Korean Journal of Cognitive Science (인지과학)

The Korean Society for Cognitive Science (한국인지과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The effect of anchor extremity and question difficulty on anchoring effect

기준점의 극단성과 문항 난이도가 기준점 효과에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2022.03.18
  • Accepted : 2022.03.18
  • Published : 2022.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Previous studies have reported that a plausible reference point has a greater anchoring effect than an extreme reference point. It is also known that the anchoring effect decreases when the individual's level of knowledge related to a given item is high. However, there has been no study examining the interaction of the plausibility of the reference point and the difficulty of the given question. Therefore, in this study, the effect of the reference plausibility and the difficulty of the questions on the anchoring effect were examined. The relationship between the response confidence and the anchoring effect was also examined. To do so, easy and difficult questions, plausible and extreme reference points were selected through preliminary research. The experiment was conducted following the 'standard anchoring task procedure'. As results, the extremity of the reference point and the difficulty of the question affected the size of the anchoring effect respectively. The difficulty of the question also affected the confidence of the response. Specifically, when a plausible reference point was presented and when a difficult question was presented, the anchoring effects were increased. In addition, the lower the confidence in one's performances, the greater the influence of the reference point when an extreme reference point was presented. These results show that the plausibility of the given reference point and the difficulty of the item have different effects on the magnitude of the anchoring effect and the degree of confidence. The results of this study support the attitude change perspective regarding the anchoring effect, which suggests that the anchoring effect varies depending on the characteristics of the reference point and the individual's knowledge.

선행 연구들에서는 그럴듯한 기준점이 극단적 기준점보다 더 큰 기준점 효과를 야기하는 반면, 주어진 문항과 관련된 개인의 지식수준이 높으면 기준점 효과가 작아진다고 보고하고 있다. 하지만 제시되는 기준점이 그럴듯한지 여부와 주어진 문항 자체의 난이도가 기준점 효과에 미치는 영향을 함께 살펴본 연구는 없었다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 기준점의 극단성과 문항의 난이도가 기준점 효과에 미치는 영향을 살펴보았으며, 이에 더해 응답 확신도와 기준점 효과의 관계도 살펴보았다. 이를 위하여 예비 연구를 통해 쉬운 문항과 어려운 문항, 그럴듯한 기준점과 극단적인 기준점을 선정하였다. 본 실험은 '표준 기준점 실험 절차' 에 따라 진행되었다. 연구 결과, 기준점의 극단성과 문항의 난이도는 각각 기준점 효과에 영향을 미쳤으며 문항의 난이도는 응답 확신도에도 또한 영향을 미쳤다. 구체적으로, 그럴듯한 기준점을 제시했을 때와 어려운 문항을 제시했을 때에 기준점 효과가 크게 나타났다. 또한 자신의 수행에 대한 확신이 낮을수록 극단적인 기준점이 제시되었을 때 기준점의 영향을 크게 받았다. 이러한 결과는 기준점이 그럴듯한지와 문항의 난이도에 따라 기준점 효과의 크기와 확신 정도, 그리고 기준점 효과와 확신도 사이의 상관관계가 다르게 나타난다는 것을 보여준다. 본 연구의 결과는 기준점의 특성이나 개인의 상태에 따라 기준점 효과가 달라진다고 제안하는 기준점 효과에 관한 태도 변화 관점을 뒷받침한다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

본 연구는 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 글로벌 연구네트워크 지원사업의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임 (NRF-2017S1A2A2041854).

References

  1. Bahnik, S., & Strack, F. (2016). Overlap of accessible information undermines the anchoring effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1).
  2. 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(6), 1465-1476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.005
  3. Bokati, L., Kreinovich, V., & Le, C. V. (2021, January). How to Explain the Anchoring Formula in Behavioral Economics. In International Econometric Conference of Vietnam (pp. 28-34). Springer, Cham.
  4. Caputo, A. (2014). Relevant information, personality traits and anchoring effect. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 13(1), 62-76. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDM.2014.058470
  5. Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1994). The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7(4), 223-242. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960070402
  6. Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 79(2), 115-153. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2841
  7. Englich, B. (2008). When knowledge matters-differential effects of available knowledge in standard and basic anchoring tasks. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(5), 896-904. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.479
  8. Englich, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 31(7), 1535-1551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02687.x
  9. Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2005). The last word in court-A hidden disadvantage for the defense. Law and Human Behavior, 29(6), 705-722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-8380-7
  10. 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(2), 188-200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282152
  11. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological science, 12(5), 391-396. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00372
  12. 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(3), 199-212. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.495
  13. Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), 1161-1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672952111004
  14. Lieder, F., Griffiths, T. L., Huys, Q. J., & Goodman, N. D. (2018). The anchoring bias reflects rational use of cognitive resources. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 25(1), 322-349. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1286-8
  15. Markovits, H., Thompson, V. A., & Brisson, J. (2015). Metacognition and abstract reasoning. Memory & cognition, 43(4), 681-693. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0488-9
  16. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Comparing is believing: A selective accessibility model of judgmental anchoring. European review of social psychology, 10(1), 135-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779943000044
  17. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). Numeric judgments under uncertainty: The role of knowledge in anchoring. Journal of experimental social psychology, 36(5), 495-518. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1414
  18. Mussweiler, T., Englich, B., & Strack, F. (2012). Anchoring effect. In Cognitive illusions (pp. 195-212). Psychology Press.
  19. Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoringand-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 39(1), 84-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90046-x
  20. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Matching versus mismatching attitude functions: Implications for scrutiny of persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(3), 227-240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298243001
  21. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 41(5), 847. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.41.5.847
  22. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of consumer research, 10(2), 135-146. https://doi.org/10.1086/208954
  23. Petty, R. E., Schumann, D. W., Richman, S. A., & Strathman, A. J. (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: Different roles for affect under high-and low-elaboration conditions. Journal of personality and social psychology, 64(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.64.1.5
  24. Shynkaruk, J. M., & Thompson, V. A. (2006). Confidence and accuracy in deductive reasoning. Memory & cognition, 34(3), 619-632. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193584
  25. Smith, A. R., & Windschitl, P. D. (2011). Biased calculations: Numeric anchors influence answers to math equations. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(2), 139.
  26. Smith, A. R., & Windschitl, P. D. (2015). Resisting anchoring effects: The roles of metric and mapping knowledge. Memory & cognition, 43(7), 1071-1084. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-015-0524-4
  27. Smith, A. R., Windschitl, P. D., & Bruchmann, K. (2013). Knowledge matters: Anchoring effects are moderated by knowledge level. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(1), 97-108. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1921
  28. Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of personality and social psychology, 73(3), 437. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.437
  29. Thorsteinson, T. J. (2011). Initiating Salary Discussions With an Extreme Request: Anchoring Effects on Initial Salary Offers 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(7), 1774-1792. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00779.x
  30. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
  31. Wegener, T., Petty, E., Blankenship, L., & Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2010). Elaboration and numerical anchoring: Implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.12.003
  32. Wegener, T., Petty, E., Detweiler-Bedell, T., & Jarvis, G. (2001). Implications of attitude change theories for numerical anchoring: Anchor plausibility and the limits of anchor effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(1), 62-69. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2000.1431
  33. Yang, C., Sun, B., & Shanks, D. R. (2018). The anchoring effect in metamemory monitoring. Memory & Cognition, 46(3), 384-397. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0772-6