Self-generated Anchors Research Articles

Why do Workers Generate Biased Risk Perceptions? An Analysis of Anchoring Effects and Influential Factors in Workers' Assessment of Unsafe Behavior

BackgroundRisk perception plays a crucial role in workers' unsafe behaviors. However, little research has explored why workers generate biased risk perceptions, namely underestimating or overestimating the risks of unsafe actions. Cognitive biases in risk perception arise from uncertainties about the dangers of unsafe behaviors. As a typical heuristic strategy, the anchoring effect is critical in decision-making under uncertain conditions. Consequently, this study empirically analyzed the influence of anchoring effects on workers' risk perception. MethodsIn 2022, a survey was conducted with 1,418 coal mine workers from Shanxi Province, China. The survey instruments assessed workers' risk perception of unsafe behavior, anchoring effects, need for cognition, and safety knowledge. Multivariable linear regression models were employed to analyze the associations among these variables. ResultsThe findings verified the proposed anchoring effects. Specifically, experimenter-provided high-risk anchors led workers to overestimate unsafe behavior risks, thus reducing their tendency to engage in such behavior. In contrast, experimenter-provided low-risk anchors and accident-injury experiences (self-generated anchors) decreased workers' risk perception, increasing their propensity to engage in unsafe behavior. Additionally, workers' safety knowledge and need for cognition significantly affected anchoring effects. ConclusionThis research enhances workplace safety studies by applying the anchoring effect from psychology to risk perception research. Suggestions for improving risk perception encompass implementing hazard warnings, fostering safety education, and providing training. Furthermore, managers should give special attention to workers with accident-injury experience and promptly correct their accident fluke mentality, thereby improving overall risk awareness.

Three Applications of the Anchoring Effect

Many heuristics in behavioural economics play important roles in decision-making. The anchoring effect is one of these heuristics which influence peoples decisions in different fields. Through qualitative analysis and case analysis, this paper aims to introduce the applications of the anchoring effect in various situations. And according to the influence of anchoring effect on decision making in online auctions, court, and Marketing, it analyses how the anchoring effect affects peoples decisions and also how to avoid the deviation caused by anchoring effect. The analysis proves that anchoring affects peoples decision-making in different situations to a certain extent, and makes biased decisions without people realizing it. he analysis also shows that biased decisions can be avoided in different ways. There are different ways in which people can gain more perspectives and information in their lives, while thinking about how to create excellent self-generated anchors to help escape the effects of anchoring.

A literature review of a cognitive heuristic: The anchoring effect

The anchoring effect has gained popularity as a cognitive heuristic that aims to explain judgment errors people may make in their decision-making process. This article reviews and documents the literature in this area and finds that there is ample and extensive research available on this topic. By summarizing the results of previous research, it is found that the anchoring effect is a pervasive judgment bias when people are in an uncertain decision-making environment, taking different forms and having varying degrees of influence on decision outcomes. Therefore, this paper aims to summarize the existing findings and build on them for further exploration. To achieve this, the paper takes the type of anchor as an entry point and analyzes how externally provided anchors and decision makers' self-generated anchors respectively influence the decision-making process. Afterward, the article further explores the underlying logic of the anchoring effect through its two explanatory models. Since the anchoring effect has long been considered one of the most robust and common cognitive heuristics, this article then demonstrates the breadth of its application by documenting the various domains in which it has been shown to occur. Finally, this review article suggests several methods in which each of the two types of anchors can be weakened to some extent.

The anchoring effect in the terms of behavioural economics

The assumptions of rational choice or, more generally, standard economic theory have had great success regarding their contributions to economic theory. However, some of their assumptions are systematically inconsistent with some real-world observations and controlled experiments. These observations strongly remark on the existence of cognitive biases and heuristics. It is assumed that anchoring is one of the most robust cognitive bias, since it works implicitly, without an individual’s awareness. In this study, the anchoring effect will be discussed and analysed regarding its types and empirical findings. The research aims to distinguish the anchors in terms of their types. As a result, the author discovers five types of anchors: regular informative anchors, self-generated anchors, regular uninformative anchors, basic anchors, and incidental environmental anchors. The author claims that regular informative anchors should not be considered a cognitive bias, since their informativeness levels are sufficient to make rational estimations for unknown values. Moreover, since benefitting from regular informative anchors does not violate the rationality principle, they are not a part of a study of behavioural economics.

