Anchoring bias is a type of cognitive bias that affects decision-making processes. It occurs when an individual relies too heavily on an initial piece of information, known as an “anchor”, to make subsequent judgments. This can lead to errors in judgment, as people tend to insufficiently adjust their estimates away from the initial anchor.
Anchoring bias is one of the many types of heuristics, which are mental shortcuts used by individuals to simplify complex situations and make quick decisions. Heuristics are essential for effective decision-making, but they can also lead to biases and errors if not used with caution.
The concept of anchoring bias was introduced by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in their influential paper, “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.”
Some common examples of anchoring bias include:
- Salary negotiation: In job offer negotiations, the initial salary offer often serves as an anchor that affects subsequent counteroffers. Job applicants may perceive significantly different counteroffers depending on the initial anchor, even if the difference between initial offers is relatively small.
- Price evaluation: When shopping, consumers might use the original price of a discounted item as an anchor to evaluate the attractiveness of the discount. A 40% discount on an originally high-priced item may seem more attractive than a 20% discount on a lower-priced item, even if the final prices are similar.
Anchoring bias can be divided into two categories:
Self-generated anchoring: When individuals come up with their own anchors based on their knowledge and experience.
Externally provided anchoring: When anchors are provided by external sources, such as market prices, expert opinions, or negotiation proposals.
Anchoring Effect Psychological Mechanisms
The anchoring process involves the use of a specific piece of information as a reference point for making decisions or judgments. This reference point or anchor influences our perceptions, thus skewing the final outcome.
One of the factors contributing to anchoring bias is the selective accessibility mechanism, which refers to the ease with which certain thoughts or information become accessible to our consciousness based on their relevance to the anchor. This cognitive mechanism can lead to the subconscious use of irrelevant anchors, causing biased judgments.
Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic
The anchoring and adjustment heuristic is another psychological mechanism that contributes to the anchoring bias. According to this heuristic, people tend to make estimates by starting from an initial anchor and then adjusting that anchor to reach their final estimate.
However, this adjustment process is often insufficient, resulting in a final estimate that remains too close to the anchor. Two other heuristics that play a role in anchoring bias are the representativeness heuristic and the availability heuristic.
The former refers to our tendency to judge events based on how well they match our mental prototypes, while the latter refers to our tendency to base decisions on the ease with which specific information comes to mind.
Mood and Personality
Our mood and personality traits also play a crucial role in the anchoring bias. Studies have shown that individuals in a sad mood are more likely to rely on anchoring when making decisions, possibly due to decreased cognitive capacity or motivation. A study focusing on medical practitioners discovered that physicians with positive moods are less susceptible to anchoring bias than physicians with neutral moods.
In terms of personality, the Big Five personality traits can influence the degree to which someone is affected by anchoring. For instance, individuals high in openness to experience might be more likely to consider a wide range of information, potentially reducing the impact of anchoring bias.
How Anchoring Bias Influences Decision-Making
Anchoring bias often influences individuals’ economic decision-making by swaying their judgments and values.
For instance, when presented with numerical information, such as previous prices or irrelevant figures, consumers tend to rely on these numbers to make purchasing decisions. This leads to potentially poor decisions as their choices may not accurately reflect the actual worth of a product or service.
According to the theory, factors such as time constraints and specialized surroundings influence consumers’ purchasing experiences. Enterprises would create anchor values for consumers in order to entice them to acquire their products.
Anchoring is used by sellers to persuade customers to buy a specific product. Sellers frequently influence consumers’ price perception by anchoring a high reference price, which is an anchor value, then quoting a reduced sale price of “50% off” for example, or offering a lower-priced alternative.
Sellers typically organize product price lists from high to low, and this strategy is commonly found on restaurant menus. In this circumstance, the high prices at the top of the menu serve as anchor values.
Knowing the relatively high prices of the products at the top of the list, consumers will assume that the products are all pricey. As a result, people will be glad to see the cheaper products in the middle and bottom of the list, and will consider the prices to be reasonable or lower than expected.
Negotiation and Pricing
In the context of negotiation and pricing, the anchoring bias can have a direct impact on the outcome of salary negotiations. For instance, if an employer initially offers a low salary, potential employees might anchor their expectations around that figure, leading to unfavorable outcomes. Conversely, if the initial offer is high, it might lead to more beneficial outcomes for the employee by setting a higher anchor for the negotiation.
Similarly, consumers’ price judgments can be heavily influenced by anchoring bias, affecting their purchasing decisions and perception of a product’s value. For example, when presented with a sale price alongside a higher original price, a consumer might perceive the product to be of greater value, even if the original price was inflated or arbitrary.
Personal and Societal Impacts
The anchoring bias can also have personal and societal implications. In everyday life, individuals may rely on anchors to formulate their judgments and decisions, which can, in turn, affect their relationships and perceptions of others.
For example, when evaluating a person’s character, an individual might anchor their judgment on superficial attributes, like physical appearance or the first piece of information they learn about that person.
