Simple public-key infrastructure: Difference between revisions

From formulasearchengine
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Newer edit →

en>VoodooKobra

en>Nageh
 
en>VoodooKobra
deorphaned
Line 1: Line 1:
Jerrie is what you can also call me but My family and i don't like when visitors use my full identify. The job I've been taking up for years is a [http://Www.Google.com/search?q=people+manager&btnI=lucky people manager]. Guam is even I've always been income. What I take great delight in doing is [http://Thesaurus.com/browse/fish+preventing fish preventing] and I'll be opening up something else along along with. Go to my website to find from more: http://circuspartypanama.com<br><br>Here is my web page; hack clash of clans - [http://circuspartypanama.com visit this page] -
{{About|a cognitive bias that occurs in decision making|the guitar playing technique|Guitar picking#Anchoring}}
 
'''Anchoring''' or '''focalism''' is a [[cognitive bias]] that describes the common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the "anchor") when making decisions. During [[decision making]], anchoring occurs when individuals use an initial piece of information to make subsequent judgments. Once an anchor is set, other judgments are made by adjusting away from that anchor, and there is a bias toward interpreting other information around the anchor. For example, the initial price offered for a used car sets the standard for the rest of the negotiations, so that prices lower than the initial price seem more reasonable even if they are still higher than what the car is really worth.
 
==Focusing effect==
The '''focusing effect''' (or '''focusing illusion''') is a [[List of cognitive biases|cognitive bias]] that occurs when people place too much importance on one aspect of an event, causing an error in accurately predicting the [[utility]] of a future outcome.<ref name="Vass">{{cite book|author=Zoltán Vass|title=A Psychological Interpretation of Drawings and Paintings. The SSCA Method: A Systems Analysis Approach|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=gHmojkRIbcQC&pg=PA83|accessdate=27 August 2013|publisher=Alexandra Publishing|isbn=978-963-297-474-3|page=83}}</ref>
 
People focus on notable differences, excluding those that are less conspicuous, when making predictions about happiness or convenience. For example, when people were asked how much happier they believe Californians are compared to Midwesterners, Californians and Midwesterners both said Californians must be considerably happier, when, in fact, there was no difference between the actual happiness rating of Californians and Midwesterners. The bias lies in that most people asked focused on and overweighed the sunny weather and ostensibly easy-going lifestyle of [[California]] and devalued and underrated other aspects of life and determinants of happiness, such as low crime rates and safety from natural disasters like earthquakes (both of which large parts of California lack).<ref>Schkade, D.A., & Kahneman, D. (1998). "Does living in California make people happy? A focusing illusion in judgments of life satisfaction". ''Psychological Science'', 9, 340–346.</ref>
 
A rise in income has only a small and transient effect on happiness and well-being, but people consistently overestimate this effect. [[Daniel Kahneman|Kahneman]] et al. proposed that this is a result of a focusing illusion, with people focusing on conventional measures of achievement rather than on everyday routine.<ref>{{Cite journal |volume=312 |issue=5782 |pages=1908–10 |last=Kahneman |first=Daniel |coauthors =Alan B. Krueger, David Schkade, Norbert Schwarz, Arthur A. Stone |title=Would you be happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion |journal=Science |date=2006-06-30 |url=http://www.morgenkommichspaeterrein.de/ressources/download/125krueger.pdf |doi=10.1126/science.1129688 |pmid=16809528}}</ref>
 
==Anchoring and adjustment heuristic==
'''Anchoring and adjustment''' is a [[heuristics in judgment and decision making|psychological heuristic]] that influences the way people intuitively assess probabilities. According to this heuristic, people start with an implicitly suggested reference point (the "anchor") and make adjustments to it to reach their estimate. A person begins with a first approximation (anchor) and then makes incremental adjustments based on additional information. These adjustments are usually insufficient, giving the initial anchor a great deal of influence over future assessments.
 