Anchoring in international merger and acquisition equity decisions: evidence from Chinese firms

PurposeIn uncertain environments, top managers may be inadvertently affected by the anchor information and make sticky decisions. The purpose of this paper is to examine how anchoring influences international merger and acquisition (M&A) equity decisions.Design/methodology/approachBased on the data of Chinese international M&A deals from 2007 to 2018, this paper uses the Tobit regression method to examine the anchoring effects on international M&A equity decisions.FindingsThe study shows that the acquiring firm's previous international M&A equity level as a self-generated anchor has a positive impact on the focal international M&A equity level. The local market's previous international M&A equity level as an externally provided anchor has a positive impact on the focal international M&A equity level. When there are self-generated anchors and externally provided anchors, the self-generated anchoring effect is stronger than the externally provided anchoring effect. The anchoring effect is stronger when the acquiring firm enters less stable host countries.Research limitations/implicationsThe acquirers in a single-country context may limit the generalizability of the results, and this study does not explicitly determine whether managers' decisions are unintentional or deliberate.Originality/valueThe study contributes to the discussion of equity-based foreign entry mode decisions by exploring anchoring behavior in strategic decisions. It provides an empirical investigation of the different anchoring effects and draws attention to the boundary conditions surrounding anchoring.

Does ego depletion reduce judgment adjustment for both internally and externally generated anchors?

Ego depletion is a state in which people prefer to avoid mental effort, therefore possibly leading to increased reliance on heuristics. Effortful thinking has been shown to help reduce anchoring effects, in which people form social judgments by adjusting from an initial value (the anchor). We therefore predicted that ego depletion would reduce the amount of adjustment from an initial anchor, leaving the final judgment relatively close to the anchor value. In contrast to previous research by Banker et al. (2017), we excluded alternative explanations, such as social mechanisms. In particular, we tested adjustment from internally generated and externally provided anchors. We theorized that judgment adjustment processes are the same for both internal and external cues. The results showed that neither self-generated nor experimenter-provided anchors were affected by ego depletion, thus leaving social mechanisms as the prime alternative explanation. The data also showed that susceptibility to anchoring is not a trait because reactions to different anchors were not substantially intercorrelated. Further, providing externally or internally generated anchors did not make a fundamental difference. However, the loss of data was higher with self-generated anchors. Overall, the results suggest that researchers can confidently rely on experimenter-generated anchors.

The anchoring bias reflects rational use of cognitive resources.

Cognitive biases, such as the anchoring bias, pose a serious challenge to rational accounts of human cognition. We investigate whether rational theories can meet this challenge by taking into account the mind's bounded cognitive resources. We asked what reasoning under uncertainty would look like if people made rational use of their finite time and limited cognitive resources. To answer this question, we applied a mathematical theory of bounded rationality to the problem of numerical estimation. Our analysis led to a rational process model that can be interpreted in terms of anchoring-and-adjustment. This model provided a unifying explanation for ten anchoring phenomena including the differential effect of accuracy motivation on the bias towards provided versus self-generated anchors. Our results illustrate the potential of resource-rational analysis to provide formal theories that can unify a wide range of empirical results and reconcile the impressive capacities of the human mind with its apparently irrational cognitive biases.

Influence of Self-generated Anchors on the Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10)

The aim of this research is to study whether the presentation of the Voice Handicap Index-10 questionnaire administered at the beginning of the treatment impinged on the results of the responses from the end of the treatment. The questionnaire was administered at the beginning of the treatment to a total of 308 patients. After the treatment, a group of 235 patients answered the questionnaire again without any reference to their responses on the initial administration. The other group of participants, consisting of 73 subjects, completed the questionnaire with the answer sheet of their initial self-assessment in sight. The data obtained show that patients who responded to the anchored answer test show less dispersion and a smaller coefficient of variation (0.90) than those who responded to the nonanchored answer test (coefficient of variation = 1.66). The method of administration of the Voice Handicap Index-10 at the end of a treatment influences the dispersion of the results. We recommend that the patient be anchored to the initial answer sheet while responding to the final self-assessment.

