Fifty Years of Anchoring Effects: A Theoretical Reintegration and Meta-Analysis

References

• Ariely D, Loewenstein G, Prelec D (2003) “Coherent arbitrariness”: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quart. J. Econom. 118(1):73–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arkes HR (1991) Costs and benefits of judgment errors: Implications for debiasing. Psych. Bull. 110(3):486–498.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Begg CB, Mazumdar M (1994) Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50(4):1088–1101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blankenship KL, Wegener DT, Petty RE, Detweiler-Bedell B, Macy CL (2008) Elaboration and consequences of anchored estimates: An attitudinal perspective on numerical anchoring. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 44(6):1465–1476.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bodenhausen GV, Gabriel S, Lineberger M (2000) Sadness and susceptibility to judgmental bias: The case of anchoring. Psych. Sci. 11(4):320–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR (2021) Introduction to Meta-Analysis (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brewer NT, Chapman GB (2003) Contrast effects in judgments of health hazards. J. Soc. Psych. 143(3):341–354.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bystranowski P, Janik B, Próchnicki M, Skórska P (2021) Anchoring effect in legal decision-making: A meta-analysis. Law Human Behav. 45(1):1–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer CF, Hogarth RM (1999) The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. J. Risk Uncertainty 19(1–3):7–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chapman GB, Johnson EJ (1999) Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processing 79(2):115–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cheung MWL (2014) Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: A structural equation modeling approach. Psych. Methods 19(2):211–229.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coburn KM, Vevea JL (2015) Publication bias as a function of study characteristics. Psych. Methods 20(3):310–330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook RD (1977) Detection of influential observation in linear regression. Technometrics 19(1):15–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Critcher CR, Gilovich T (2008) Incidental environmental anchors. J. Behav. Decision Making 21(3):241–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Duval S, Tweedie R (2000) Trim and fill: A simple funnel‐plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta‐analysis. Biometrics 56(2):455–463.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315(7109):629–634.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Englich B (2008) When knowledge matters—Differential effects of available knowledge in standard and basic anchoring tasks. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 38(5):896–904.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Englich B, Mussweiler T, Strack F (2005) The last word in court—A hidden disadvantage for the defense. Law Human Behav. 29(6):705–722.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Epley N, Gilovich T (2001) Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psych. Sci. 12(5):391–396.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Epley N, Gilovich T (2005) When effortful thinking influences judgmental anchoring: Differential effects of forewarning and incentives on self‐generated and externally provided anchors. J. Behav. Decision Making 18(3):199–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Epley N, Gilovich T (2006) The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psych. Sci. 17(4):311–318.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evans JSB (2008) Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Ann. Rev. Psych. 59(1):255–278.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM (2007) Measuring numeracy without a math test: The subjective numeracy scale. Medical Decision Making 27(5):672–680.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frederick SW, Mochon D (2012) A scale distortion theory of anchoring. J. Experiment. Psych. General 141(1):124–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galinsky AD, Mussweiler T (2001) First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 81(4):657–669.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glöckner A, Englich B (2015) When relevance matters. Soc. Psych. 46(1):4–12.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goodman JK, Paolacci G (2017) Crowdsourcing consumer research. J. Consumer Res. 44(1):196–210.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. Speech Acts (Brill, Leiden, Netherlands), 41–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harris AJ, Speekenbrink M (2016) Semantic cross-scale numerical anchoring. Judgment Decision Making 11(6):572–581.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harris AJ, Blower FB, Rodgers SA, Lagator S, Page E, Burton A, Urlichich D, et al. (2019) Failures to replicate a key result of the selective accessibility theory of anchoring. J. Experiment. Psych. General 148(9):e30–e50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsee CK, Yang Y, Li X (2019) Relevance insensitivity: A new look at some old biases. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processing 153:13–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Inbar Y, Gilovich T (2011) Angry (or disgusted), but adjusting? The effect of specific emotions on adjustment from self-generated anchors. Soc. Psych. Personality Sci. 2(6):563–569.