Advertisement

Theory and Decision

, Volume 85, Issue 2, pp 117–150 | Cite as

Are groups ‘less behavioral’? The case of anchoring

  • Lukas Meub
  • Till Proeger
Article
  • 159 Downloads

Abstract

Economic small group research points to groups as more rational decision-makers in numerous economic situations. However, no attempts have been made to investigate whether groups are affected similarly by behavioral biases that are pervasive for individuals. If groups were also able to more effectively avoid these biases, the relevance of biases in actual economic contexts dominated by group decision-making might be questioned. We consider the case of anchoring as a prime example of a well-established, robust bias. Individual and group biasedness in three economically relevant domains are compared: factual knowledge, probability estimates and price valuations. In contrast to previous anchoring studies, we find groups to successfully reduce, albeit not eliminate, anchoring in the factual knowledge domain. For the other two domains, groups and individuals are equally biased by external anchors. Group cooperation thus reduces biases for predominantly intellective tasks only, while no such reduction is achieved when judgmental aspects are involved.

Keywords

Anchoring bias Group decision-making Heuristics and biases Laboratory experiment 

References

  1. Adaval, R., & Wyer, R. S. (2011). Conscious and nonconscious influences of a price anchor: effects on willingness to pay for related and unrelated products. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alevy, J. E., Landry, C. E., & List, J. A. (2015). Field experiments on the anchoring of economic valuations. Economic Inquiry, 53(3), 1522–1538. doi: 10.1111/ecin.12201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateman, I. J., Burgess, D., Hutchinson, W. G., & Matthews, D. I. (2008). Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning, and coherent arbitrariness. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 55, 127–141. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2007.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beggs, A., & Graddy, K. (2009). Anchoring effects: evidence from art auctions. American Economic Review, 99(3), 1027–1039. doi: 10.1257/aer.99.3.1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blankenship, K. L., Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B., & Macy, C. L. (2008). Elaboration and consequences of anchored estimates: an attitudinal perspective on numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1465–1476. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bofinger, P., & Schmidt, R. (2003). On the reliability of professional exchange rate forecasts: an empirical analysis for the €/US-$ rate. Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, 17, 437–449. doi: 10.1007/s11408-003-0403-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bucchianeri, G. W., & Minson, J. (2013). A homeowner’s dilemma: anchoring in residential real estate transactions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 89, 76–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2013.01.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, S. D., & Sharpe, S. A. (2009). Anchoring bias in consensus forecasts and its effect on market prices. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 44, 369–390. doi: 10.1017/S0022109009090127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cecchi, F., & Bulte, E. (2013). Does market experience promote rational choice? Experimental evidence from rural Ethiopia. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 61(2), 407–429. doi: 10.1086/668275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cen, L., Hilary, G., & Wei, K. C. J. (2013). The role of anchoring bias in the equity market: evidence from analysts’ earnings forecasts and stock returns. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 48, 47–76. doi: 10.1017/S0022109012000609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 115–153. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charness, G., & Sutter, M. (2012). Groups make better self-interested decisions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(3), 157–176. doi: 10.1257/jep.26.3.157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cox, J., & Hayne, S. (2006). Barking up the right tree: are small groups rational agents? Experimental Economics, 9, 209–222. doi: 10.1007/s10683-006-9123-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Critcher, C. R., & Gilovich, T. (2008). Incidental environmental anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 241–251. doi: 10.1002/bdm.586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Critcher, C.R., Rosenzweig, E.L., & Gilovich, T. (2014). Beyond Anchoring: Contextual Influence on Adjustment. University of California, Haas School of Business Working Paper.Google Scholar
  16. Dodonova, A., & Khoroshilov, Y. (2004). Anchoring and transaction utility: evidence from online auctions. Applied Economic Letters, 11, 307–310. doi: 10.1080/1350485042000221571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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, 199–212. doi: 10.1002/bdm.495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2010). Anchoring unbound. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 20–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2009.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frederick, S., Kahneman, D., & Mochon, D. (2010). Elaborating a simpler theory of anchoring. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 17–19. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2009.12.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frederick, S. W., & Mochon, D. (2012). A scale distortion theory of anchoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 124–133. doi: 10.1037/a0024006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fudenberg, D., Levine, D. K., & Maniadis, Z. (2012). On the robustness of anchoring effects in WTP and WTA experiments. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4, 131–145. doi: 10.1257/mic.4.2.131.Google Scholar
  23. Fujiwara, I., Ichiue, H., Nakazono, Y., & Shigemi, Y. (2013). Financial markets forecasts revisited: are they rational, stubborn or jumpy? Economics Letters, 118(3), 526–530. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2012.12.037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 35–42. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2010.10.008.Google Scholar
  25. Gloeckner, A., & Englich, B. (2014). When relevance matters. Anchoring effects can be larger for relevant than for irrelevant anchors. Social Psychology, 46(1), 4–12. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greiner, B. (2004). An online recruiting system for economic experiments. In: Kremer, K., Macho, V. (Eds.), Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003. GWDG Bericht 63. Ges. für Wiss. Datenverarbeitung, Goettingen, 79-93.Google Scholar
  27. Hess, D., & Orbe, S. (2013). Irrationality or efficiency of macroeconomic survey forecasts? Implications from the anchoring bias test. Review of Finance, 17(6), 2097–2131. doi: 10.1093/rof/rfs037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hinsz, V. B., & Indahl, K. E. (1995). Assimilation to anchors for damage awards in a mock civil trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 991–1026. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02386.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161–1166. doi: 10.1177/01461672952111004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson, J. E. V., Schnytzer, A., & Liu, S. (2009). To what extent do investors in a financial market anchor their judgements excessively? Evidence from the Hong Kong horserace betting market. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22, 410–434. doi: 10.1002/bdm.640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–655. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kugler, T., Kausel, E., & Kocher, M. (2012). Are groups more rational than individuals? A review of interactive decision making in groups. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(4), 471–482. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1184.Google Scholar
