, B.W., Krull, D.S. (1988). On cognitive busyness, when busy perceivers meet persons perceiving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 733-740. 10.1037/00223514.54.5.733.
• Green, D., Jacowitz, K. E., Kahneman, D., McFadden, D. (1998). Referendum Contingent Valuation, Anchoring, and Willingness to Pay for Public Goods. Resources and Energy Economics, 20, 85- 116. 10.1016/S0928-7655(97)00031-6.
• Irwin, J.R., McClelland, G.H., Schulze, W.D. (1992). Hypothetical and real consequences in experimental auctions for insurance against low-probability risks. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5(2), 107-116. 10.1002/bdm.3960050203.
• Johnson, E.J., Schkade, D.A., (1989). Bias in Utility Assessments: Further Evidence and Explanations. Management Science, 35(4), 406-424. 10.1287/mnsc.35.4.406.
• Kagel, J. (1995). Auctions: A Survey of Experimental Research. In J. Kagel, and A.E. Roth (Eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics, 501-585.
• Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. (1993). Anchoring or Shallow Inferences: The Effect of Format . Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Berkeley.
• 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, 221-232. 10.1037//0022-3514.77.2.221.
• List, J.A. (2001). Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1498-1507. 10.1257/aer.91.5.1498.
• Maniadis, Z., Tufano, F., List, J.A. (2014). One Swallow Doesn't Make a Summer: New Evidence on Anchoring Effects. American Economic Review, 104(1), 277-290. 10.1257/aer.104.1.277.
• McElroy, T., Dowd, K. (2007). Susceptibility to anchoring effects: How openness-to-experience influences responses to anchoring cues. Judgment and Decision making, 2(1), 48.
• Mochon, D., Frederick, S. (2013). Anchoring in sequential judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(1), 69-79. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.04.002.
• 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, 136-164. 10.1006/jesp.1998.1364.
• 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, 1142-1150. 10.1177/01461672002611010.
• Nunes, J.C., Boatwright, P. (2004). Incidental prices and their effect on willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(4), 457-466. 10.1509/jmkr.41.4.457.47014.
• Peterson, R.A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of consumer research, 28(3), 450-461.
• Plous, S. (1989). Thinking the unthinkable: The effect of anchoring on likelihood estimates of nuclear war. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 67-91. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1989.tb01221.x.
• Simmons, J.P., LeBoeuf, R.A., Nelson, L.D. (2010). The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: Do people adjust from provided anchors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(6), 917-932. 10.1037/a0021540.
• Simonson, I. (2008). Will I like a "medium" pillow? Another look at constructed and inherent preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(3), 155-169.
• Simonson, I., Drolet, A. (2004). Anchoring Effects on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay and Willingnessto-Accept. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 681-690. 10.1086/425103.
• Simonson, I., Rosen, E. (2014). Absolute value: What really influences customers in the age of (nearly) perfect information. New York: HarperBusiness.
• Sugden, R., Zheng, J., Zizzo, D.J. (2013). Not all anchors are created equal. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39(C), 21-31. 10.1016/j.joep.2013.06.008.
• Strack, F., Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of personality and social psychology, 73(3), 437.
• Tomczak, P. (2017). Dlaczego kotwica kotwiczy? Przegląd mechanizmów i zasad działania heurystyki zakotwiczenia. Decyzje, 28, 93-110.
• Tufano, F. (2010). Are 'True' Preferences Revealed in Repeated Markets? An Experimental Demonstration of Context-Dependent Valuations. Experimental Economics, 13(1), 1-13. 10.1007/ s10683-009-9226-8.
• Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-31. 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.
• Vickrey, W. (1961). Counterspeculation, Auctions, and Competitive Sealed Bids. Journal of Finance, 16, 8-37. 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1961.tb02789.x.
• 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.
• Yoon, S., Fong, N. M., Dimoka, A. (2019). The robustness of anchoring effects on preferential judgments. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(4), 470.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.138