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacowitz KE, Kahneman D (1995) Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 21(11):1161–1166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Janiszewski C, Uy D (2008) Precision of the anchor influences the amount of adjustment. Psych. Sci. 19(2):121–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jerez-Fernandez A, Angulo AN, Oppenheimer DM (2014) Show me the numbers: Precision as a cue to others’ confidence. Psych. Sci. 25(2):633–635.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jung MH, Perfecto H, Nelson LD (2016) Anchoring in payment: Evaluating a judgmental heuristic in field experimental settings. J. Marketing Res. 53(3):354–368.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klayman J, Ha YW (1987) Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psych. Rev. 94(2):211–228.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein R, Ratliff K, Vianello M, Adams RB Jr, Bahník S, Bernstein MJ, Bocian K, Brandt M, et al. (2014) Investigating variation in replicability: A “many labs” replication project. Soc. Psychol. 45(3):142–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein RA, Vianello M, Hasselman F, Adams BG, Adams RB Jr, Alper S, Aveyard M, et al. (2018) Many labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings. Adv. Methods Practice Psych. Sci. 1(4):443–490.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee CY, Morewedge CK (2022) Noise increases anchoring effects. Psych. Sci. 33(1):60–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis J, Gaertig C, Simmons JP (2019) Extremeness aversion is a cause of anchoring. Psych. Sci. 30(2):159–173.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li L, Maniadis Z, Sedikides C (2021) Anchoring in economics: A meta-analysis of studies on willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 90:101629.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lieder F, Griffiths TL, M Huys QJ, Goodman ND (2018) The anchoring bias reflects rational use of cognitive resources. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 25:322–349.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lipsey MW, Wilson DB (2001) Practical Meta-Analysis (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Loschelder DD, Stuppi J, Trötschel R (2014) “€ 14,875?!”: Precision boosts the anchoring potency of first offers. Soc. Psych. Personality Sci. 5(4):491–499.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mac Giolla E, Karlsson S, Neequaye DA, Bergquist M (2024) Evaluating the replicability of social priming studies. Meta-Psychology 8:1–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maniadis Z, Tufano F, List JA (2014) One swallow doesn’t make a summer: New evidence on anchoring effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(1):277–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marchiori D, Papies EK, Klein O (2014) The portion size effect on food intake. An anchoring and adjustment process? Appetite 81:108–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McKoon G, Ratcliff R (1992) Inference during reading. Psych. Rev. 99(3):440–466.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McShane BB, Böckenholt U, Hansen KT (2016) Adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis: An evaluation of selection methods and cautionary notes. Perspectives Psych. Sci. 11(5):730–749.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller AL, Unsworth N (2018) Individual differences in working memory capacity and search efficiency. Memory Cognition 46(7):1149–1163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mochon D, Frederick S (2013) Anchoring in sequential judgments. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processing 122(1):69–79.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mussweiler T (2001) The durability of anchoring effects. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 31(4):431–442.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mussweiler T, Englich B (2005) Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processing 98(2):133–143.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mussweiler T, Strack F (1999) Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 35(2):136–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mussweiler T, Strack F (2001) Considering the impossible: Explaining the effects of implausible anchors. Soc. Cognition 19(2):145–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mussweiler T, Strack F, Pfeiffer T (2000) Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 26(9):1142–1150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Northcraft GB, Neale MA (1987) Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processing 39(1):84–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Conor RM, Johannesson M, Johansson PO (1999) Stated preferences, real behaviour and anchoring: Some empirical evidence. Environment. Resource Econom. 13(2):235–248.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science (1979) 349(6251):aac4716.Google Scholar
• Palmeira MM, Srivastava J (2013) Free offer ≠ cheap product: A selective accessibility account on the valuation of free offers. J. Consumer Res. 40(4):644–656.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1993) The Adaptive Decision Maker (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Petty RE, Briñol P (2012) The elaboration likelihood model. Van Lange PAM, Kruglanski AW, Higgins ET, eds. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, vol. 1 (Sage Publications Ltd., Thousand Oaks, CA), 224–245.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Berkowitz L, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 19 (Academic Press, San Diego), 123–205.Google Scholar
