Anchoring Bias Research Articles

Gout or Deep Vein Thrombosis: Expanding Differential Diagnosis and Avoiding Anchoring Bias

Diagnostic reasoning is a critical skill for a nurse practitioner. Cognitive biases influence nurse practitioner decision making, and anchoring bias is the most common cognitive error. Cognitive error is a systematic deviation from optimal decision making or errors in thinking from reliance on mental shortcuts known as heuristics. Anchoring bias is when initial information dominates decision making, neglecting alternative diagnoses. This case describes a patient with pain, redness, and swelling in the left ankle, attributing it to a gout flare-up. To avoid anchoring on this diagnosis, reflective practice considered alternatives such as deep vein thrombosis. Reflective practice involves examining one’s experiences and adopting a critical perspective toward one’s own methods and practice. The patient was referred to the emergency department where a diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis was confirmed. This case underscores the importance of acknowledging cognitive biases and implementing debiasing strategies.

First Things First: Using Anchoring Bias to Examine the Effect of Penalty Severity and Social Norms on Tax Compliance

First Things First: Using Anchoring Bias to Examine the Effect of Penalty Severity and Social Norms on Tax Compliance

PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS AFFECTING INVESTORS DECISION MAKING

The paper investigates the psychological factors influencing investors' decision-making processes, with a particular focus on how biases affect risk tolerance and investment decisions. Utilizing a comprehensive methodology that includes ANOVA, regression, and correlational analysis, this study examines the effects of biases such as overconfidence, anchoring, herd behaviour, regret aversion and optimism biases on investment decisions. The research findings reveal significant correlations between these psychological biases and investor behaviour, highlighting their impact on risk assessment and decision-making strategies. To ensure the reliability of the research tools, a Cronbach’s Alpha test was conducted, confirming the consistency of the instruments used. The study's results challenge the traditional notion that states that investment decisions are driven solely by logical reasoning and underscoring the substantial influence of emotional and cognitive biases. These insights contribute to the field of behavioural finance by enhancing understanding of the psychological underpinnings in investment decision-making and suggesting practical applications for financial education and advisory services. The paper advocates for the inclusion of psychological bias recognition in investor education, proposing that such an approach can significantly improve decision-making and lead to better investment outcomes. The implications of this research extend beyond individual investors to financial advisors and policymakers, offering them a foundation to develop strategies and regulations that help mitigate bias-driven investment mistakes, ultimately fostering greater financial well-being and market efficiency. Keywords: Investor Decision Making, Risk Tolerance, ANOVA, Regression Analysis, Correlational Analysis, Overconfidence Bias, Anchoring Bias, Herd Behaviour Bias, Regret Aversion Bias, Optimism Bias, Behavioural Finance.

Research on the Anchoring Bias in Stock Investment: Evidence from Chinese Stock Market

Under the influence of factors such as information loss, information asymmetry and personal experience, people can be easily affected by anchoring effect and make wrong decisions. The anchoring effect is a cognitive bias whereby an individual's decisions are influenced by a particular reference point or anchor. This influence can be reflected in many aspects, such as the promotion activities in shopping malls, the choice of insurance products, or the decision to sell or buy in the stock market. In recent years, scholars have gradually found that anchoring effect will influence various decisions made by investors in the stock market to a certain extent, and therefore affect the price of individual stocks in the stock market. Based on previous research experience, the paper summarizes the changes in investors' decisions caused by anchoring deviation in China's stock market and its impact on specific stock prices. Therefore, this study on anchoring bias in the stock market has important implications for investors, traders, and financial analysts. By understanding the ways in which cognitive biases can shape decision-making in the stock market, individuals can take steps to mitigate the effects of these biases and make more rational investment decisions.

S3517 Anchoring Bias in the Evaluation of Cholestasis: When Gallstone Disease Delays the Diagnosis of Hepatic Infiltration by Metastatic Melanoma of Unknown Primary

S3517 Anchoring Bias in the Evaluation of Cholestasis: When Gallstone Disease Delays the Diagnosis of Hepatic Infiltration by Metastatic Melanoma of Unknown Primary

First Things First: Using Anchoring Bias to Examine the Effect of Penalty Severity and Social Norms on Compliance

First Things First: Using Anchoring Bias to Examine the Effect of Penalty Severity and Social Norms on Compliance

Characterizing Anchoring Bias in Vaccine Comparator Selection Due to Health Care Utilization With COVID-19 and Influenza: Observational Cohort Study.

