Advertisement

Current Psychology

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 294–300 | Cite as

Use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic by children

  • H. David SmithEmail author
Article

Abstract

Two studies are discussed in which children's use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic was considered. Study one is a modification of the classic multiplication task devised by Kahneman and Tversky (1974). Results indicate that children in grades 4, 6, 8 and adults are affected by the order of numbers provided in an addition task. In addition, younger children display the tendency to over adjust, yielding higher estimates. In the second study, third and fifth grade participants and adults were provided anchors and estimated the number of jellybeans in a glass container. A main effect for condition is indicated, with lower anchors leading to lower estimates. Results of both studies are consistent with the an anchoring and adjustment explanation.

Keywords

Fourth Grader Current Psychology Addition Task Conjunction Fallacy Availability Heuristic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agnoli, F. (1991). Development of judgmental heuristics and logical reasoning: Training counteracts the representativeness heuristic. Cognitive Development, 6, 95–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Davidson, D. (1995). The representativeness heuristic and the conjunction fallacy effect in children's decision making. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41 (3), 328–346.Google Scholar
  3. Davies, M. and White, P.A. (1994). Use of availability heuristic by children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 503–505.Google Scholar
  4. Jacobs, J.E. and Potenza, M. (1991). The use of judgment heuristics to make social and object decisions: A developmental perspective. Child Development, 62, 166–178.Google Scholar
  5. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  6. Ross, L. (1981). The intuitive scientist formulation. In Flavell, J. and Ross, L. (Eds.) Social Cognitive Development: Frontiers and Possible Futures. 1–42, New York, NY, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Scholz, R.W. (1983) Decision Making Under Uncertainty. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Smith, H.D. (1995). Judgmental heuristic use among children: A preliminary investigation. Paper presented as part of a symposium entitled “Children's use of heuristics and intuitive reasoning: What develops?” (Organized by Janis Jacobs) at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, March, Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
  9. Tabachnik, B. and Fidel, L. (1989), Using Multivariate Statistics. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  10. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMiddlebury CollegeMiddlebury

Personalised recommendations