Efekt zakotwiczenia za pomocą przedmiotów nacechowanych w wymiarach wagi i wartości

The anchoring heuristic is a simplified strategy of decision making, in which anchor numbers affect numerical estimations. Comparing the target of estimation to a relatively low anchor number leads to a lower estimation than comparison to a relatively high anchor number. This effect is usually considered to be the result of using pure numbers, however numerical estimations can be affected by physical stimuli. In this study, we used items attributed in the context of weight and value. Comparing the anchor item characterized as light/heavy and cheap/expensive affects the subsequent estimations of weight and value of another item. Participants ( N = 160) were handed the anchor item to become familiar with it. After returning the anchor, they were handed another item to estimate its weight and value. The results suggest that the perception of weight influenced the estimations regarding weight, while the perception of value influenced the estimations of value. The results are discussed in the context of the anchoring mechanism based on self-generated anchors.

The Unthinking or Confident Extremist? Political Extremists Are More Likely Than Moderates to Reject Experimenter-Generated Anchors

People with extreme political opinions are alternatively characterized as being relatively unthinking or as confident consumers and practitioners of politics. In three studies, we tested these competing hypotheses using cognitive anchoring tasks (total N = 6,767). Using two different measures of political extremity, we found that extremists were less influenced than political moderates by two types of experimenter-generated anchors (Studies 1–3) and that this result was mediated by extremists’ belief superiority (Study 2). Extremists and moderates, however, were not differentially influenced by self-generated anchors (Study 2), which suggests that extremists differentiated between externally and internally generated anchors. These results are consistent with the confident-extremist perspective and contradict the unthinking-extremist perspective. The present studies demonstrate the utility of adopting a basic cognitive task to investigate the relationship between ideology and cognitive style and suggest that extremity does not necessarily beget irrationality.

Integrating information from multiple sources: A metacognitive account of self-generated and externally provided anchors

Estimates of unknown quantities are influenced by both self-generated anchors (SGAs) and externally provided anchors (EPAs; e.g., the advice of others). It was hypothesised that people use the degree of similarity between these anchors to render final responses. Thus we tested predictions drawn from metacognitive accounts of anchoring using procedures similar to the traditional anchoring paradigm. In a single experiment we manipulated SGA–EPA similarity, EPA level, and EPA source credibility. Results showed that the relationship between SGA–EPA similarity and the decision weight given to the EPA, relative to the weight given to the SGA, depended on source credibility. Bolstering the metacognitive framework, participants were most confident about their final responses when their SGA was similar to the EPA and the EPA came from a highly credible source. These results support a metacognitive account of the anchoring heuristic.

Decisions Under Distress

People frequently make decisions under stress. Understanding how stress affects decision making is complicated by the fact that not all stress responses are created equal. Challenge states, for example, occur when individuals appraise a stressful situation as demanding, but believe they have the personal resources to cope, and are characterized by efficient cardiovascular reactivity and approach motivation. Threat states, in contrast, occur when situational demands are perceived to outweigh resources and are characterized by less efficient cardiovascular reactivity and withdrawal motivation. We randomly assigned participants to social-feedback conditions (i.e., positive or negative feedback) designed to engender challenge or threat, or a no-stress condition. Participants then completed an anchoring-and-adjustment questionnaire. Those assigned to the challenge condition adjusted more from self-generated anchors than those assigned to the threat condition. Cardiovascular responses mediated the relationship between condition and adjustment. This study demonstrates the importance of considering profiles of cardiovascular reactivity when examining the influence of stress on decision making.

