Anchoring Effect in Consumer Behavior: An Empirical Examination on Different Products

Abstract

This study examines the role of the anchoring effect in consumer decision-making processes within the framework of behavioral economics. While traditional economic theory assumes that individuals are rational decision-makers, behavioral economics suggests that cognitive biases and psychological processes significantly influence consumer preferences. The anchoring effect is a crucial cognitive bias in which individuals’ willingness to pay is shaped by the initial reference point they encounter. In this research, the impact of the anchoring effect on consumer behavior was experimentally analyzed using face-to-face surveys conducted on four different product categories: Bluetooth headphones, Belgian chocolate, stand-up comedy show tickets, and USB lighters. Participants were asked to use the last two digits of their national identification numbers as an anchor value, after which their maximum willingness to pay for the specified products was measured. The collected data were analyzed, and the relationships between anchor values and willingness to pay were assessed through correlation and regression analyses. The findings reveal that the anchoring effect is particularly strong for products with high price uncertainty. The effect was found to be significant for stand-up comedy show tickets and Bluetooth headphones, whereas it was relatively weaker for Belgian chocolate and USB lighters, where consumers were more familiar with pricing information. The study discusses both the positive and negative impacts of the anchoring effect on consumer welfare, advocating for the development of education and awareness strategies to help consumers make more informed decisions. In conclusion, the study highlights the significant role of the anchoring effect in shaping consumer behavior and emphasizes its relevance in marketing, public policy, and economic decision-making processes.

Keywords

• Consumer Behavior
• Behavioral Economics
• Anchoring Effect
• Cognitive Biases

Tüketici Davranışlarında Çıpalama Etkisi: Farklı Ürünler Üzerine Ampirik Bir İnceleme

Öz

Bu çalışma, davranışsal iktisat çerçevesinde tüketici karar alma süreçlerinde çıpalama etkisinin rolünü incelemektedir. Geleneksel iktisat teorisi, bireylerin rasyonel karar vericiler olduğunu varsayarken, davranışsal iktisat bilişsel yanılgılar ve psikolojik süreçlerin tüketici tercihlerinde belirleyici olduğunu öne sürmektedir. Çıpalama etkisi, bireylerin ilk maruz kaldıkları referans noktasına göre ödeme istekliliğini şekillendiren önemli bir bilişsel yanılgıdır. Araştırma kapsamında, dört farklı ürün kategorisi (Bluetooth kulaklık, Belçika çikolatası, stand-up gösterisi bileti ve USB çakmak) üzerinde yüz yüze anket yöntemi uygulanarak çıpalama etkisinin tüketici davranışlarına etkisi deneysel olarak analiz edilmiştir. Katılımcılardan T.C. kimlik numaralarının son iki hanesini çıpa değeri olarak kullanmaları istenmiş ve ardından belirlenen ürünler için maksimum ödeme isteklilikleri ölçülmüştür. Elde edilen veriler analiz edilerek çıpa değeri ile ödeme istekliliği arasındaki ilişkiler korelasyon ve regresyon analizleriyle değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, çıpalama etkisinin özellikle fiyat belirsizliği yüksek olan ürünlerde güçlü bir etkiye sahip olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Stand-up gösterisi bileti ve Bluetooth kulaklık için çıpalama etkisinin yüksek düzeyde olduğu tespit edilirken, tüketicilerin fiyat bilgisine daha aşina olduğu Belçika çikolatası ve USB çakmak gibi ürünlerde etkinin nispeten zayıf olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Araştırma, çıpalama etkisinin tüketici refahı üzerindeki olumlu ve olumsuz etkilerini tartışarak, tüketicilerin daha bilinçli kararlar almasını sağlayacak eğitim ve farkındalık stratejilerinin geliştirilmesi gerektiğini önermektedir. Sonuç olarak, çıpalama etkisinin tüketici davranışları üzerindeki belirleyici rolü vurgulanmakta ve bu etkinin pazarlama, kamu politikaları ve ekonomik karar alma süreçlerinde dikkate alınması gerektiği belirtilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tüketici Davranışları
• Davranışsal İktisat
• Çıpalama Etkisi
• Bilişsel Yanılgılar

References

1. Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). Coherent Arbitrariness: Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73-106.
2. Becker, G. S. (1976). The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Bergman, P., & Pope, D. (2015). The Power of Default Options: Evidence From School Choice. Journal of Public Economics, 129, 1-14.
4. Blackwell, R. D., Miniard, P. W., & Engel, J. F. (2001). Consumer Behavior. New York: Harcourt College Publishers.
5. Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1999). Anchoring, Activation, and the Construction of Values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(2), 115-153.
6. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications.
7. Critcher, C. R., & Gilovich, T. (2008). Incidental Environmental Anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(3), 241-251.
8. Diederich, A., & Trueblood, J. S. (2022). Cognitive Models of Anchoring. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(2), 112-123.

9. 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(2), 188-200.
10. 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.
11. Frantz, R., & Leeson, R. (2013). Handbook of Behavioral Economics. Londra: Routledge.
12. Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A Literature Review of the Anchoring Effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(1), 35-42.
13. Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First Offers as Anchors: The Role of Perspective-Taking and Negotiator Focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 657-669.
14. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
15. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
16. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. 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), 391-411.
18. McElroy, T., & Dowd, K. (2007). Susceptibility to Anchoring Effects: How Openness-to-Experience Influences Responses to Anchoring Cues. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(1), 48-53.
19. Mussweiler, T., & Englich, B. (2005). Subliminal Anchoring: Judgmental Consequences and Underlying Mechanisms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 133-143.
20. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2001). Considering the Impossible: Explaining the Effects of Anchors That Cannot Be True. Social Cognition, 19(2), 145-160.
21. 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(1), 84-97.
22. Nunes, J. C., & Boatwright, P. (2004). Incidental Prices and Their Effect on Willingness to Pay. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(4), 457–466.
23. Schiffman, L. G., & Wisenblit, J. (2019). Consumer Behavior (12th ed). Pearson.
24. Simon, H. A. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118.
25. Simonson, I., & Drolet, A. (2004). Anchoring Effects on Consumers’ Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Accept. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 681-690.
26. Solomon, M. R. (2009). Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
27. Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the Enigmatic Anchoring Effect: Mechanisms of Selective Accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 437-446.
28. Teovanović, P. (2019). Individual Differences in Anchoring Effect: Evidence for the Role of Insufficient Adjustment. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 8–24.
29. Thaler, R. H. (1980). Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39-60.
30. Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199-214.
31. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
32. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
33. 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: General, 125(4), 387–402.