[[File:Daniel KAHNEMAN.jpg|thumb|180px|[[Daniel Kahneman]], one of the first researchers to study anchoring.]]
The anchoring and adjustment heuristic was first theorized by [[Amos Tversky]] and [[Daniel Kahneman]]. In one of their first studies, participants were asked to compute, within 5 seconds, the product of the numbers one through eight, either as <math>1 \times 2 \times 3 \times 4 \times 5 \times 6 \times 7 \times 8</math> or reversed as <math>8 \times 7 \times 6 \times 5 \times 4 \times 3 \times 2 \times 1</math>. Because participants did not have enough time to calculate the full answer, they had to make an estimate after their first few multiplications. When these first multiplications gave a small answer – because the sequence started with small numbers – the median estimate was 512; when the sequence started with the larger numbers, the median estimate was 2,250. (The correct answer was 40,320.) In another study by Tversky and Kahneman, participants observed a roulette wheel that was predetermined to stop on either 10 or 65. Participants were then asked to guess the percentage of the United Nations that were African nations. Participants whose wheel stopped on 10 guessed lower values (25% on average) than participants whose wheel stopped at 65 (45% on average).<ref>Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). [http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/Ec101/JudgementUncertainty.pdf "Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases"]. ''Science'', 185, 1124–1130.</ref> The pattern has held in other experiments for a wide variety of different subjects of estimation.
 
As a second example, in a study by [[Dan Ariely]], an audience is first asked to write the last two digits of their social security number and consider whether they would pay this number of dollars for items whose value they did not know, such as wine, chocolate and computer equipment. They were then asked to bid for these items, with the result that the audience members with higher two-digit numbers would submit bids that were between 60 percent and 120 percent higher than those with the lower social security numbers, which had become their anchor.<ref>Edward Teach, "[http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/3014027 Avoiding Decision Traps]", [[CFO (magazine)|''CFO'']] (1 June 2004). Retrieved 29 May 2007.</ref>
 
===Difficulty of avoiding anchoring===
Various studies have shown that anchoring is very difficult to avoid. For example, in one study students were given anchors that were obviously wrong. They were asked whether [[Mahatma Gandhi]] died before or after age 9, or before or after age 140. Clearly neither of these anchors can be correct, but the two groups still guessed significantly differently (average age of 50 vs. average age of 67).<ref name="Strack">Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). "Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility". ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', 73(3), 437–446.</ref>
 
Other studies have tried to eliminate anchoring much more directly. In a study exploring the causes and properties of anchoring, participants were exposed to an anchor and asked to guess how many physicians were listed in the local phone book. In addition, they were explicitly informed that anchoring would "contaminate" their responses, and that they should do their best to correct for that. A control group received no anchor and no explanation. Regardless of how they were informed and whether they were informed correctly, all of the experimental groups reported higher estimates than the control group. Thus, despite being expressly aware of the anchoring effect, participants were still unable to avoid it.<ref>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(4), 387–402.</ref> A later study found that even when offered monetary incentives, people are unable to effectively adjust from an anchor.<ref>Simmons, J., LeBoeuf, R., Nelson, L. (2010). "The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: Do people adjust from provided anchors?". ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', 99(6), 917–932.</ref>
 
==Causes==
Several theories have been put forth to explain what causes anchoring, although some explanations are more popular than others, there is no consensus as to which is best.<ref>Furnham, A. & Boo, H. C. (2011). "A literature review of the anchoring effect". ''Journal of Socio-Economics'', 40(1), 35–42.</ref> In a study on possible causes of anchoring, two authors described anchoring as easy to demonstrate, but hard to explain.<ref name="Strack"/> At least one group of researchers has argued that multiple causes are at play, and that what is called "anchoring" is actually several different effects.<ref>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</ref>
 
===Anchoring-and-adjusting===
In their original study, Tversky and Kahneman put forth a view later termed '''anchoring-and-adjusting'''. According to this theory, once an anchor is set, people adjust away from it to get to their final answer; however, they adjust insufficiently, resulting in their final guess being closer to the anchor than it would be otherwise.<ref name="Kahneman"/> Other researchers also found evidence supporting the anchoring-and-adjusting explanation.<ref>Epley, N. & Gilovich, T. (2001). "Putting adjustment back into the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors". ''Psychological Science'', 12, 391–396.</ref>
 
However, later researchers criticized this model, because it is only applicable when the initial anchor is outside the range of acceptable answers. To use an earlier example, since Mahatma Gandhi obviously did not die at age 9, then people will adjust from there. If a reasonable number were given, though, there would be no adjustment. Therefore this theory can, according to its critics, not explain the anchoring effect.<ref name="Mussweiler">Mussweiler, T. & Strack, F. (1999). "Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model". ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology'', 35, 136–164.</ref>
 
Another study found that the anchoring effect holds even when the anchor is subliminal. According to Tversky and Kahneman's theory, this is impossible, since anchoring is only the result of conscious adjustment.<ref>Mussweiler, T. & Englich, B. (2005). "Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms". ''Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes'', 98, 133–143.</ref> Because of arguments like these, anchoring-and-adjusting has fallen out of favor.
 