BackgroundObservational data enables large-scale vaccine safety surveillance but requires careful evaluation of the potential sources of bias. One potential source of bias is the index date selection procedure for the unvaccinated cohort or unvaccinated comparison time (“anchoring”).ObjectiveHere, we evaluated the different index date selection procedures for 2 vaccinations: COVID-19 and influenza.MethodsFor each vaccine, we extracted patient baseline characteristics on the index date and up to 450 days prior and then compared them to the characteristics of the unvaccinated patients indexed on (1) an arbitrary date or (2) a date of a visit. Additionally, we compared vaccinated patients indexed on the date of vaccination and the same patients indexed on a prior date or visit.ResultsCOVID-19 vaccination and influenza vaccination differ drastically from each other in terms of the populations vaccinated and their status on the day of vaccination. When compared to indexing on a visit in the unvaccinated population, influenza vaccination had markedly higher covariate proportions, and COVID-19 vaccination had lower proportions of most covariates on the index date. In contrast, COVID-19 vaccination had similar covariate proportions when compared to an arbitrary date. These effects attenuated, but were still present, with a longer lookback period. The effect of day 0 was present even when the patients served as their own controls.ConclusionsPatient baseline characteristics are sensitive to the choice of the index date. In vaccine safety studies, unexposed index event should represent vaccination settings. Study designs previously used to assess influenza vaccination must be reassessed for COVID-19 to account for a potentially healthier population and lack of medical activity on the day of vaccination.

Analyzing the relation between anchoring and dark triad personality traits in the prisoner’s and traveler’s dilemmas

Anchoring bias has been extensively studied in behavioral economics, but the influence of individual differences on this bias has rarely received attention. However, research suggests that personality traits may affect susceptibility to bias. The present study addresses how dark triad traits may affect decisions within the framework of behavioral game theory, how decisions are justified, whether anchors are generated, and how personality traits affect anchors. A total of 379 participants played the prisoner’s dilemma and traveler’s dilemma games. In both games, three groups were configured, two with anchors and one control group without anchors. The games were conducted through an online questionnaire in which participants also completed the short dark triad test. The Machiavellianism and psychopathy traits yielded relationships with the decisions made in the games but did not affect the anchors. In the traveler’s dilemma, there was a clear anchoring, and in the prisoner’s dilemma, there was no anchoring. In addition, the players rationalized the decisions made against anchoring.

Analisis Pengaruh Anchoring Bias dan Loss Aversion Dalam Pengambilan Keputusan Investasi Di Kota Bandar Lampung

The investment decisions made by ordinary investors are affected by the predictions and profits that the investor has. This decision making is an important aspect in dealing with several issues. The objective of this research was to find out the effect of the investor behavioral bias in finance (Anchoring Bias and Loss Aversion) in Lampung. The subject of this research was 120 active investors obtained from the securities institutions and several university investment galleries in Lampung. The method of this research was the associative method. The sampling techniques used in this research were non-probability sampling, snowball sampling, and purposive sampling. The data collecting technique used in this research was distributing questionnaires. The data analyzing technique used in this research was through multiple regression analysis and descriptive statistics. The hypothesis test used in this research was the independent t-test. The result of this research showed that the Anchoring Bias and Loss Aversion had a positive effect on the investor to make an investment decision in Bandar Lampung with a 0.00 < 0.05 significant level.

Abstract #807002: Avoiding Anchoring Bias in Adrenal Insufficiency

Abstract #807002: Avoiding Anchoring Bias in Adrenal Insufficiency

Can Firms Break Investors’ 52-Week High Anchoring Bias?

Studies show that investors’ anchoring bias associated with past 52-week highs of firms’ stock prices leads to undervaluation. We propose that the resulting price distortion misguides managerial incentives and resource allocation, and motivates managers to split stocks (to induce more analyst coverage and attract more investors). Indeed, we find that firms are more likely to split stocks when subject to the anchoring bias, especially when having higher profitability but undervalued. Furthermore, the likelihood of stock splits increases with CEO wealth-performance sensitivity, and firms’ investment-price sensitivity increases after stock splits. Our findings provide a rationale and managerial incentives for stock splits.

Behavioral Finance Biases in Investment Decision Making

Traditional finance suggests that investments made by rational behaviors investors examine risk and return before decision making to gain maximum profit later behavioral finance challenge traditional finance and introduce psychological factors affect decision making. The aim of this research paper is to explore how behavioral biases affect investment decision making under uncertainty. Dependent variable investment decision making is a composite activity, it never be made in a vacuity by depending on personal resources. Based on this study investment choices alternatives influence by human rational and irrational behavior, therefore, examine the impact of behavioral finance in the decision-making process. Behavioral finance phenomenon variables; heuristic, prospects, personality characteristics, feeling, moods and ecological factors explore under this research. Overconfidence, Representativeness, Anchoring, Regret Aversion, Hindsight, Herding Effect and Home Bias included in investors psychology behaviors. Survey questionnaire tool used to collect sample to conduct quantitative research. To test the hypothesis Regression analysis run by the SPS software. Findings revealed that there was an effect of behavioral biases on investment decisions. Empirical results concluded investment decision making influenced by heuristic behaviors more than prospects and personality characteristics. The originality of this study, it is very beneficial for investors and financial institutions to make decision by observation of psychological factors.

