ANCHORING EFFECT: A MYTH OR REALITY?

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1, 33 - 47, 04.09.2019

Hakan Boz

Öz

Consumers are often irrational when making
their purchase decisions. Anchoring effect is one of the most common cognitive
biases resorted to by consumers in irrational behaviours.  Although there are many studies supporting
anchoring effect in literature, there are studies against it too. This study
amis to test the influence of anchoring effect on nine different products
through a longtidunal stuy with non-student sampling and large numbers of data
sets.

Data were collected from 2041 through a
snowball and convenience sampling method between the years of 2016-2019. The
results show that there is a significant relationship between number (anchor) determined
by the participants and the price they are happy to pay. A one-unit increase in
the anchor number  results an increase of
34% consumers are willing to pay for a product. The consumers who stated the
numbers between 80-100 as anchors were willing to pay %178% more for a product
than customers who stated numbers between 0-20 as anchors.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Anchoring Effect, Dan Ariely, Daniel Kahneman, Cogntive Bias, Consumer Behavior

ÇAPALAMA ETKİSİ: EFSANE Mİ YOKSA GERÇEK Mİ?

Öz

Tüketiciler satın alma kararlarını
verirken sıklıkla irrasyonel davranabilmektedirler. Tüketicilerin irrasyonel
davranışlarında en çok kullandıkları bilişsel yanlılıkların başında (cognitive
bias) çaplama etkisi (anchoring effect) gelmektedir. Liteartürde anchoring
effecti destekleyen çok sayıda çalışma bulunmakla birlikte, son yıllarda anchoring
effect karşısında sonuçlar bulunan çalışmalar da ortaya çıkmaya başlamıştır. Bu
çalışmada anchoring effectin dokuz farklı üründe etkisinin uzun dönemli ve çok
sayıda veri seti ile öğrenci olmayan örneklem üzerinden test edilmesi
amaçlanmaktadır.

Bu kapsamda 2016-2019 yılları arasında
2041 kişiden kolayda ve kartopu zincir örnekleme yöntemleri ile veri
toplanmıştır. Çalışma sonuçlarına göre katılımcıların belirledikleri rakam ile ödemeye
hazır oldukları bedel arasında önemli bir ilişki çıkmıştır. Satın alınmaya razı
olunan fiyatı belirtmeden önce söylenen rakamdaki bir birimlik artış %34’lük
artış sağlayabilmektedir. Ayrıca 80-100 arası sayı belirtenler 0-20 arasında
sayı belirtenlerden %178 daha fazla kendilerine gösterilen ürünlere para
ödemeye razı olmuşlardır. İleride yapılacak çalışmalarda çalışmanın gerçek bir
satın alma ortamında yapılarak test edilmesi sağlanabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Dan Ariely, Daniel Kahneman, Çapalama Etkisi, Bilişsel Yanlılık, Tüketici Davranışı