===Selective accessibility===
In the same study that criticized anchoring-and-adjusting, the authors proposed an alternate explanation regarding '''selective accessibility''', which is derived from a theory called "confirmatory hypothesis testing". In short, selective accessibility proposes that when given an anchor, a judge (i.e. a person making some judgment) will evaluate the hypothesis that the anchor is a suitable answer. Assuming it is not, the judge moves on to another guess, but not before accessing all the relevant attributes of the anchor itself. Then, when evaluating the new answer, the judge looks for ways in which it is similar to the anchor, resulting in the anchoring effect.<ref name="Mussweiler"/> Various studies have found empirical support for this hypothesis.<ref>Chapman, G. B. & Johnson, E. J. (1999). "Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values". ''Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes'', 79, 1–39.</ref> This explanation assumes that the judge considers the anchor to be a plausible value so that it is not immediately rejected, which would preclude considering its relevant attributes.{{cn|date=December 2012}}
 
===Attitude change===
More recently, a third explanation of anchoring has been proposed concerning '''attitude change'''. According to this theory, providing an anchor changes someone's attitudes to be more favorable to the particular attributes of that anchor, biasing future answers to have similar characteristics as the anchor. Leading proponents of this theory consider it to be an alternate explanation in line with prior research on anchoring-and-adjusting and selective accessibility.<ref>Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (2001). "Implications of attitude change theories for numerical anchoring: Anchor plausibility and the limits of anchor effectiveness". ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology'', 37, 62–69</ref><ref>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</ref>
 
==Factors that influence anchoring==
===Mood===
A wide range of research has linked sad or depressed moods with more extensive and accurate evaluation of problems.<ref>Bodenhausen, G. V., Gabriel, S., & Lineberger, M. (2000). "Sadness and susceptibility to judgmental bias: The case of anchoring". ''Psychological Science'', 11, 320–323.</ref> As a result of this, earlier studies hypothesized that people with more depressed moods would tend to use anchoring less than those with happier moods. However, more recent studies have shown the opposite effect: sad people are ''more'' likely to use anchoring than people with happy or neutral mood.<ref>Englich, B., & Soder, K. (2009). "Moody experts: How mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring". ''Judgmental and Decision Making'', 4, 41–50.</ref>
 
===Experience===
Early research found that experts (those with high knowledge, experience, or expertise in some field) were more resistant to the anchoring effect.<ref>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.</ref> Since then, however, numerous studies have demonstrated that while experience can sometimes reduce the effect, even experts are susceptible to anchoring. In a study concerning the effects of anchoring on judicial decisions, researchers found that even experienced legal professionals were affected by anchoring. This remained true even when the anchors provided were arbitrary and unrelated to the case in question.<ref>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, 188–200.</ref>
 
===Personality===
Research has correlated susceptibility to anchoring with most of the [[Big Five personality traits]]. People high in agreeableness and conscientiousness are more likely to be affected by anchoring, while those high in extroversion are less likely to be affected.<ref>Eroglu, C., & Croxton, K. L. (2010). "Biases in judgmental adjustments of statistical forecasts: The role of individual differences". ''International Journal of Forecasting'', 26, 116–133.</ref> Another study found that those high in openness to new experiences were more susceptible to the anchoring effect.<ref>McElroy, T., & Dowd, K. (2007). "Susceptibility to anchoring effects: How openness-to-experience influences responses to anchoring cues". ''Judgment and Decision Making'', 2, 48–53.</ref>
 
===Cognitive ability===
The impact of [[cognitive ability]] on anchoring is contested. A recent study on willingness to pay for consumer goods found that anchoring decreased in those with greater cognitive ability, though it did not disappear.<ref>Bergman, O., Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M., & Svensson, C. (2010). "Anchoring and cognitive ability". ''Economics Letters'', 107, 66–68.</ref> Another study, however, found that cognitive ability had no significant effect on how likely people were to use anchoring.<ref>Oechssler, J., Roider, S., & Schmitz, P. W. (2009). "Cognitive abilities and behavioural biases". ''Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization'', 72, 147–152.</ref>
 
