錨定效應

出自維基百科,自由嘅百科全書
跳去導覽 跳去搵嘢

錨定效應認知偏差,指人嘅決定會受第一手資訊所定嘅參考點或者「錨點」影響。 [1]一旦定咗錨點,接下嚟嘅討論同估算等行為會同未有錨點嘅時候唔同。例如買車嘅時候,賣家可以將定價(錨點)調高,然後降價,令買家喺講價嘅時候受錨點影響,以致即使最後開價其實高過市價,買家都會覺得價錢合理,甚至覺得好平。 [2] 另一個例子係估算火星嘅軌道週期,雖然地球同火星嘅軌道週期(圍繞軌道運行一週所需嘅時間)相差好遠,但我哋仍然會用地球做錨點(365日)估算火星嘅軌道週期,然後向上調整去到睇落合理嘅數值(然而結果通常都係低過正確答案:687日)。

實證研究[編輯]

丹尼爾·卡尼曼(Daniel Kahneman),早期錨定效應研究者。

「錨定和調整捷思」(anchoring and adjustment heuristic)最早由Amos TverskyDaniel Kahneman化成理論。其中一個早期研究係,參加者要喺5秒內估吓順序1 × 2 × 3 × 4 × 5 × 6 × 7 × 8或者調轉8 × 7 × 6 × 5 × 4 × 3 × 2 × 1。由於參與者通常唔會夠時間計到完整答案,佢哋要喺頭幾次乘法運算之後估答案。實驗結果係,順序計嘅參與者由於頭幾次嘅乘法運算係根據細啲嘅數字,中位數估值只係512。而調轉計嘅參與者由於頭幾次嘅乘法運算係根據大啲嘅數字,中位數估值係2,250(而正確答案係40,320)。Tversky同Kahneman另一項研究係,參與者要觀察一個會預定喺數字10或65停嘅輪盤(Roulette),然後要求參與者估吓非洲國家喺聯合國佔嘅百分比。實驗結果係,見到輪盤停喺10嘅參與者嘅估值(平均25%)低過輪盤停喺65嘅參與者嘅估值(平均45%)。[3]其它相關但唔同主題嘅實驗都得出類似嘅結果。

第二個例子,係Dan Ariely嘅研究:參與者首先寫低佢哋嘅社會保險號碼(social security number)嘅最後兩位數,然後考慮用唔用呢個數字等值嘅錢買一啲佢哋唔清楚價值幾多嘅嘢,之後要佢哋投(bid)呢啲嘢。結果係,數字大啲嘅參與者嘅競價比數字較細嘅參與者高60%至120%,可見呢啲數字變咗錨點。[4]但係,當問到佢哋認唔認爲呢個數字可以真實反映嗰樣物品嘅價值嘅時候,竟然有少部分人話得。 [5]為咗解釋呢種令人費解嘅現象,另外有啲研究用咗一啲完全隨機嘅方法嚟決定實驗用嘅數字,例如Excel嘅隨機生成數字[6]同擲骰仔[7] ,但唔能夠重現上述嘅結果。

錨定效應喺樓市亦會出現。 研究發現,Case-Shiller樓價指數嘅2年同9年高位同當前樓價相關,所以可以用嚟做錨點,預計當前樓價。因此,預測樓價同埋投資嘅時候應該睇埋2年同9年高位,因爲大衆會受呢啲指標影響[8]

避免錨定嘅困難[編輯]

好多研究證明錨定好難避免,例如就算錨點睇落好唔合理,人依然會受錨定效應影響。例如,有研究將學生分開兩組,問第一組:聖雄甘地係9歲之前定之後先死;問第二組:甘地係140歲之前或之後先死。好明顯,冇一個錨點係合理嘅,但係當之後要求兩組人估吓甘地嘅實際死亡年齡嘅時候,佢哋嘅估算(平均年齡50歲 VS 平均年齡67歲)比較貼近各自嘅錨點。 [9]

