Literature DB >> 21114351

The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: do people adjust from provided anchors?

Joseph P Simmons1, Robyn A LeBoeuf, Leif D Nelson.   

Abstract

Increasing accuracy motivation (e.g., by providing monetary incentives for accuracy) often fails to increase adjustment away from provided anchors, a result that has led researchers to conclude that people do not effortfully adjust away from such anchors. We challenge this conclusion. First, we show that people are typically uncertain about which way to adjust from provided anchors and that this uncertainty often causes people to believe that they have initially adjusted too far away from such anchors (Studies 1a and 1b). Then, we show that although accuracy motivation fails to increase the gap between anchors and final estimates when people are uncertain about the direction of adjustment, accuracy motivation does increase anchor-estimate gaps when people are certain about the direction of adjustment, and that this is true regardless of whether the anchors are provided or self-generated (Studies 2, 3a, 3b, and 5). These results suggest that people do effortfully adjust away from provided anchors but that uncertainty about the direction of adjustment makes that adjustment harder to detect than previously assumed. This conclusion has important theoretical implications, suggesting that currently emphasized distinctions between anchor types (self-generated vs. provided) are not fundamental and that ostensibly competing theories of anchoring (selective accessibility and anchoring-and-adjustment) are complementary. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21114351     DOI: 10.1037/a0021540

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol        ISSN: 0022-3514


  10 in total

1.  Resisting anchoring effects: The roles of metric and mapping knowledge.

Authors:  Andrew R Smith; Paul D Windschitl
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2015-10

Review 2.  The anchoring bias reflects rational use of cognitive resources.

Authors:  Falk Lieder; Thomas L Griffiths; Quentin J M Huys; Noah D Goodman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-02

3.  Empirical evidence for resource-rational anchoring and adjustment.

Authors:  Falk Lieder; Thomas L Griffiths; Quentin J M Huys; Noah D Goodman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-04

4.  Genetic counseling, genetic testing, and risk perceptions for breast and colorectal cancer: Results from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  Erin Turbitt; Megan C Roberts; Jennifer M Taber; Erika A Waters; Timothy S McNeel; Barbara B Biesecker; William M P Klein
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2019-02-25       Impact factor: 4.018

5.  Hierarchical inference as a source of human biases.

Authors:  Paul B Sharp; Isaac Fradkin; Eran Eldar
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 3.282

6.  Lifting the curse of knowing: How feedback improves perspective-taking.

Authors:  Debby Damen; Marije van Amelsvoort; Per van der Wijst; Monique Pollmann; Emiel Krahmer
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 2.143

7.  Benefit of the doubt: a new view of the role of the prefrontal cortex in executive functioning and decision making.

Authors:  Erik Asp; Kenneth Manzel; Bryan Koestner; Natalie L Denburg; Daniel Tranel
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2013-05-24       Impact factor: 4.677

8.  Anchors on prices of consumer goods only hold when decisions are hypothetical.

Authors:  Magdalena Brzozowicz; Michał Krawczyk
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-01-05       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  A simple cognitive method to improve the prediction of matters of taste by exploiting the within-person wisdom-of-crowd effect.

Authors:  Itsuki Fujisaki; Hidehito Honda; Kazuhiro Ueda
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 4.996

10.  Quantifying machine influence over human forecasters.

Authors:  Andrés Abeliuk; Daniel M Benjamin; Fred Morstatter; Aram Galstyan
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-09-29       Impact factor: 4.379

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.