==Anchoring in negotiations==
In negotiations, anchoring refers to the concept of setting a boundary that outlines the basic constraints for a negotiation; subsequently, the anchoring effect is the phenomenon in which we set our estimation for the true value of the item at hand.<ref>Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). "Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases". Science, 185, 1124, 1128–1130.</ref> In addition to the initial research conducted by Tversky and Kahneman, multiple other studies have shown that anchoring can greatly influence the estimated value of an object.<ref>Orr, D. & Guthrie, C. (2005). "Anchoring, information, expertise, and negotiation: New insights from meta-analysis". Ohio St. J. Disp. Resol., 597, 21.</ref> For instance, although negotiators can generally appraise an offer based on multiple characteristics, studies have shown that they tend to focus on only one aspect. In this way, a deliberate starting point can strongly affect the range of possible counteroffers.<ref name="Kahneman">Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. ''Journal of Risk and Uncertainty'', 5, 297–323.</ref> The process of offer and counteroffer results in a mutually beneficial arrangement. However, multiple studies have shown that initial offers have a stronger influence on the outcome of negotiations than subsequent counteroffers.<ref>Kristensen, H. & Garling, T. (1997). "The effects of anchor points and reference points on negotiation processes and outcomes". Goteborg Psychological Reports, 2, 8:27.</ref>
 
An example of the power of anchoring has been conducted during the Strategic Negotiation Process Workshops. During the workshop, a group of participants is divided into two sections: buyers and sellers. Each side receives identical information about the other party before going into a one-on-one negotiation. Following this exercise, both sides debrief about their experiences. The results show that where the participants anchor the negotiation had a significant effect on their success.<ref> Dietmeyer, B. (2004). Strategic Negotiation: A Breakthrough Four-Step Process for Effective Business Negotiation. New York City: Kaplan Publishing.</ref>
 
Anchoring affects everyone, even people who are highly knowledgeable in a field. Northcraft and Neale conducted a study to measure the difference in the estimated value of a house between students and real-estate agents. In this experiment, both groups were shown a house and then given different listing prices. After making their offer, each group was then asked to discuss what factors influenced their decisions. In the follow-up interviews, the real-estate agents denied being influenced by the initial price, but the results showed that both groups were equally influenced by that anchor.<ref>Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1987). "Expert, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions". ''Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes'', 39, 228–241.</ref>
 
Anchoring can have more subtle effects on negotiations as well. Janiszewski and Uy investigated the effects of precision of an anchor. Participants read an initial price for a beach house, then gave the price they thought it was worth. They received either a general, seemingly nonspecific anchor (e.g. $800,000) or a more precise and specific anchor (e.g. $799,800). Participants with a general anchor adjusted their estimate more than those given a precise anchor ($751,867 vs $784,671). The authors propose that this effect comes from difference in scale; in other words, the anchor affects not only the starting ''value'', but also the starting ''scale''. When given a general anchor of $20, people will adjust in large increments ($19, $21, etc.), but when given a more specific anchor like $19.85, people will adjust on a lower scale ($19.75, $19.95, etc.).<ref>Janiszewski, C., & Uy, D. (2008). "Precision of the anchor influences the amount of adjustment". ''Psychological Science'', 19(2), 121–127.</ref> Thus, a more specific initial price will tend to result in a final price closer to the initial one.
 
==See also==
{{Portal|Psychology}}
* [[List of cognitive biases]]
* [[Primacy effect]]
* [[Negotiation#Negotiation strategies|Negotiation strategies]]
 
==References==
{{reflist|30em}}
 
{{Biases}}
 
[[Category:Cognitive biases]]
[[Category:Heuristics]]
[[Category:Prospect theory]]

Revision as of 22:37, 30 April 2013

29 yr old Orthopaedic Surgeon Grippo from Saint-Paul, spends time with interests including model railways, top property developers in singapore developers in singapore and dolls. Finished a cruise ship experience that included passing by Runic Stones and Church.

Anchoring or focalism is a cognitive bias that describes the common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the "anchor") when making decisions. During decision making, anchoring occurs when individuals use an initial piece of information to make subsequent judgments. Once an anchor is set, other judgments are made by adjusting away from that anchor, and there is a bias toward interpreting other information around the anchor. For example, the initial price offered for a used car sets the standard for the rest of the negotiations, so that prices lower than the initial price seem more reasonable even if they are still higher than what the car is really worth.