另一啲研究就嘗試消除錨定效應。有個研究係,參加者知道有錨點,然後佢哋要估吓當地電話簿入面有幾多個係醫生。另外,實驗人員會同佢哋講錨點會「污染」佢哋嘅答案,提醒佢哋應該盡力修正偏差。而對照組(control group)就冇錨點又冇上述提醒。結果係,所有實驗組(experimental group)嘅估算數字仍然大過對照組。由此可見,就算參與者意識到錨定嘅影響,佢哋依然唔能夠避開錨定效應。不過,相關知識比較多嘅人(例如識天文學嘅人估算火星嘅軌道週期)通常冇咁受錨定效應影響 [10] 另外,就算有金錢誘因(例如估中有獎),參與者都唔能夠完全避開錨定嘅影響,頂多個估值會遠離錨點多少少 [11]

錨定嘅時長[編輯]

有研究發現,無論參與者係即時做判斷定係一個星期後先做判斷,錨定效應依然存在。同時反映(喺呢一個星期所接收嘅)外界資訊對修正判斷嘅效果唔大。 [12]

群體嘅錨定偏差[編輯]

俗語話「三個臭皮匠,勝過一個諸葛亮」,一般認為一班人(groups)比一個人(individuals)能夠做到不偏不倚嘅決定 [13] 但係呢個假設啱唔啱其實未有共識。 [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]部分群體嘅表現係好過個體,但唔少群體嘅表現其實都係一樣咁偏頗,甚至偏頗過個體。而原因可能係成個討論都係基於個體受錨定影響嘅知識同既定嘅信念,透過溝通整合得嚟,所以充滿偏見[21] [22] [23] [24] 而且令到決策過程質素下降,因而放大咗先前存在嘅錨定偏差。

造成群體錨定嘅原因仍然未明。群體錨定可能由成個群體建立,亦可能只係建基於幾個個體嘅錨點。先前嘅研究表明,喺實驗之前已得悉錨點嘅情況下,成員會合併各自嘅錨點,從而達致共識。 [25]但係,有人認爲群體偏見同個體偏見的確有分別:群體高估集體決策嘅公正性,所以傾向忽略外部信息,產生偏見而唔自知。 [26] [27] [28] 另外,根據「錨定競爭假設」,群體比較重視圍內決定嘅錨點,因此外部錨點相對冇咁能夠影響決策。 [29]

有一連串實驗研究群體錨定偏差同埋減低偏差嘅方法。第一個實驗肯定錨定對群體嘅影響,然後另一個研究提出程序責任制(process accountability),令成員提出建議嘅時候更加謹慎,而且會收集多啲資訊先做決定,決策因而少啲偏見。[30] [31] 重有一個方法係提倡群體競爭,各抒己見而唔係純粹配合,特別係當成員嘅求知慾越高,就會多啲辯論。雖然決策用嘅時間就會長咗,但群體錨定嘅影響會變細啲。[32]

商業智能[編輯]

錨定喺商業智能(BI)都有影響。[33]。商業智能指透過軟件同技術收集有用嘅資訊,從而提升公司表現。 [34] 。呢個研究用商業智能做因(IV),決策過程做果(DV)。研究方法係畀受試者(BI系統)合理可信嘅錨點同埋錯嘅錨點嚟做預測。研究發現,BI系統淨係減低咗「錯錨」嘅影響,「可信錨」就仍然影響系統嘅決策。反映即使用咗複雜嘅科技,人仍然會俾錨定效應影響。如果要避免呢個情況,研究者建議要喺BI系統加入預警機制。

原因[編輯]

探討錨定嘅原因嘅理論有好多,但未有確切嘅結論。 [35] 有人形容錨定效應係常見且易見但難明。 [9] 亦有研究認爲錨定效應唔單止有好多原因,甚至所謂「錨定」其實係指緊幾種唔同嘅效應。 [36]

錨定同調整[編輯]