Kaynakça

• References
• Adame, B. J. (2016). Training in the mitigation of anchoring bias: A test of the consider-the-opposite strategy. Learning and Motivation, 53, 36-48.
• Anderson, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Elisabet, R. E. (2007). Valuation using multiple price list formats. Applied Economics, 39(6), 675-682.
• Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). Coherent arbitrariness: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73-106.
• Averill, J. R. (1973). Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to stress. Psychological bulletin, 80(4), 286-303.
• Bateman, T. S. (1980). Contingent concession strategies in dyadic bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26(2), 212-221.
• Belsky, Gary and Thomas Gilovich (1999). Why Smart People Make Big Mistakes and How to Correct Them: Lessons From the New Science of Behavioral Economics, New York, NY: Fireside.
• Bergman, O., Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M., & Svensson, C. (2010). Anchoring and cognitive ability. Economics Letters, 107(1), 66-68.
• Blount, S., Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & Neale, M. A. (1996). The price is right – or isit? A reference point model of two-party negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 1–12
• Bottom, W. P., & Paese, P. W. (1999). Judgment accuracy and the asymmetric cost of errors in distributive bargaining. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8(4), 349-364.
• Boz, H., Arslan, A., & Koc, E. (2017). Neuromarketing aspect of tourısm pricing psychology. Tourism Management Perspectives, 23, 119-128.
• Boz, Hakan (2015). Turistik ürün satın alma karar sürecinde itkiselliğin rolü: Psikonörobiyokimyasal analiz. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Balikesir University, Institute of Social Sciences, Balikesir, Turkey.
• Boz, Hakan; Kose, Utku (2018). Emotion Extraction from Facial Expressions by Using Artificial Intelligence Techniques. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 9(1), 5-16.
• Brewer, N. T., & Chapman, G. B. (2002). The fragile basic anchoring effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(1), 65-77.
• Brodt, S. E. (1994). " Inside Information" and Negotiator Decision Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58(2), 172-202.
• Caputo, A. (2014). Relevant information, personality traits and anchoring effect. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 13(1), 62-76.
• Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1994). The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7(4), 223-242.
• Cheek, N. N., & Norem, J. K. (2017). Holistic thinkers anchor less: Exploring the roles of self-construal and thinking styles in anchoring susceptibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 174-176.
• Cheng, F. F., Wu, C. S., & Lin, H. H. (2014). Reducing the influence of framing on internet consumers’ decisions: The role of elaboration. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 56-63.
• Clarkson, P., Nekrasov, A., Andreas, S., Tutticcı, I. (2012).“Target Price Forecasts: Fundamentals and Behavioral Factors”; http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2104433.
• Damasio , A. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Grosset/Putnam.
• Drolet, A. Luce, M. F. and Simonson, I. (2009). When Does Choice Reveal Preference? Moderators of Heuristic vs. Goal Based Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (1), 137-147
• Dunbar, N. E., Wilson, S. N., Adame, B. J., Elizondo, J., Jensen, M. L., Miller, C. H., ... & Straub, S. K. (2013). MACBETH: Development of a training game for the mitigation of cognitive bias. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 3(4), 7-26.
• Englich, B. (2006). Blind or biased? Justitia's susceptibility to anchoring effects in the courtroom based on given numerical representations. Law & Policy, 28(4), 497-514.
• Englich, B., & Soder, K. (2009). Moody experts---How mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(1), 41.
• Esch, F. R., Schmitt, B. H., Redler, J., & Langner, T. (2009). The brand anchoring effect: A judgment bias resulting from brand awareness and temporary accessibility. Psychology & Marketing, 26(4), 383-395.
• Fudenberg, D., Levine, D. K., & Maniadis, Z. (2012). On the robustness of anchoring effects in WTP and WTA experiments. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4(2), 131-45.
• Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The journal of socio-economics, 40(1), 35-42.
• Green, D., Jacowitz, K. E., Kahneman, D., & McFadden, D. (1998). Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods. Resource and energy economics, 20(2), 85-116.
• GoogleScholar,https://scholar.google.com.tr/scholar?hl=tr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%E2%80%9CAnchoring+Effect%E2%80%9D+&btnG= 10.01.2019 tarihi itibariyle.
• Gordon, M.E., Slade, L.A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The science of the sophomore revisited: from conjecture to empiricism. Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 191-207.
• Hanel, P. H., & Vione, K. C. (2016). Do student samples provide an accurate estimate of the general public?. PloS one, 11(12), 1-10.
• Hartono, B., & Saputra, B. A. (2012). Are the experts really experts? A cognitive ergonomics investigation for project estimations. Jurnal Teknik Industri, 14(2), 115-122.
• Holst, G. S., Hermann, D., & Musshoff, O. (2015). Anchoring effects in an experimental auction–Are farmers anchored?. Journal of Economic Psychology, 48, 106-117.
• Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), 1161-1166.
• Joireman, J., Truelove, H. B., & Duell, B. (2010). Effect of outdoor temperature, heat primes and anchoring on belief in global warming. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 358-367.
• Joyce, E. J., & Biddle, G. C. (1981). Anchoring and adjustment in probabilistic infer- ences in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research, 19,120-45.
• Kahnemann, D., and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
• Kahneman, D., & Amos Tversky (2000). Choice, Values, Frames. Cambridge University Press
• Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American economic review, 93(5), 1449-1475.
• Koc, E., & Boz, H. (2014a). Psychoneurobiochemistry of tourism marketing.Tourism Management, 44, 140-148.