Furthermore, anchoring bias can impact society as a whole through the spread of misinformation and the perpetuation of stereotypes. When information — valid or not — serves as an anchor for people’s thoughts and opinions, it may cause them to overlook other relevant or contradictory data, further entrenching their beliefs and potentially leading to divisions within society.
Research Findings and Theoretical Concepts
Studies have found that anchoring bias affects various real-world scenarios, such as negotiations, where the first offer often becomes an anchor for subsequent counteroffers. In such cases, external anchors can lead to confirmatory hypothesis testing, which occurs when individuals selectively attend to information that supports their pre-existing beliefs.
A real-world example would be as follows: in a salary negotiation, an employer might initially offer a low salary, which then serves as an anchor for the employee’s counteroffer and may result in a lower final agreement than if the initial offer had been more generous.
Experimental Illustrations
Experimental studies have illustrated the anchoring effect in various settings. One classic example involves participants being asked to estimate the percentage of African countries in the United Nations after spinning a wheel with numbers ranging from 0 to 100.
The arbitrary number on the wheel served as an anchor, influencing participants’ estimates, even though it was unrelated to the actual question. The correct answer, by the way, is 28%; there are 54 African member states.
Experiment: Participants guessed the percentage of African countries in the UN
Anchor: The number on the wheel of fortune
Result: The participants’ estimates tended to group around the anchor
These findings can be explained by the anchor-and-adjust hypothesis, which suggests that individuals make initial estimates based on the anchor and then adjust their estimates away from it. However, these adjustments are often insufficient.
Role of Expertise and Cognitive Ability
While one might assume that expertise would mitigate the effects of anchoring bias, research has found mixed results. In some cases, experts have been found to be less susceptible to anchoring effects, possibly due to their well-structured knowledge base. However, other studies have shown that experts can still fall prey to anchoring bias, especially when they are overconfident in their abilities.
The relationship between cognitive ability and the susceptibility to anchoring bias is also complex. Some research suggests that individuals with higher cognitive abilities might be more prone to anchoring effects due to their tendency to engage in confirmatory hypothesis testing.
On the other hand, certain strategies, such as considering alternative anchors, actively adjusting estimates, or using computer equipment to aid decision-making, may help to reduce the anchoring bias.
Applications and Strategies
Several studies have found that anchoring is extremely difficult to avoid. In one study, for example, students were given incorrect anchors. They were asked if Mahatma Gandhi died before or after the age of nine, or before or after the age of 140.
Obviously, neither of these anchors is true, but when the two groups were asked to guess when he died, they answered significantly differently (average age of 50 vs. average age of 67).
To minimize anchoring bias in business negotiation, some effective strategies include:
- Awareness: Recognize the existence of anchoring bias and be vigilant in evaluating every piece of information critically.
- Set your goals and alternatives: Before entering negotiations, establish your goals and determine your best alternative to the negotiated agreement (BATNA).
- Research: Conduct thorough research on the market, the other party, and their goals. This information can help in countering the anchoring effect and enable you to make informed decisions.
Personal Growth and Awareness
Anchoring bias also plays a role in personal development and self-awareness. It can contribute to the persistence of gender stereotypes, as people often rely on stereotypes as anchors when forming expectations about others.
To overcome anchoring bias in personal growth and awareness, it is essential to employ strategies, such as:
- Reflect on your biases: Identify and acknowledge biases, including confirmation bias, that might affect your decision-making and interactions with others.
- Expand your perspectives: Seek out diverse viewpoints and experiences to challenge your preconceived ideas.
- Practice empathy: Make a conscious effort to understand others’ perspectives and experiences.
Common Pitfalls
Finally, here are some general tips to avoid common pitfalls related to anchoring bias:
- Look for objective information: Try to seek and evaluate information that is independent of your initial anchor.
- Consider the opposite: Challenge your initial thoughts by exploring alternative explanations or viewpoints.
- Deliberate evaluation: Take time to evaluate the information and decision-making process thoroughly instead of jumping to conclusions based on anchors.
References:
- Adame, B. J. (2016). Training in the mitigation of anchoring bias: A test of the consider-the-opposite strategy. Learning and Motivation, 53, 36–48
- Chapman, G.B. and Johnson, E.J. (1994), The limits of anchoring. J. Behav. Decis. Making, 7: 223-242
- Englich, B.; Soder, K. (2009). Moody experts: How mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring. Judgment and Decision Making. 4: 41–50. doi:10.1017/S1930297500000693
- de Wilde, T. R. W., Ten Velden, F. S., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2018). The anchoring-bias in groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 116–126
- Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(1), 35–42
- Lieder, Falk et al. The anchoring bias reflects rational use of cognitive resources. Psychonomic bulletin & review vol. 25,1 (2018): 322-349. doi:10.3758/s13423-017-1286-8
- Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 437–446
- Tversky, A.; Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. 185 (4157): 1124–1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
- Tversky, Amos; Kahneman, Daniel (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 5 (4): 297–323. doi:10.1007/BF00122574
- Yang, Chih-Yun; Chang, Te-Yi (2011). Binomial real option pricing for restaurant menu analysis. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly. 52 (3): 273–282. doi:10.1177/1938965511410054