特維爾斯基同卡尼曼嘅「錨定即調整」(anchoring-as-adjustment)指,人會根據錨點做調整嚟搵正確答案,但往往調整得唔夠,令答案始終貼近錨點。 [37]有研究支持呢個解釋。 [38] 而影響調整能力嘅因素,例如酗酒同燒腦嘅行爲(例如用短期記憶記一大抽數字)亦會令到錨定效應更加顯著。 [39] 有研究發現如果受試者知道應該向上定向下調整,加上金錢誘因(估中有獎),受試者會調整得多啲,令最終答案會冇咁受錨點牽引。 [40]

有人批評認爲呢個理論淨係適用於有合理錨點嘅情況,例如聖雄甘地係9歲定140歲死呢個咁唔合理嘅錨點,受試者一定會做調整。如果數字(錨點)合理,例如貼近預期壽命,受試者可能唔會點做調整。因此,呢個理論唔能夠解釋全部導致錨定效應嘅原因。 [41]

選擇性可及性[編輯]

「確認假設測試」(confirmatory hypothesis testing)理論衍生嘅選擇性存取(selective accessibility)指出,判斷者會先評估錨點合唔合理,如果唔合理,佢會再估,但由於估之前已經好了解錨點嘅相關特性,判斷者諗新答案嘅時候會唔經意搵同錨點相似嘅地方,從而產生錨定效應。 [41]有幾個研究都支持呢個假設。 [5]

心態轉變[編輯]

另一個解釋係心態轉變(attitude change)。[42] [43]

影響因素[編輯]

情緒[編輯]

有好多研究會將唔開心同抑鬱等情緒連繫到判斷問題嘅時候能唔能夠擁有準確而且全面嘅判斷。 [44]早期研究假設,冇咁開心嘅人比開心啲嘅人會用少啲俾錨定影響。不過近期啲嘅研究就有相反嘅結論 [45]

經驗[編輯]

早期研究發現,經驗或者知識豐富嘅人,又或者係某領域嘅專家比較能夠抵抗錨定效應。 [10]不過,後期研究發現,經驗有時會發揮作用,但專家其實都幾易受到錨定效應影響。例如,有一個關於錨定同司法判決嘅研究指出,經驗豐富嘅專業法律人員亦會受錨定影響。即使錨點同嗰件案件冇關係,佢哋嘅判斷依然會受到影響。 [46]

五大性格特質

性格[編輯]

研究發現五大性格同錨定效應嘅影響程度有關。親和(agreeableness)或者盡責(conscientiousness)嘅人更易受到錨定影響,而外向(extraversion)嘅人就冇咁受影響。 [47]另一個研究發現,開放嘅人(openness to new experiences)更易受到錨定影響。 [48]

認知能力[編輯]

認知能力同錨定嘅關係未有定論。有個關於消費意欲嘅研究發現,認知能力較強嘅人冇咁受錨定影響,但影響並冇完全消失。 [49]不過,有研究認爲兩者關係唔大。 [50]

談判嘅錨定[編輯]

錨定通常會影響談判(negotiation)嘅起點。以商業談判爲例,第一個報價決定咗(主觀)錨點,還價(counter-bid)成爲第二個錨點,又叫做counter-anchor。 [51]

專家比起普通人喺講價嘅時候都會俾錨定影響。有研究分開學生同地產經紀兩批人,要佢哋睇完幾個單位嘅相同定價之後各自估價。雖然啲經紀話佢哋唔會俾錨定影響,但最後兩組人都係同等程度俾錨定影響。

有研究發現:假設參與者知道一棟別墅嘅原始定價(initial price),然後要提出一個佢哋覺得值得嘅價錢,如果個定價係齊頭(例如$800000)而唔係具體一個數(例如$799800),佢哋傾向調整得多啲($751867 VS $784671)。因此,錨定唔單止影響開前講價之前嘅定價(starting value),重會影響調整嘅規模(即係例如每次調高/低$500定$100)[52] 亦即係話,具體嘅價格比較能夠令成交價貼近最初嘅定價。