  33. Laughlin, P. R. (1980). Social combination processes of cooperative problem-solving groups on verbal intellective tasks. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in Social Psychology (pp. 127–155). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Laughlin, P. R., Bonner, B. L., & Miner, A. G. (2002). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letter-to-numbers problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 606–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lawrence, M., & O’Connor, M. (2000). Sales forecasting updates: how good are they in practice? International Journal of Forecasting, 16(3), 369–382. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2070(00)00059-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 153–174. doi: 10.1257/jep.21.2.153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. List, J. A. (2003). Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 41–71. doi: 10.1162/00335530360535144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. List, J. A. (2004a). Testing neoclassical competitive theory in multilateral decentralized markets. Journal of Political Economy, 112(5), 1131–1156. doi: 10.1086/422564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. List, J. A. (2004). Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: Evidence from the marketplace. Econometrica, 72(2), 615–625. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00502.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. List, J. A. (2006). The behavioralist meets the market: measuring social preferences and reputation effects in actual transactions. Journal of Political Economy, 114(1), 1–37. doi: 10.1086/498587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. List, J. A., & Millimet, D. L. (2008). The market: catalyst for rationality and filter of irrationality. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 8, 1–55. doi: 10.2202/1935-1682.2115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Luhan, W. J., Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. (2009). Group polarization in the team dictator game reconsidered. Experimental Economics, 12, 26–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maniadis, Z., Tufano, F., & List, J. A. (2014). One swallow doesn’t make a summer: new evidence on anchoring effects. The American Economic Review, 104(1), 277–290. doi: 10.1257/aer.104.1.277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McAlvanah, P., & Moul, C. C. (2013). The house doesn’t always win: evidence of anchoring among Australian bookies. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 90, 87–99. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2013.03.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McElroy, T., & Dowd, K. (2007). Susceptibility to anchoring effects: how openness-to-experience influences responses to anchoring cues. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(1), 48–53.Google Scholar
  46. Meub, L., & Proeger, T. (2015). Anchoring in social context. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 55, 29–39. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2015.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meub, L., & Proeger, T. (2016). Can anchoring explain biased forecasts? Experimental evidence, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 12, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nunes, J. C., & Boatwright, P. (2004). Incidental prices and their effect on willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(4), 457–466. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.41.4.457.47014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Plous, S. (1989). Thinking the unthinkable: the effects of anchoring on likelihood estimates of nuclear war. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 67–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1989.tb01221.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Russo, J. E. (2010). Understanding the effect of a numerical anchor. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 25–27. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2009.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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, 917–932. doi: 10.1037/a0021540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simonson, I., & Drolet, A. (2004). Anchoring effects on consumers’ willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. Journal of consumer research, 31(3), 681–690. doi: 10.1086/425103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sniezek, J. A., & Henry, R. A. (1989). Accuracy and confidence in group judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(1), 1–28. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(89)90055-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stahlberg, D., Eller, F., Maass, A., & Frey, D. (1995). We knew it all along: hindsight bias in groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(1), 46–58. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1995.1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sugden, R., Zheng, J., & Zizzo, D. J. (2013). Not all anchors are created equal. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 21–31. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2013.06.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tufano, F. (2010). Are ‘true’ preferences revealed in repeated markets? An experimental demonstration of context-dependent valuations. Experimental Economics, 13(1), 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s10683-009-9226-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Blankenship, K. L., & Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2010a). Elaboration and numerical anchoring: implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 5–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2009.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Blankenship, K. L., & Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2010b). Elaboration and numerical anchoring: breadth, depth, and the role of (non-) thoughtful processes in anchoring theories. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 28–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2009.12.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Whyte, G., & Sebenius, J. K. (1997). The effect of multiple anchors on anchoring in individual and group judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(1), 74–85. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.2674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wildschut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J. L., Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (2003). Beyond the group mind: a quantitative review of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 698–722. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilson, T. D., Houston, C. E., Etling, K. M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 125, 387–402. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.125.4.387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wright, W. F., & Anderson, U. (1989). Effects of situation familiarity and financial incentives on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic for probability assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 68–82. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(89)90035-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Economic Policy and SME Research, Faculty of Economic SciencesUniversity of GoettingenGoettingenGermany

Personalised recommendations