The Mental Scale in Anchoring Effects: Evidence from Event-Related Potentials

There are two main models accounting for anchoring effects: the anchoring and adjustment heuristic and selective accessibility model.Further,anchors can be externally provided or self-generated.Considering prior studies researchers of the prior studies found that the adjustment heuristic model accounted more for anchoring effects in the case of responding to self-generated anchors,while the SA model accounted more for responses to externally provided anchors.In the present study,a mental scale was first introduced to distinguish the effortful adjustment process from effortless accessibility,using an event-related brain potential(ERP) technique.We hypothesized that the coarseness of the scale would influence the process related to the response to self-generated anchors but not that related to experimenter provided anchors. Two ERP experiments on young normal subjects examined the impact of a mental scale on responses to self-generated anchors and externally provided anchors,respectively.We also designed a new paradigm for ERP recording.In Experiment 1, higher or lower numbers as externally provided anchors were presented as cues on the screen;the participants' task was to estimate the quantity of dots in a target circle,analogous to the two-stage standard anchoring paradigm.In Experiment 2,the cues serving as self-generated anchors were the circles for which the participants had already estimated the number of the dots,analogous to the one-stage anchoring paradigm.Behavioral results and ERP results were collected for statistical analysis. Behavioral results validated the effectiveness of the mental scale in diminishing the anchoring bias in the case of responding to self-generated anchors.Adjustment on a coarser scale with fewer categories resulted in a greater skewness from the anchors.Further,ERP results showed a scale effect in the anchoring process even in the case of responding to self-generated anchors too.A positive deflection appeared at 250~800 ms after target onset,and the amplitude of this deflection was more positive in the finer scale condition.Source localization found two free dipoles: one was at the lingual gyrus;the other at the parietal lobe.In the anchoring process,an N300 component was the only component that responded to externally provided anchors and whose amplitude was not influenced by the mental scales.The results of dipole analysis showed that N300 was localized at the cingulate gyrus. In conclusion,the two experiments in the present research showed that the manipulation of the mental scale was proficient in anchoring effects only in the case of responding to self-generated anchors,when the true adjustment process was invoked.ERP results provided more evidence of the neural correlate of anchoring effects.An N300 component was related to the accessibility process responding to externally provided anchors,and the positive deflection at 250~800 ms poststimulus,which was modulated by the mental scale,was related to the adjustment process responding to self-generated anchors.In all,our findings provided electrophysiological evidence for the dual nature of anchoring effects.Whether anchoring serves the purpose of adjustment or accessibility is subject to the relevant context,which is consistent with the two-system review.Although anchoring leads to judgment bias,anchoring effects reflect the flexible intelligence of human beings.

Electrophysiological correlates of adjustment process in anchoring effects

Anchoring is a judgmental bias that final judgments are assimilated toward the starting point of the judge's deliberations. The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic holds that anchoring bias is caused by insufficient adjustment. With the manipulation of some subjective factors, previous research found that anchoring is an effortful process. However, there is little evidence supporting that the effortful process is an adjustment process. In the present work, number accuracy was introduced as an objective factor which involves in an adjustment process. An event-related brain potential (ERP) experiment on young normal subjects examined the impact of number accuracy on anchoring processes responding to anchors which were generated by subjects themselves. A dot-image paradigm was firstly employed to explore anchoring effects. Behavioral results found less accurate anchors which determined a coarser mental scale diminished the anchoring biases responding to self-generated anchors. A positive deflection at 250–800 ms after target onset can be taken as a direct electrophysiological evidence of the adjustment process, whose amplitude was more positive on more accurate anchors condition. The present results further support that people adjust upwards or downwards on a mental scale from the self-generated anchor, which is consistent with the adjustment heuristics.

Are adjustments insufficient?

Many judgmental biases are thought to be the product of insufficient adjustment from an initial anchor value. Nearly all existing evidence of insufficient adjustment, however, comes from an experimental paradigm that evidence indicates does not involve adjustment at all. In this article, the authors first provide further evidence that some kinds of anchors (those that are self-generated and known to be incorrect but close to the correct answer) activate processes of adjustment, whereas others (uncertain anchors provided by an external source) do not. It is then shown that adjustment from self-generated anchors does indeed tend to be insufficient, both by comparing the estimates of participants starting from different anchor values and by comparing estimates with actual answers. Thus, evidence is provided of adjustment-based anchoring effects similar to the accessibility-based anchoring effects observed in the traditional anchoring paradigm, supporting theories of social judgment that rely on mechanisms of insufficient adjustment.

Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors.

People's estimates of uncertain quantities are commonly influenced by irrelevant values. These anchoring effects were originally explained as insufficient adjustment away from an initial anchor value. The existing literature provides little support for the postulated process of adjustment, however, and a consensus that none takes place seems to be emerging. We argue that this conclusion is premature, and we present evidence that insufficient adjustment produces anchoring effects when the anchors are self-generated. In Study 1, participants' verbal reports made reference to adjustment only, from self-generated anchors. In Studies 2 and 3, participants induced to accept values by nodding their heads gave answers that were closer to an anchor (i.e., they adjusted less) than participants induced to deny values by shaking their heads--again, only when the anchor was self-generated. These results suggest it is time to reintroduce anchoring and adjustment as an explanation for some judgments under uncertainty.