比較第一個同第二個錨點(counter anchor),第二錨點嘅優勢在於可以決定兩個錨點之間嘅中間點(例如開價1萬,還價8千,講價嘅範圍就會喺8千至1萬), [51] 而有時定第一個錨點(報價)嘅人可能因為冇相關知識而將價錢定得太低,所以相對還價嘅人冇咁滿意談判結果。 [53]亦即係話,還價嗰個應該着數啲。不過,有研究發現報價嗰個一般賺得多啲。 [54]

參考[編輯]

  1. Ni, Feng; Arnott, David; Gao, Shijia (2019-04-03). "The anchoring effect in business intelligence supported decision-making". Journal of Decision Systems (英文). 28 (2): 67–81. doi:10.1080/12460125.2019.1620573. ISSN 1246-0125.
  2. Anchoring Definition, Investopedia, 喺September 29, 2015搵到
  3. Tversky, A.; Kahneman, D. (1974). "Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases" (PDF). Science. 185 (4157): 1124–1131. Bibcode:1974Sci...185.1124T. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. PMID 17835457.
  4. Edward Teach, "Avoiding Decision Traps 互聯網檔案館歸檔,歸檔日期2013年6月14號,.", CFO (1 June 2004). Retrieved 29 May 2007.
  5. 5.0 5.1 Chapman, Gretchen B.; Johnson, Eric J. (1999). "Anchoring, Activation, and the Construction of Values". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 79 (2): 115–153. doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.2841. PMID 10433900.
  6. Fudenberg, Drew; Levine, David K; Maniadis, Zacharias (2012). "On the Robustness of Anchoring Effects in WTP and WTA Experiments" (PDF). American Economic Journal:Microeconomics. 4 (2): 131–145. doi:10.1257/mic.4.2.131.
  7. Ioannidis, Konstantinos; Offerman, Theo; Sloof, Randolph (2020). "On the effect of anchoring on valuations when the anchor is transparently uninformative". Journal of Economic Science Association. 6 (1): 77–94. doi:10.1007/s40881-020-00094-1.
  8. Shuen Shie, Fu (2019). "The Anchoring Effect of Historical Peak to House Price". The Journal of Real Estate Research. 41: 443–472 –透過ProQuest.
  9. 9.0 9.1 Strack, Fritz; Mussweiler, Thomas (1997). "Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 73 (3): 437–446. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.437.
  10. 10.0 10.1 Wilson, Timothy D.; Houston, Christopher E.; Etling, Kathryn M.; Brekke, Nancy (1996). "A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents". Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 125 (4): 387–402. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.125.4.387. PMID 8945789.
  11. Simmons, Joseph P.; LeBoeuf, Robyn A.; Nelson, Leif D. (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. doi:10.1037/a0021540. PMID 21114351.
  12. Mussweiler, Thomas (July 2001). "The durability of anchoring effects". European Journal of Social Psychology. 31 (4): 431–442. doi:10.1002/ejsp.52.
  13. Tindale, R. Scott; Winget, Jeremy R. (26 March 2019). "Group Decision-Making". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.262. ISBN 9780190236557.
  14. Gigone, Daniel; Hastie, Reid (1993). "The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 65 (5): 959–974. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.959.
  15. Kerr, Norbert L.; MacCoun, Robert J.; Kramer, Geoffrey P. (October 1996). "Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups" (PDF). Psychological Review. 103 (4): 687–719. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.687.
  16. Kerr, Norbert L.; Tindale, R. Scott (February 2004). "Group Performance and Decision Making". Annual Review of Psychology. 55 (1): 623–655. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009. PMID 14744229.
  17. Laughlin, Patrick R.; Bonner, Bryan L.; Altermatt, T. William (1998). "Collective versus individual induction with single versus multiple hypotheses". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 75 (6): 1481–1489. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1481.
  18. Laughlin, Patrick R.; VanderStoep, Scott W.; Hollingshead, Andrea B. (1991). "Collective versus individual induction: Recognition of truth, rejection of error, and collective information processing". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 61 (1): 50–67. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.1.50.
  19. Sunstein, Cass R. (2004). "Group Judgments: Deliberation, Statistical Means, and Information Markets". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.578301.
