The anchoring heuristic refers to phenomena when an arbitrary number affects subsequent numerical estimations. Oppenheimer, LeBoeuf and Brewer (2008) showed that it is not necessary for the anchor to be a numerical value (i.e., the act of drawing lines of different length effectively shifts numerical estimations), yet current models describing the anchoring heuristic do not fully account for the mechanism of non-numerical anchoring. However, this effect shows similarity to the basic anchoring effect - obtained without the comparative question and based on the availability of the given number in working memory. In this study, we attempt to verify whether those two effect share the same psychological mechanism. In Experiment 1, we show that non-numerical anchoring based on magnitude priming cannot be obtained when the lines are just observed. The examined mechanism proves to be dependent on the act of drawing, displaying limitations similar to the basic anchoring effect, previously pointed out by Brewer and Chapman (2002). By using the same numerical anchors in different size formats, in Experiment 2 we showed that anchoring based on magnitude priming occurs even when the numerical values do not affect the estimations. The results are discussed in the light of a possible mechanism that underlies the investigated effect.
Brewer, N.T., & Chapman, G.B. (2002). The fragile basic anchoring effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 65-77.
Chapman, G.B., & Johnson, E.J. (1994). The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 223-242.
Craik, F.I., & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671-684.
Critcher, C.R., & Gilovich, T. (2008). Incidental environmental anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(3), 241-251.
Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371.
Dehaene, S., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Cohen, L. (2003). Three parietal circuits for number processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(3-6), 487-506.
Frederick, S.W., & Mochon, D. (2011). A scale distortion theory of anchoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 124.
Friedlander, M.L., & Stockman, S.J. (1983). Anchoring and publicity effects in clinical judgment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 637-643.
Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(1), 35-42.
Gilovich, T., Griffi n, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Higgins, E.T., Rholes, W.S., & Jones, C.R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(2), 141-154.
Higgins, E.T., & Brendl, C.M. (1995). Accessibility and applicability: Some“ activation rules“ influencing judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(3), 218-243.
Izard, V., & Dehaene, S. (2008). Calibrating the mental number line. Cognition, 106(3), 1221-1247.
Jelicic, M., & Bonke, B. (1991). Level of processing affects performance on explicit and implicit memory tasks. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72(3c), 1263-1266.
Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. (1993). Anchoring or shallow inferences: The effect of format. Unpublished manuscript.
Kaustia, M., Alho, E., & Puttonen, V. (2008). How much does expertise reduce behavioral biases? The case of anchoring effects in stock return estimates. Financial Management, 37(3), 391-412.
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.W. (1987). Confi rmation, disconfi rmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological review, 94(2), 211.
Kristensen, H., & Garling T. (1997). The effects of anchor points and reference points on negotiation process and outcome. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 85-94.
LeBoeuf, R.A., & Shafi r, E. (2006). The long and short of it: Physical anchoring effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(4), 393-406.
Longo, M.R., & Lourenco, S.F. (2006). On the nature of near space: Effects of tool use and the transition to far space. Neuropsychologia, 44(6), 977-981.
Lourenco, S.F., & Longo, M R. (2011). Origins and development of generalized magnitude representation. Space, time, and number in the brain: Searching for the foundations of mathematical thought, 225-244.
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.
Northcraft G.B., & Neale, M.A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 84-97.
Oppenheimer, D.M., LeBoeuf, R.A., & Brewer, N.T. (2008). Anchors aweigh: A demonstration of cross-modality anchoring and magnitude priming. Cognition, 106(1), 13-26.
Piazza, M., Pinel, P., Le Bihan, D., & Dehaene, S. (2007). A magnitude code common to numerosities and number symbols in human intraparietal cortex. Neuron, 53(2), 293-305.
Quattrone, G.A., Lawrence, C.P., Warren, D.L., Souza-Silva, K., Finkel, S.E., & Andrus, D.E. (1984). Explorations in anchoring: The effects of prior range, anchor extremity, and suggestive hints. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Raven, J. (2000). The Raven’s progressive matrices: change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 1-48.
Seron, X., Pesenti, M., Noël, M.P., Deloche, G., & Cornet, J.A. (1992). Images of numbers, or “When 98 is upper left and 6 sky blue”. Cognition, 44(1), 159-196.
Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437-446.
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(2), 136-164.
Sellaro, R., Treccani, B., Job, R., & Cubelli, R. (2015). Spatial coding of object typical size: evidence for a SNARC-like effect. Psychological research, 79(6), 950-962.
Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2013). Taking the high (or low) road: a quantifi er priming perspective on basic anchoring effects. The Journal of social psychology, 153(4), 424-447.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
Tzelgov, J., Meyer, J., & Henik, A. (1992). Automatic and intentional processing of numerical information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(1), 166.
Whalen, J., Gallistel, C.R., & Gelman, R. (1999). Non-verbal counting in humans: The psychophysics of number representation. Psychological Science, 10(2), 130-137.
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 9(4), 625-636.
Wilson, T. D., Houston, C.E., Brekke, N., & Etling, K.M. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 387-402.
Wong, K., & Kwong, J. (2000). Is 7300m equal to 7.3 km? Same semantics but different anchoring effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 314-333.
Zorzi, M., Priftis, K., & Umiltà, C. (2002). Brain damage: neglect disrupts the mental number line. Nature, 417(6885), 138-139