Focusing effect

The focusing effect (or focusing illusion) is a cognitive bias that occurs when people place too much importance on one aspect of an event, causing an error in accurately predicting the utility of a future outcome.[1]

People focus on notable differences, excluding those that are less conspicuous, when making predictions about happiness or convenience. For example, when people were asked how much happier they believe Californians are compared to Midwesterners, Californians and Midwesterners both said Californians must be considerably happier, when, in fact, there was no difference between the actual happiness rating of Californians and Midwesterners. The bias lies in that most people asked focused on and overweighed the sunny weather and ostensibly easy-going lifestyle of California and devalued and underrated other aspects of life and determinants of happiness, such as low crime rates and safety from natural disasters like earthquakes (both of which large parts of California lack).[2]

A rise in income has only a small and transient effect on happiness and well-being, but people consistently overestimate this effect. Kahneman et al. proposed that this is a result of a focusing illusion, with people focusing on conventional measures of achievement rather than on everyday routine.[3]

Anchoring and adjustment heuristic

Anchoring and adjustment is a psychological heuristic that influences the way people intuitively assess probabilities. According to this heuristic, people start with an implicitly suggested reference point (the "anchor") and make adjustments to it to reach their estimate. A person begins with a first approximation (anchor) and then makes incremental adjustments based on additional information. These adjustments are usually insufficient, giving the initial anchor a great deal of influence over future assessments.

Daniel Kahneman, one of the first researchers to study anchoring.

The anchoring and adjustment heuristic was first theorized by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. In one of their first studies, participants were asked to compute, within 5 seconds, the product of the numbers one through eight, either as 1×2×3×4×5×6×7×8 or reversed as 8×7×6×5×4×3×2×1. Because participants did not have enough time to calculate the full answer, they had to make an estimate after their first few multiplications. When these first multiplications gave a small answer – because the sequence started with small numbers – the median estimate was 512; when the sequence started with the larger numbers, the median estimate was 2,250. (The correct answer was 40,320.) In another study by Tversky and Kahneman, participants observed a roulette wheel that was predetermined to stop on either 10 or 65. Participants were then asked to guess the percentage of the United Nations that were African nations. Participants whose wheel stopped on 10 guessed lower values (25% on average) than participants whose wheel stopped at 65 (45% on average).[4] The pattern has held in other experiments for a wide variety of different subjects of estimation.

As a second example, in a study by Dan Ariely, an audience is first asked to write the last two digits of their social security number and consider whether they would pay this number of dollars for items whose value they did not know, such as wine, chocolate and computer equipment. They were then asked to bid for these items, with the result that the audience members with higher two-digit numbers would submit bids that were between 60 percent and 120 percent higher than those with the lower social security numbers, which had become their anchor.[5]

Difficulty of avoiding anchoring

Various studies have shown that anchoring is very difficult to avoid. For example, in one study students were given anchors that were obviously wrong. They were asked whether Mahatma Gandhi died before or after age 9, or before or after age 140. Clearly neither of these anchors can be correct, but the two groups still guessed significantly differently (average age of 50 vs. average age of 67).[6]

Other studies have tried to eliminate anchoring much more directly. In a study exploring the causes and properties of anchoring, participants were exposed to an anchor and asked to guess how many physicians were listed in the local phone book. In addition, they were explicitly informed that anchoring would "contaminate" their responses, and that they should do their best to correct for that. A control group received no anchor and no explanation. Regardless of how they were informed and whether they were informed correctly, all of the experimental groups reported higher estimates than the control group. Thus, despite being expressly aware of the anchoring effect, participants were still unable to avoid it.[7] A later study found that even when offered monetary incentives, people are unable to effectively adjust from an anchor.[8]

Causes

Several theories have been put forth to explain what causes anchoring, although some explanations are more popular than others, there is no consensus as to which is best.[9] In a study on possible causes of anchoring, two authors described anchoring as easy to demonstrate, but hard to explain.[6] At least one group of researchers has argued that multiple causes are at play, and that what is called "anchoring" is actually several different effects.[10]

Anchoring-and-adjusting

In their original study, Tversky and Kahneman put forth a view later termed anchoring-and-adjusting. According to this theory, once an anchor is set, people adjust away from it to get to their final answer; however, they adjust insufficiently, resulting in their final guess being closer to the anchor than it would be otherwise.[11] Other researchers also found evidence supporting the anchoring-and-adjusting explanation.[12]

However, later researchers criticized this model, because it is only applicable when the initial anchor is outside the range of acceptable answers. To use an earlier example, since Mahatma Gandhi obviously did not die at age 9, then people will adjust from there. If a reasonable number were given, though, there would be no adjustment. Therefore this theory can, according to its critics, not explain the anchoring effect.[13]

Another study found that the anchoring effect holds even when the anchor is subliminal. According to Tversky and Kahneman's theory, this is impossible, since anchoring is only the result of conscious adjustment.[14] Because of arguments like these, anchoring-and-adjusting has fallen out of favor.

