The following post is a review/critique of :
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.
The article aims to clarify some of the confusing finds regarding anchoring effects. Although the research on this phenomenon is quite extensive, there are quite a few contradicting results suggesting that there is still much to be explained about the inner-workings of anchoring. The authors identified a few areas that required clarifications, and based on their interpretation of prior research theorized and investigated anchoring effects by constructing relevant experiments.
The article was able to demonstrate some of the theorized mechanisms underlying anchoring effect. It showed that – (1) anchoring is not semantic, but rather effected by absolute value that disregards measurement indicator postfix, (2) same anchor can serve as a high or low anchor based on the comparison required, and (3) anchoring refers to absolute value, disregarding the plus-minus prefix.
Overall, I find the article convincing. The strength of the article seems in the comprehensiveness and construct of the methods rather than the theoretical contributions, which is perhaps understandable in such a thoroughly investigated area where clarifications, rather than contributions, are needed. Yet the combination of effects shown constitutes for a significant contribution by laying out a clear overall framework for anchoring.
Not being very familiar with this area, I would only raise a few minor issues :
- Article claims – “Anchor is superficially represented in short term memory (STM) as absolute value plus affix and it is the absolute value that leads to AE.” (page 328). This assumes that the cause leading to the results discussed in the article is really STM. Has this really been established? I’m not very familiar with STM research and how STM allegedly works, but to test whether this is really related to STM wouldn’t we also need to see the effect of for a single person within and after the STM timeframe (or loading capacity)? By testing this between-people we can only assume this is related to STM and not to some other cognitive process. Has this been tested within subjects?
- Experiment 3 – do participants really know how to read F degrees? I don’t. Wouldn’t participants attempt to convert to something more familiar or assume that it’s C? Do they know that 32F is 0C? in the experiment, the answer was required them to respond in C, probably assuming they would have a difficult time estimating in F. Come to think of it, in km vs. m aren’t we naturally inclined to the smaller numbers, that might be easier to say outloud or maybe take less “space” in the STM? (I remember something about a capacity of 7 digits or items, perhaps 7.3 with two digits might be more efficient than 7300 with 4 digits).
- Sidenote – In the second experiment it says – “and the comparative question asked whether the number of countries in the United Nations was more or less than that number. The correct response should be “no.” “. I might misunderstand, but I believe there’s a mistake in this sentence regarding the response required as the answer “more or less” cannot be answered by “no”.
It might be interesting to try and understand what happens with the not-so-small group of people who made mistakes in comparison and were cleared from the findings. Why are those participants making those mistakes, and what kind of mistakes they’re making. Since we’re discussing biases then why are those subjects removed?
Incoming search terms:
- anchoring effect organizational behaviour
- academic articles obhdp
- management enchoring effect
- qualtrics within subjects
- theory about the anchoring effect in management
- what is the anchoring effect management
anchoring effects,
semantics
Micro,
OBHDP