• Pustejovsky JE, Tipton E (2022) Meta-analysis with robust variance estimation: Expanding the range of working models. Prevention Sci. 23(3):425–438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Quattrone GA, Lawrence CP, Finkel SE, Andrus DC (1984) Explorations in anchoring: The effects of prior range, anchor extremity, and suggestive hints. Working paper, Stanford University, Stanford.Google Scholar
• Reitsma-van Rooijen M, Daamen DD (2006) Subliminal anchoring: The effects of subliminally presented numbers on probability estimates. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 42(3):380–387.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Röseler L, Schütz A, Blank PA, Dück M, Fels S, Kupfer J, Scheelje L, et al. (2021) Evidence against subliminal anchoring: Two close, highly powered, preregistered, and failed replication attempts. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 92:104066.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter JR, Binder H, Schumacher M (2011) Treatment-effect estimates adjusted for small-study effects via a limit meta-analysis. Biostatistics 12(1):122–142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schley D (2026) When deviation scores mix mechanisms: Separating position and dispersion in psychological data. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/e9qn6_v1.Google Scholar
• Schwarz N (1994) Judgment in a social context: Biases, shortcomings, and the logic of conversation. Zanna MP, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 26 (Academic Press, San Diego), 123–162.Google Scholar
• Simmons JP, LeBoeuf RA, Nelson LD (2010) The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: Do people adjust from provided anchors? J. Personality Soc. Psych. 99(6):917–932.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonson I, Drolet A (2004) Anchoring effects on consumers’ willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. J. Consumer Res. 31(3):681–690.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith AR, Windschitl PD (2011) Biased calculations: Numeric anchors influence answers to math equations. Judgment Decision Making 6(2):139–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith AR, Windschitl PD, Bruchmann K (2013) Knowledge matters: Anchoring effects are moderated by knowledge level. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 43(1):97–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Strack F, Mussweiler T (1997) Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 73(3):437–446.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tannenbaum D, Fox CR, Ülkümen G (2017) Judgment extremity and accuracy under epistemic vs. aleatory uncertainty. Management Sci. 63(2):497–518.Link, Google Scholar
• Thorsteinson TJ (2021) Knowledge of precise offers as a negotiating tactic does not reduce its effect on counteroffers. J. Theoretical Soc. Psych. 5(3):203–214.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tipton E (2015) Small sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta-regression. Psych. Methods 20(3):375–393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tulving E (2002) Episodic memory: From mind to brain. Ann. Rev. Psych. 53(1):1–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Turner BM, Schley DR (2016) The anchor integration model: A descriptive model of anchoring effects. Cognitive Psych. 90:1–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science (1979) 185(4157):1124–1131.Google Scholar
• Uleman JS, Adil Saribay S, Gonzalez CM (2008) Spontaneous inferences, implicit impressions, and implicit theories. Ann. Rev. Psych. 59(1):329–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vevea JL, Woods CM (2005) Publication bias in research synthesis: Sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions. Psych. Methods 10(4):428–443.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wegener DT, Petty RE, Blankenship KL, Detweiler‐Bedell B (2010) Elaboration and numerical anchoring: Breadth, depth, and the role of (non‐) thoughtful processes in anchoring theories. J. Consumer Psych. 20(1):28–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wegener DT, Petty RE, Detweiler-Bedell BT, Jarvis WBG (2001) Implications of attitude change theories for numerical anchoring: Anchor plausibility and the limits of anchor effectiveness. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 37(1):62–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wegner DM (1992) You can’t always think what you want: Problems in the suppression of unwanted thoughts. Zanna MP, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 25 (Academic Press, San Diego), 193–225.Google Scholar
• Wilson TD, Houston CE, Etling KM, Brekke N (1996) A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. J. Experiment. Psych. General 125(4):387–402.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wong KFE, Kwong JYY (2000) Is 7300 m equal to 7.3 km? Same semantics but different anchoring effects. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processing 82(2):314–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yoon S, Fong N (2019) Uninformative anchors have persistent effects on valuation judgments. J. Consumer Psych. 29(3):391–410.Crossref, Google Scholar