  20. Whyte, Glen (April 1993). "Escalating Commitment in Individual and Group Decision Making: A Prospect Theory Approach". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 54 (3): 430–455. doi:10.1006/obhd.1993.1018.
  21. De Dreu, Carsten K. W.; Nijstad, Bernard A.; van Knippenberg, Daan (February 2008). "Motivated Information Processing in Group Judgment and Decision Making". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 12 (1): 22–49. doi:10.1177/1088868307304092. PMID 18453471.
  22. Schulz-Hardt, Stefan; Brodbeck, Felix C.; Mojzisch, Andreas; Kerschreiter, Rudolf; Frey, Dieter (2006). "Group decision making in hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 91 (6): 1080–1093. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1080. PMID 17144766.
  23. Stasser, Garold; Titus, William (June 1985). "Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 48 (6): 1467–1478. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467.
  24. Stasser, Garold; Titus, William (1987). "Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 53 (1): 81–93. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.81.
  25. Whyte, Glen; Sebenius, James K. (January 1997). "The Effect of Multiple Anchors on Anchoring in Individual and Group Judgment". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 69 (1): 75–85. doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.2674.
  26. Minson, Julia A.; Mueller, Jennifer S. (March 2012). "The Cost of Collaboration: Why Joint Decision Making Exacerbates Rejection of Outside Information". Psychological Science. 23 (3): 219–224. doi:10.1177/0956797611429132. PMID 22344447.
  27. Minson, Julia A.; Mueller, Jennifer S. (July 2013). "Groups Weight Outside Information Less Than Individuals Do, Although They Shouldn't: Response to Schultze, Mojzisch, and Schulz-Hardt (2013)". Psychological Science. 24 (7): 1373–1374. doi:10.1177/0956797613476894. PMID 23640063.
  28. Schultze, Thomas; Mojzisch, Andreas; Schulz-Hardt, Stefan (July 2013). "Groups Weight Outside Information Less Than Individuals Do Because They Should: Response to Minson and Mueller (2012)". Psychological Science. 24 (7): 1371–1372. doi:10.1177/0956797612472206. PMID 23640064.
  29. Sniezek, Janet A (June 1992). "Groups under uncertainty: An examination of confidence in group decision making". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 52 (1): 124–155. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(92)90048-C.
  30. Ten Velden, Femke S.; Beersma, Bianca; De Dreu, Carsten K. W. (November 2010). "It Takes One to Tango: The Effects of Dyads' Epistemic Motivation Composition in Negotiation". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 36 (11): 1454–1466. doi:10.1177/0146167210383698. PMID 20841436.
  31. Scholten, Lotte; van Knippenberg, Daan; Nijstad, Bernard A.; De Dreu, Carsten K.W. (July 2007). "Motivated information processing and group decision-making: Effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 43 (4): 539–552. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.010.
  32. Nijstad, Bernard A.; Oltmanns, Jan (September 2012). "Motivated information processing and group decision refusal". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 15 (5): 637–651. doi:10.1177/1368430212454588.
  33. Ni, Feng; Arnott, David; Gao, Shijia (2019-04-03). "The anchoring effect in business intelligence supported decision-making". Journal of Decision Systems (英文). 28 (2): 67–81. doi:10.1080/12460125.2019.1620573. ISSN 1246-0125.
  34. Fruhlinger, Mary K. Pratt and Josh (2019-10-16). "What is business intelligence? Turning data into business insights". CIO (英文). 喺2021-04-26搵到.
  35. Furnham, Adrian; Boo, Hua Chu (2011). "A literature review of the anchoring effect". The Journal of Socio-Economics. 40 (1): 35–42. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2010.10.008.
  36. Epley, Nicholas; Gilovich, Thomas (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. doi:10.1002/bdm.495.