Selective accessibility

In the same study that criticized anchoring-and-adjusting, the authors proposed an alternate explanation regarding selective accessibility, which is derived from a theory called "confirmatory hypothesis testing". In short, selective accessibility proposes that when given an anchor, a judge (i.e. a person making some judgment) will evaluate the hypothesis that the anchor is a suitable answer. Assuming it is not, the judge moves on to another guess, but not before accessing all the relevant attributes of the anchor itself. Then, when evaluating the new answer, the judge looks for ways in which it is similar to the anchor, resulting in the anchoring effect.[13] Various studies have found empirical support for this hypothesis.[15] This explanation assumes that the judge considers the anchor to be a plausible value so that it is not immediately rejected, which would preclude considering its relevant attributes.Template:Cn

Attitude change

More recently, a third explanation of anchoring has been proposed concerning attitude change. According to this theory, providing an anchor changes someone's attitudes to be more favorable to the particular attributes of that anchor, biasing future answers to have similar characteristics as the anchor. Leading proponents of this theory consider it to be an alternate explanation in line with prior research on anchoring-and-adjusting and selective accessibility.[16][17]

Factors that influence anchoring

Mood

A wide range of research has linked sad or depressed moods with more extensive and accurate evaluation of problems.[18] As a result of this, earlier studies hypothesized that people with more depressed moods would tend to use anchoring less than those with happier moods. However, more recent studies have shown the opposite effect: sad people are more likely to use anchoring than people with happy or neutral mood.[19]

Experience

Early research found that experts (those with high knowledge, experience, or expertise in some field) were more resistant to the anchoring effect.[20] Since then, however, numerous studies have demonstrated that while experience can sometimes reduce the effect, even experts are susceptible to anchoring. In a study concerning the effects of anchoring on judicial decisions, researchers found that even experienced legal professionals were affected by anchoring. This remained true even when the anchors provided were arbitrary and unrelated to the case in question.[21]

Personality

Research has correlated susceptibility to anchoring with most of the Big Five personality traits. People high in agreeableness and conscientiousness are more likely to be affected by anchoring, while those high in extroversion are less likely to be affected.[22] Another study found that those high in openness to new experiences were more susceptible to the anchoring effect.[23]

Cognitive ability

The impact of cognitive ability on anchoring is contested. A recent study on willingness to pay for consumer goods found that anchoring decreased in those with greater cognitive ability, though it did not disappear.[24] Another study, however, found that cognitive ability had no significant effect on how likely people were to use anchoring.[25]

Anchoring in negotiations

In negotiations, anchoring refers to the concept of setting a boundary that outlines the basic constraints for a negotiation; subsequently, the anchoring effect is the phenomenon in which we set our estimation for the true value of the item at hand.[26] In addition to the initial research conducted by Tversky and Kahneman, multiple other studies have shown that anchoring can greatly influence the estimated value of an object.[27] For instance, although negotiators can generally appraise an offer based on multiple characteristics, studies have shown that they tend to focus on only one aspect. In this way, a deliberate starting point can strongly affect the range of possible counteroffers.[11] The process of offer and counteroffer results in a mutually beneficial arrangement. However, multiple studies have shown that initial offers have a stronger influence on the outcome of negotiations than subsequent counteroffers.[28]

An example of the power of anchoring has been conducted during the Strategic Negotiation Process Workshops. During the workshop, a group of participants is divided into two sections: buyers and sellers. Each side receives identical information about the other party before going into a one-on-one negotiation. Following this exercise, both sides debrief about their experiences. The results show that where the participants anchor the negotiation had a significant effect on their success.[29]

Anchoring affects everyone, even people who are highly knowledgeable in a field. Northcraft and Neale conducted a study to measure the difference in the estimated value of a house between students and real-estate agents. In this experiment, both groups were shown a house and then given different listing prices. After making their offer, each group was then asked to discuss what factors influenced their decisions. In the follow-up interviews, the real-estate agents denied being influenced by the initial price, but the results showed that both groups were equally influenced by that anchor.[30]

