Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anchoring effects in world university rankings: exploring biases in reputation scores

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite ongoing debates about their uses and validity, university rankings are a popular means to compare institutions within a country and around the world. Anchoring theory suggests that these rankings may influence assessments of institutional reputation, and this effect may be particularly strong when a new rankings system is introduced. We test this possibility by examining data from the first 3 years of the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) world university rankings. Consistent with an anchoring hypothesis, the initial THES rankings influenced peer assessments of reputation in subsequent surveys, but second-year rankings were not related to changes in reputation in the third year. Furthermore, as expected, early peer assessment ratings were not associated with changes in future rankings. These findings provide strong evidence for an anchoring effect on assessments of institutional reputation. We discuss the usefulness of these peer assessments, along with ways in which reputational surveys can be improved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (2010). The U.S. News and World Report college rankings: Modeling institutional effects on organizational reputation. American Journal of Education, 116, 163–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (in press). College rankings as an interorganizational dependency: Establishing the foundation for strategic and institutional accounts. Research in Higher Education.

  • Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equation models with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowden, R. (2000). Fantasy higher education: University and college league tables. Quality in Higher Education, 6(1), 41–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, N. A., & Bastedo, M. N. (2009). Getting on the front page: Organizational reputation, status signals, and the impact of U.S. News and World Report on student decisions. Research in Higher Education, 50, 415–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, G. B., & Bornstein, B. H. (1996). The more you ask for, the more you get: Anchoring in personal injury verdicts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 519–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crabbe, N. (2009, June 17). On survey, Machen rates UF with Harvard, other Fla. schools low. The Gainesville Sun. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from http://bit.ly/y9AAb.

  • Cremonini, L., Westerheijden, D., & Enders, J. (2008). Disseminating the right information to the right audience: Cultural determinants in the use (and misuse) of rankings. Higher Education, 55, 373–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, H. L., Hoch, S. J., & Ragsdale, E. K. E. (1986). An anchoring and adjustment model of spousal predictions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross- national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49(4), 495–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, R. G. (2003). Reaching for the brass ring: The U.S. News & World Report rankings and competition. Review of Higher Education, 26, 145–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. (1996). Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 442–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Englich, B. (2006). Blind or biased? Justitia’s susceptibility to anchoring effects in the courtroom based on give numerical representations. Law & Policy, 28, 497–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Englich, B. (2008). When knowledge matters—differential effects of available knowledge in standard and basic anchoring tasks. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 896–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Englich, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the court room. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1535–1551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 188–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, B. (1999, September 1). Cooking the school books: How U.S. News cheats in picking its “best American colleges.” Slate. Retrieved November 19, 2009, from http://www.slate.com/id/34027/.

  • Griffith, A., & Rask, K. (2007). The influence of the U.S. News and World Report collegiate rankings on the matriculation decisions of high-ability students: 1995–2004. Economics of Education Review, 26, 244–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2007). The impact of league tables and ranking system on higher education decision making. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2008). Learning to live with league tables and ranking: The experience of institutional leaders. Higher Education Policy, 21, 193–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP). (2007). College and university ranking systems: Global perspectives and American challenges. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janiszewski, C., & Uy, D. (2008). Precision of the anchor influences the amount of adjustment. Psychological Science, 19, 121–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, E., & Biddle, G. (1981). Anchoring and adjustment in probabilistic inference in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research, 19, 120–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroth, A., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). International university rankings: A critical review of the methodology. Zeitschrift fur Erziehungswissenschaft, 11, 542–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. (2009, August 19). Reputation without rigor. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/19/rankings.

  • Marginson, S. (2007). Global university rankings: Implications in general and for Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29, 131–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonough, P. M., Antonio, A. L., Walpole, M., & Perez, L. X. (1998). College rankings: Democratized college knowledge for whom? Research in Higher Education, 39, 513–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meredith, M. (2004). Why do universities compete in the rankings game? An empirical analysis of the effects of the U.S. News and World Report college rankings. Research in Higher Education, 45, 443–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monks, J., & Ehrenberg, R. G. (1999). The impact of U.S. News & World Report college rankings on admissions outcomes and pricing policies at selective private institutions (Working Paper #7227). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Mussweiler, T. (2001). The durability of anchoring effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 499–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Comparing is believing: A selective accessibility model of judgmental anchoring. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 135–167). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). The use of category and exemplar knowledge in the solution of anchoring tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1038–1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1142–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 84–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (3rd ed.). New York: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 829–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmi, J., & Saroyan, A. (2007). League tables as policy instruments: Uses and misuses. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19, 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74, 63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauder, M., & Fine, G. A. (2008). Arbiters, entrepreneurs, and the shaping of business school reputations. Sociological Forum, 23, 699–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The worldwide expansion of higher education in the twentieth century. American Sociological Review, 70, 898–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2003). Academic ranking of world universities—2003. Retrieved November 23, 2009, from http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2003.jsp.

  • Sponsler, B. (2009). The role and relevance of rankings in higher education policymaking. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, J. E. (2006). The interplay between law school rankings, reputations, and resource allocations: Ways rankings mislead. Indiana Law Journal, 82, 229–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tight, M. (2000). Do league tables contribute to the development of a quality culture? Football and higher education compared. Higher Education Quarterly, 54(1), 22–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, D. R. (2005). Benchmarking in universities: League tables revisited. Oxford Review of Education, 31(3), 353–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahnemann, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usher, A., & Savino, M. (2006). A world of difference: A global survey of university league tables. Toronto, ON: Educational Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyke, N. (2005). Twenty years of university report cards. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 103–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volkwein, J. F., & Sweitzer, K. V. (2006). Institutional prestige and reputation among research universities and liberal arts colleges. Research in Higher Education, 47, 129–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., Koestner, R., Colella, M. J., & Alton, A. O. (1984). Anchoring in the detection of deception and leakage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 301–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Social Concerns, University of Notre Dame, 164 Geddes Hall, Notre Dame, IN, 46556-4633, USA

    Nicholas A. Bowman

  2. Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, University of Michigan, 610 E University Ave, SEB 2117, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1259, USA

    Michael N. Bastedo

Authors
  1. Nicholas A. Bowman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael N. Bastedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas A. Bowman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bowman, N.A., Bastedo, M.N. Anchoring effects in world university rankings: exploring biases in reputation scores. High Educ 61, 431–444 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9339-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9339-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation