Press Release: Effect of Processing Depth and Delay on Anchoring
Alba Ramírez Sánchez
No translator
From negotiating property prices to blind-guessing the result of a long multiplication, the previous exposure to certain data can greatly influence our choices and decisions. This phenomenon, first theorized by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, is called anchoring: a cognitive bias where a particular reference point or 'anchor' influences an individual's decisions. This exposure to a value and its influence in decision making plays a big role in both the scientific community where anchoring could introduce a human bias into research, as well as in day-to-day life where the existence of anchors could be a powerful tool in marketing, economic decisions, or negotiations.
For example, in one of their first studies, Tversky and Kahneman asked participants to solve, in five seconds, the product of the numbers one through eight. One group was presented this information in ascendent order, starting with one (1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8), while the other had to compute the solution given the equation in descendent order. As the time was limited, subjects’ answers were given based on the first operations they could solve, resulting in the first group giving a median estimate of 512 as the product, while the second gave an estimate of 2,250 (with the correct answer being 40,320).
There is no consensus among authors and researchers as to what the causes of “anchoring” are, and some even theorized different phenomena and causes are at play. Regardless of its origin, research suggests that the anchoring effect is difficult to avoid, even when individuals are fully aware of its existence. Even group decisions could be affected by anchoring on many occasions.
Having the basics of this phenomenon in mind, many questions arise. For example, do anchor values influence decisions equally on one, five and fifty minutes after the initial exposure? Recent research published in the Journal of Young Investigators aimed to depict the role time delay and processing depth might play in anchoring. The authors, students from Whitman College, carried on this research in the context of interpreting data on glacial melting rates among 176 individuals aged 18 to 82 connected to the same college.
In order to effectively measure the influence of processing depth and delay, participants remotely estimated glacial melting rates in two ways: calculating the mean value given instructions on how to do so (deep processing) or being already presented with an average value (shallow processing). This task was completed in two ways, immediately after exposure to the anchor or after watching a three minute, one second Saturday Night Live YouTube video (delay). In either situation, two anchor groups were created, low and high, with the anchor value being the real melting rate mean minus/plus three times the standard deviation, respectively.
The research results not only suggested the existence of the anchoring effect, with low and high anchor group mean values differing greatly. They also came to conclude that neither delay nor depth processing affected anchoring on individuals. Furthermore, the data suggest that the interaction between depth and delay was not significant in the effect either.
Although it is clear that the anchoring effect is real and present in many situations, both inside and outside the laboratory, more research needs to be done in order to successfully identify which factors affect anchoring. Furthermore, little research contemplates the relation that may exist between time delay and processing depth, thus research needs to look into the way these two variables may influence each other and the overall effect to anchoring.
References
- Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974) ‘Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases’, Science 185(4157), doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
- Epley, N. & Gilovich, T. (2005) ‘When Effortful Thinking Influences Judgmental Anchoring: Differential Effects of Forewarning and Incentives on Self-Generated and Externally Provided Anchors’, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 18(3), 199-212, doi: 10.1002/bdm.495
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021540
- Kerr, N. L. & Tindale, S. R. (2003) ‘Group Performance and Decision Making’, Annual Review of Psychology 55, 623-655, doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009
- Killingsworth, Blake W. & Izbiky, Alexander J. (2021) ‘The Effect of Depth of Processing and Delay on the Anchoring Effect’, Journal of Young Investigators 40(7), doi: 10.22186/jyi.40.7.1-8
处理深度和延迟对锚定效应的影响
ALBA RAMÍREZ SÁNCHEZ
Shirley Zhang, Yihe Liang
从谈房价到盲猜复杂乘法问题的答案，早先接触到的某些数据可以极大幅度地影响我们的判断和选择。这种现象最早由Amos Tversky和Daniel Kahneman描述且称为锚定效应：一种认知偏差，指人们在做决定时容易被某个特定的参考点或“锚”影响。这种接触及其在决策中的影响对科学界发挥很大作用，因为锚定效应可能会将人为偏见引入研究，而同时在日常生活中，锚定也可以成为营销、经济决策或谈判中的一个强大工具。
例如，在他们的第一项研究中，Tversky和Kahneman让参与者在五秒内计算1到8的乘积。一组是按照升序呈现这些数字（1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8），而另一组则是在降序的情况下计算结果。由于时间有限，参与者的答案都是根据他们前面几个数字可以快速运算得出的，导致似一组给的中位数估计值为512，而第二组给出了2,250的估计值（正确答案则是40,320）。
关于'锚定'的原因，作者和研究人员尚未达成共识，但一些研究表示可能有不同的现象和原因在起作用。尽管其来源尚不明确，研究表明锚定效应是很难避免的，即使是当人们意识到它的存在。就算是群体决策也常常会受到锚定效应的影响。
考虑到这一现象的原理，许多问题会随之而来。例如，锚定值是否在初次接触后的1分钟、5分钟和50分钟内会同样地影响决策？最近发表于《青年研究者期刊》（Journal of Young Investigators）的研究尝试描述时间延迟和处理深度在锚定效应中的作用。该研究的作者，来自Whitman College的学生，对176名年龄从18岁到82岁不等且根同一所学院有联系的参与者对于冰川融化率数据的解读进行这一研究。
为了有效衡量处理深度和延迟的影响，参与者通过两种方式远程估计冰川融化率：一种是按照指示计算均值（深度处理），另一种则是直接给出平均值（浅度处理）。这项任务有两种完成方式，在接触锚定值后立即完成，或在看一段时长为三分零一秒的Saturday Night Live YouTube视频后再完成（延迟）。在这两种情况下设置了低锚定组和高锚定组，锚定值分别为实际融化率均值减去或加上三倍标准差。
研究结果不仅证实了锚定效应的存在（低和高锚定组的均值差异显著），还表明无论是延迟还是深度处理都未影响锚定效应。此外，数据还显示深度和延迟之间的交互作用对锚定效应的影响也没有显著作用。
尽管锚定效应在许多情境中，无论是在实验室内外，都是显而易见的，我们仍需更多的研究来识别哪些因素到底会影响锚定效应。同时，目前很少有文献探讨时间延迟和处理深度之间可能存在的关系，因此，研究需要进一步调查这两个变量如何相互影响以及它们对锚定效应的整体作用。
来源
- Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974) ‘Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases’, Science 185(4157), doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
- Epley, N. & Gilovich, T. (2005) ‘When Effortful Thinking Influences Judgmental Anchoring: Differential Effects of Forewarning and Incentives on Self-Generated and Externally Provided Anchors’, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 18(3), 199-212, doi: 10.1002/bdm.495
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021540
- Kerr, N. L. & Tindale, S. R. (2003) ‘Group Performance and Decision Making’, Annual Review of Psychology 55, 623-655, doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009
- Killingsworth, Blake W. & Izbiky, Alexander J. (2021) ‘The Effect of Depth of Processing and Delay on the Anchoring Effect’, Journal of Young Investigators 40(7), doi: 10.22186/jyi.40.7.1-8