Anchoring can have more subtle effects on negotiations as well. Janiszewski and Uy investigated the effects of precision of an anchor. Participants read an initial price for a beach house, then gave the price they thought it was worth. They received either a general, seemingly nonspecific anchor (e.g. $800,000) or a more precise and specific anchor (e.g. $799,800). Participants with a general anchor adjusted their estimate more than those given a precise anchor ($751,867 vs $784,671). The authors propose that this effect comes from difference in scale; in other words, the anchor affects not only the starting value, but also the starting scale. When given a general anchor of $20, people will adjust in large increments ($19, $21, etc.), but when given a more specific anchor like $19.85, people will adjust on a lower scale ($19.75, $19.95, etc.).[31] Thus, a more specific initial price will tend to result in a final price closer to the initial one.

See also

Sportspersons Hyslop from Nicolet, usually spends time with pastimes for example martial arts, property developers condominium in singapore singapore and hot rods. Maintains a trip site and has lots to write about after touring Gulf of Porto: Calanche of Piana.

References

43 year old Petroleum Engineer Harry from Deep River, usually spends time with hobbies and interests like renting movies, property developers in singapore new condominium and vehicle racing. Constantly enjoys going to destinations like Camino Real de Tierra Adentro.

Template:Biases

  1. ↑ 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.

    My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534
  2. ↑ Schkade, D.A., & Kahneman, D. (1998). "Does living in California make people happy? A focusing illusion in judgments of life satisfaction". Psychological Science, 9, 340–346.
  3. ↑ One of the biggest reasons investing in a Singapore new launch is an effective things is as a result of it is doable to be lent massive quantities of money at very low interest rates that you should utilize to purchase it. Then, if property values continue to go up, then you'll get a really high return on funding (ROI). Simply make sure you purchase one of the higher properties, reminiscent of the ones at Fernvale the Riverbank or any Singapore landed property Get Earnings by means of Renting

    In its statement, the singapore property listing - website link, government claimed that the majority citizens buying their first residence won't be hurt by the new measures. Some concessions can even be prolonged to chose teams of consumers, similar to married couples with a minimum of one Singaporean partner who are purchasing their second property so long as they intend to promote their first residential property. Lower the LTV limit on housing loans granted by monetary establishments regulated by MAS from 70% to 60% for property purchasers who are individuals with a number of outstanding housing loans on the time of the brand new housing purchase. Singapore Property Measures - 30 August 2010 The most popular seek for the number of bedrooms in Singapore is 4, followed by 2 and three. Lush Acres EC @ Sengkang

    Discover out more about real estate funding in the area, together with info on international funding incentives and property possession. Many Singaporeans have been investing in property across the causeway in recent years, attracted by comparatively low prices. However, those who need to exit their investments quickly are likely to face significant challenges when trying to sell their property – and could finally be stuck with a property they can't sell. Career improvement programmes, in-house valuation, auctions and administrative help, venture advertising and marketing, skilled talks and traisning are continuously planned for the sales associates to help them obtain better outcomes for his or her shoppers while at Knight Frank Singapore. No change Present Rules

    Extending the tax exemption would help. The exemption, which may be as a lot as $2 million per family, covers individuals who negotiate a principal reduction on their existing mortgage, sell their house short (i.e., for lower than the excellent loans), or take part in a foreclosure course of. An extension of theexemption would seem like a common-sense means to assist stabilize the housing market, but the political turmoil around the fiscal-cliff negotiations means widespread sense could not win out. Home Minority Chief Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) believes that the mortgage relief provision will be on the table during the grand-cut price talks, in response to communications director Nadeam Elshami. Buying or promoting of blue mild bulbs is unlawful.