• Koc, E., & Boz, H. (2014b). Triangulation in tourism research: A bibliometric study of top three tourism journals. Tourism Management Perspectives, 12, 9-14.
• Koc, E. (2016). Food consumption in all-inclusive holidays: illusion of control as an antecedent of inversionary consumption. Journal of Gastronomy and Tourism, 2(2), 107-116.
• Koç, Erdoğan (2018). Tüketici davranışı ve pazarlama stratejileri: global ve yerel yaklaşım: pazarlama ve tüketici davranışı kavramlarının İngilizceleriyle. İstanbul: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Koç, E. (2019). Hizmet pazarlaması ve yönetimi. Baskı 3, Seçkin Yayınları: Ankara.
• Kristensen, H., & Gärling, T. (2000). Anchoring induced biases in consumer price negotiations. Journal of Consumer Policy, 23(4), 445-460.
• Lacetera, N., Pope, D. G., & Sydnor, J. R. (2012). Heuristic thinking and limited attention in the car market. American Economic Review, 102(5), 2206-36.
• Landis, J.T., & Kuhn, M. (1957). Values and limitations of family research using student subjects. Marriage and Family Living, 19(1), Proceedings of the Family Research Conference, 100-107.
• Lehrer, J. (2009). How we decide. Houghton: Mifflin Harcourt.
• Maniadis, Z., Tufano, F., & List, J. A. (2014). One swallow doesn't make a summer: New evidence on anchoring effects. American Economic Review, 104(1), 277-90.
• Meub, L., & Proeger, T. E. (2015). Anchoring in social context. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 55, 29-39.
• Mochtar, K., & Arditi, D. (2001). Pricing strategy in the US construction industry. Construction Management & Economics, 19(4), 405-415.
• Montague, R. (2007). Your brain is (almost) perfect: How we make decisions . New York: Plume.
• Morewedge, C. K., Yoon, H., Scopelliti, I., Symborski, C. W., Korris, J. H., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Debiasing decisions: Improved decision making with a single training intervention. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 129-140.
• Mumma, G. H., & Wilson, S. B. (1995). Procedural debiasing of primacy/anchoring effects in clinical‐like judgments. Journal of clinical psychology, 51(6), 841-853.
• 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.
• Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Comparing is believing: A selective accessibility model of judgmental anchoring. European review of social psychology, 10(1), 135-167.
• Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). The use of category and exemplar knowledge in the solution of anchoring tasks. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(6), 1038.
• Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1142-1150.
• Mussweiler, T. (2001). The durability of anchoring effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(4), 431-442.
• Mussweiler, T. (2002). The malleability of anchoring effects. Experimental psychology, 49(1), 67.
• Mussweiler, T., & Damisch, L. (2008). Going back to Donald: how comparisons shape judgmental priming effects. Journal of personality and social psychology, 95(6), 1295.
• 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.
• O‘Conor, R. M., Johannesson, M., & Johansson, P. O. (1999). Stated preferences, real behaviour and anchoring: some empirical evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 13(2), 235-248.
• Orr, D., & Guthrie, C. (2005). Anchoring, information, expertise, and negotiation: New insights from meta-analysis. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 21, 597.
• Perron, S., Hansen, P., Le Digabel, S., & Mladenović, N. (2010). Exact and heuristic solutions of the global supply chain problem with transfer pricing. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(3), 864-879.
• Peterson, R.A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science reseach: Insights from a second order Meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 450-461.
• Pohl, R., Eisenhauer, M., & Hardt, O. (2003). SARA: A cognitive process model to simulate the anchoring effect and hindsight bias. Memory, 11(4-5), 337-356.
• Ritov, I. (1996). Anchoring in simulated competitive market negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 16-25.
• Sevilla, J., & Kahn, B. E. (2014). The completeness heuristic: Product shape completeness influences size perceptions, preference, and consumption. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(1), 57-68.
• Simonson, I., & Drolet, A. (2004). Anchoring effects on consumers' willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. Journal of consumer research, 31(3), 681-690.
• Simmons, J. P., LeBoeuf, R. A., & Nelson, L. 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.
• Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1968). Relative importance of probabilities and payoffs in risk taking. Journal of experimental psychology, 78(3p2), 1-18.
• Smith, A. R., & Windschitl, P. D. (2015). Resisting anchoring effects: The roles of metric and mapping knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 43(7), 1071-1084.
• Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of personality and social psychology, 73(3), 437.
• Sugden, R., Zheng, J., & Zizzo, D. J. (2013). Not all anchors are created equal. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 21-31.
• Teovanović, P., Knežević, G., & Stankov, L. (2015). Individual differences in cognitive biases: Evidence against one-factor theory of rationality. Intelligence, 50, 75-86.
• Thomas, K. E., & Handley, S. J. (2008). Anchoring in time estimation. Acta Psychologica, 127(1), 24-29.
• Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185,1124–1131.
• Underhill, P. (1999). Why we buy: The science of shopping. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Whyte, G., & Sebenius, J. K. (1997). The effect of multiple anchors on anchoring in individual and group judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(1), 74-85.
• 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.
• Wu, C. S., & Cheng, F. F. (2011). The joint effect of framing and anchoring on internet buyers’ decision-making. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 10(3), 358-368.
• Zack, M. H. (2007). The role of decision support systems in an indeterminate world. Decision Support Systems, 43(4), 1664-1674.
• Zhang, K. Z., Zhao, S. J., Cheung, C. M., & Lee, M. K. (2014). Examining the influence of online reviews on consumers' decision-making: A heuristic–systematic model. Decision Support Systems, 67, 78-89.