Risk aversion and implicit shortage cost explain the Anchoring and Insufficient Adjustment bias in human newsvendors

The Anchoring and Insufficient Adjustment (AIA) bias has been observed in many newsvendor experiments, although a mathematical explanation for this behavior has previously eluded researchers. We show here that risk aversion coupled with an implicit shortage cost, both of which are well-known components of newsvendor decisions, comprehensively explains this behavior. We construct combinations of a risk-averse utility function and a shortage cost that explain the results from previously reported newsvendor experiments.

Momentum Crashes and Investors' Anchoring Bias

Momentum Crashes and Investors' Anchoring Bias

Training Anchoring and Representativeness Bias Mitigation Through a Digital Game

Objective. Humans systematically make poor decisions because of cognitive biases. Can digital games train people to avoid cognitive biases? The goal of this study is to investigate the affordance of different educational media in training people about cognitive biases and to mitigate cognitive biases within their decision-making processes. Method. A between-subject experiment was conducted to compare a digital game, a traditional slideshow, and a combined condition in mitigating two types of cognitive biases: anchoring bias and representativeness bias. We measured both immediate effects and delayed effects after four weeks. Results. The digital game and slideshow conditions were effective in mitigating cognitive biases immediately after the training, but the effects decayed after four weeks. By providing the basic knowledge through the slideshow, then allowing learners to practice bias-mitigation techniques in the digital game, the combined condition was most effective at mitigating the cognitive biases both immediately and after four weeks.

Anchoring Bias With Critical Implications

AORN JournalVolume 103, Issue 6 p. 658-658 Column Anchoring Bias With Critical Implications First published: 25 May 2016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2016.03.012Citations: 3 This content is adapted from AHRQ WebM&M (Morbidity & Mortality Rounds on the Web) with permission from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The original commentary was written by Edward Etchells, MD, MSc, and was adapted for this article by Nancy J. Girard, PhD, RN, FAAN, consultant/owner, Nurse Collaborations, Boerne, TX. (Citation: Etchells E. Anchoring bias with critical implications. AHRQ WebM&M [serial online]. http://webmm.ahrq.gov/case.aspx?caseID=350. Published June 2015. Accessed February 22, 2016.) Dr Girard has no declared affiliation that could be perceived as posing a potential conflict of interest in the publication of this article. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume103, Issue6June 2016Pages 658-658 RelatedInformation

Training in the mitigation of anchoring bias: A test of the consider-the-opposite strategy

Anchoring bias is a decision heuristic evidenced by skewed estimates made after an initial value is considered. The anchoring heuristic is both pervasive and powerful, affecting decision-making processes in many practical contexts. An experiment was conducted to test the effectiveness of both preexisting and new training techniques for mitigating anchoring bias, as well as to test a new type of anchoring bias inducing stimuli. Results show that the training module was effective in helping participants mitigate anchoring bias, and that the new stimuli were effective in eliciting anchoring bias in both high and low anchoring conditions. Additionally, the results provide theoretical evidence anchoring is due, at least in part, to semantic priming. Theoretical implications for the semantic priming and the revised adjustment explanation are discussed. Practical considerations for developing effective online and/or game-based training programs to mitigate the effects of overreliance on the anchoring heuristic are also discussed.

Risk Aversion and Implicit Shortage Cost Explain the Anchoring and Insufficient Adjustment Bias in Human Newsvendors

Anchoring and Insufficient Adjustment (AIA) bias has been observed in many newsvendor experiments, although a mathematical explanation for this behavior has previously eluded researchers. We show that risk aversion coupled with an implicit shortage cost, both of which are well-known components of newsvendor decisions, comprehensively explains this behavior. We construct combinations of a risk averse utility function and a shortage cost that explain the results from Schweitzer and Cachon (2000), the first and the most-cited study in newsvendor experiments.

The Impact of The Anchoring and Adjustment Bias on Analysts’ Forecast in Vietnam Stock Market

In this research, we consider a well-known behavioral bias of financial market participants, the anchoring and adjustment bias described by Tversky and Kahneman (1974). Empirical findings have shown that this heuristic has significant economic consequences for the efficiency of the financial market of Vietnam. Specifically, we investigate the existence of anchoring and adjustment bias when stock analysts forecast future earnings of a firm by examining 661 analysts’ reports forecasting prices in Vietnam from 2009 - 2012. In addition, we find that anchoring and adjustment bias appears to have considerable influence over both male and female analysts. With the multi-variable regression model, we find out the effects of anchoring and adjustment bias on different group of analysts as well as the time horizon.

Irrationality or Efficiency of Macroeconomic Survey Forecasts? Implications from the Anchoring Bias Test*

Recent findings indicate that macroeconomic survey forecasts are anchoring biased and therefore are inefficient. However, despite highly significant test coefficients, a bias adjustment does not improve forecasts' quality. We find that the cognitive bias is a statistical artifact because the anchoring test is biased itself. In particular, it produces misleading results if macroeconomic analysts use more comprehensive information than assumed by the test. Our results have important implications for a wide range of empirical research relying on survey data to capture market participants' expectations, for example, studies analyzing the impact of macroeconomic conditions on asset prices, equity risk premiums, or market liquidity. Copyright 2013, Oxford University Press.