    A vendor's stamp duty has been launched on industrial property for the primary time, at rates ranging from 5 per cent to 15 per cent. The Authorities might be trying to reassure the market that they aren't in opposition to foreigners and PRs investing in Singapore's property market. They imposed these measures because of extenuating components available in the market." The sale of new dual-key EC models will even be restricted to multi-generational households only. The models have two separate entrances, permitting grandparents, for example, to dwell separately. The vendor's stamp obligation takes effect right this moment and applies to industrial property and plots which might be offered inside three years of the date of buy. JLL named Best Performing Property Brand for second year running

    The data offered is for normal info purposes only and isn't supposed to be personalised investment or monetary advice. Motley Fool Singapore contributor Stanley Lim would not personal shares in any corporations talked about. Singapore private home costs increased by 1.eight% within the fourth quarter of 2012, up from 0.6% within the earlier quarter. Resale prices of government-built HDB residences which are usually bought by Singaporeans, elevated by 2.5%, quarter on quarter, the quickest acquire in five quarters. And industrial property, prices are actually double the levels of three years ago. No withholding tax in the event you sell your property. All your local information regarding vital HDB policies, condominium launches, land growth, commercial property and more

    There are various methods to go about discovering the precise property. Some local newspapers (together with the Straits Instances ) have categorised property sections and many local property brokers have websites. Now there are some specifics to consider when buying a 'new launch' rental. Intended use of the unit Every sale begins with 10 p.c low cost for finish of season sale; changes to 20 % discount storewide; follows by additional reduction of fiftyand ends with last discount of 70 % or extra. Typically there is even a warehouse sale or transferring out sale with huge mark-down of costs for stock clearance. Deborah Regulation from Expat Realtor shares her property market update, plus prime rental residences and houses at the moment available to lease Esparina EC @ Sengkang
  4. ↑ Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). "Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases". Science, 185, 1124–1130.
  5. ↑ Edward Teach, "Avoiding Decision Traps", CFO (1 June 2004). Retrieved 29 May 2007.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). "Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 437–446.
  7. ↑ 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(4), 387–402.
  8. ↑ Simmons, J., LeBoeuf, R., Nelson, L. (2010). "The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: Do people adjust from provided anchors?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(6), 917–932.
  9. ↑ Furnham, A. & Boo, H. C. (2011). "A literature review of the anchoring effect". Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(1), 35–42.
  10. ↑ 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
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.
  12. ↑ Epley, N. & Gilovich, T. (2001). "Putting adjustment back into the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors". Psychological Science, 12, 391–396.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Mussweiler, T. & Strack, F. (1999). "Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 136–164.
  14. ↑ Mussweiler, T. & Englich, B. (2005). "Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 133–143.
  15. ↑ Chapman, G. B. & Johnson, E. J. (1999). "Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 1–39.
  16. ↑ Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (2001). "Implications of attitude change theories for numerical anchoring: Anchor plausibility and the limits of anchor effectiveness". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 62–69
  17. ↑ 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
  18. ↑ Bodenhausen, G. V., Gabriel, S., & Lineberger, M. (2000). "Sadness and susceptibility to judgmental bias: The case of anchoring". Psychological Science, 11, 320–323.
  19. ↑ Englich, B., & Soder, K. (2009). "Moody experts: How mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring". Judgmental and Decision Making, 4, 41–50.
  20. ↑ 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.
  21. ↑ 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, 188–200.
  22. ↑ Eroglu, C., & Croxton, K. L. (2010). "Biases in judgmental adjustments of statistical forecasts: The role of individual differences". International Journal of Forecasting, 26, 116–133.
  23. ↑ McElroy, T., & Dowd, K. (2007). "Susceptibility to anchoring effects: How openness-to-experience influences responses to anchoring cues". Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 48–53.
  24. ↑ Bergman, O., Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M., & Svensson, C. (2010). "Anchoring and cognitive ability". Economics Letters, 107, 66–68.
  25. ↑ Oechssler, J., Roider, S., & Schmitz, P. W. (2009). "Cognitive abilities and behavioural biases". Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 72, 147–152.
  26. ↑ Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). "Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases". Science, 185, 1124, 1128–1130.
  27. ↑ Orr, D. & Guthrie, C. (2005). "Anchoring, information, expertise, and negotiation: New insights from meta-analysis". Ohio St. J. Disp. Resol., 597, 21.
  28. ↑ Kristensen, H. & Garling, T. (1997). "The effects of anchor points and reference points on negotiation processes and outcomes". Goteborg Psychological Reports, 2, 8:27.
  29. ↑ Dietmeyer, B. (2004). Strategic Negotiation: A Breakthrough Four-Step Process for Effective Business Negotiation. New York City: Kaplan Publishing.
  30. ↑ Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1987). "Expert, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 228–241.
  31. ↑ Janiszewski, C., & Uy, D. (2008). "Precision of the anchor influences the amount of adjustment". Psychological Science, 19(2), 121–127.
Retrieved from "https://en.formulasearchengine.com/w/index.php?title=Simple_public-key_infrastructure&oldid=6466"