  37. Tversky, Amos; Kahneman, Daniel (1992). "Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty". Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 5 (4): 297–323. doi:10.1007/BF00122574.
  38. 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. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00372. PMID 11554672.
  39. Epley, Nicholas; Gilovich, Thomas (April 2006). "The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic: Why the Adjustments Are Insufficient". Psychological Science (英文). 17 (4): 311–318. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01704.x. ISSN 0956-7976.
  40. Simmons, Joseph P.; LeBoeuf, Robyn A.; Nelson, Leif D. (2010). "The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: Do people adjust from provided anchors?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (英文). 99 (6): 917–932. doi:10.1037/a0021540. ISSN 1939-1315.
  41. 41.0 41.1 Mussweiler, Thomas; Strack, Fritz (1999). "Hypothesis-Consistent Testing and Semantic Priming in the Anchoring Paradigm: A Selective Accessibility Model" (PDF). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 35 (2): 136–164. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1364. 原著 (PDF)喺2014-11-29歸檔. 喺2014-11-20搵到.
  42. Wegener, Duane T.; Petty, Richard E.; Detweiler-Bedell, Brian T.; Jarvis, W.Blair 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. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1431.
  43. Blankenship, Kevin L.; Wegener, Duane T.; Petty, Richard E.; Detweiler-Bedell, Brian; Macy, Cheryl L. (2008). "Elaboration and consequences of anchored estimates: An attitudinal perspective on numerical anchoring". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 44 (6): 1465–1476. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.005.
  44. Bodenhausen, G. V.; Gabriel, S.; Lineberger, M. (2000). "Sadness and Susceptibility to Judgmental Bias: The Case of Anchoring". Psychological Science. 11 (4): 320–323. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00263. PMID 11273392.
  45. Englich, B.; Soder, K. (2009). "Moody experts: How mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring". Judgment and Decision Making. 4: 41–50.
  46. Englich, B.; Mussweiler, Thomas; Strack, Fritz (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. doi:10.1177/0146167205282152. PMID 16382081.
  47. Eroglu, Cuneyt; Croxton, Keely L. (2010). "Biases in judgmental adjustments of statistical forecasts: The role of individual differences". International Journal of Forecasting. 26 (1): 116–133. doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2009.02.005.
  48. McElroy, T.; Dowd, K. (2007). "Susceptibility to anchoring effects: How openness-to-experience influences responses to anchoring cues" (PDF). Judgment and Decision Making. 2: 48–53.
  49. Bergman, Oscar; Ellingsen, Tore; Johannesson, Magnus; Svensson, Cicek (2010). "Anchoring and cognitive ability". Economics Letters. 107 (1): 66–68. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2009.12.028.
  50. Oechssler, Jörg; Roider, Andreas; Schmitz, Patrick W. (2009). "Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases" (PDF). Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 72 (1): 147–152. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2009.04.018.
  51. 51.0 51.1 Jung, Stefanie; Krebs, Peter (2019). The Essentials of Contract Negotiation. pp. 28–29. ISBN 9783030128661.
  52. Janiszewski, Chris; Uy, Dan (2008). "Precision of the Anchor Influences the Amount of Adjustment". Psychological Science. 19 (2): 121–127. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02057.x. PMID 18271859.
  53. Rosette, Ashleigh Shelby; Kopelman, Shirli; Abbott, Jeanna Lanza (2014). "Good Grief! Anxiety Sours the Economic Benefits of First Offers". Group Decision and Negotiation. 23 (3): 629–647. doi:10.1007/s10726-013-9348-4.
  54. Galinsky, Adam D.; Mussweiler, Thomas (2001). "First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81 (4): 657–669. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.657. PMID 11642352.