Discuss one cognitive bias

Question 1

What is anchoring bias?

Answer 1

The 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.

The use of anchors has many different effects on behaviour.

Question 2

Example of anchoring bias in real life

Answer 2

When bargaining in a market in many parts of the world, you ask for the price and they give a very high price.

Question 3

Cognitive bias

Answer 3

A bias in cognitive processes such as thinking and decision-making. It occurs as a part of System 1 thinking suggested by the Dual Processing Model.

Question 4

Why do we make biases?

Answer 4

In order for System 1 to come up with a fast, effortless answer, it has to make use of mental shortcuts, otherwise known as heuristics.

These heuristics help System 1 come up with a decent guess to a question with little mental effort. However, their use leads to biases in decision making.

Question 5

Argument for Tversky and Kahneman

Answer 5

Introduction of anchoring bias. Shows very obviously what it is.

Question 6

Aim of Tversky and Kahneman

Answer 6

To demonstrate the effect of anchoring on estimate the value of a mathematics problem.

Question 7

Procedure Tversky and Kahneman

Answer 7

Participants in the “ascending condition” were asked to quickly estimate the value of 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 X 7 X 8 in five seconds.

Those in the “descending condition” were asked to quickly estimate the value of 8 X 7 X 6 X 5 X 4 X 3 X 2 X 1.

Since we read from left to right, the researchers assumed that group 1 would use “1” as an anchor and predict a lower value that the group that started with “8” as the anchor.

The expectation was that the first number seen would bias the estimate of the value by the participant.

Question 8

Results of Tversky and Kahneman

Answer 8

The researchers found that the median for the ascending group was 512. The median for the descending group was 2250. The actual value is 40320.

Question 9

What does Tversky and Kahneman show?

Answer 9

This therefore is a very simple experiment which supports that there is a strong bias in the estimation of numbers and therefore the main conclusion of the study is that there is a cognitive bias present.

It also shows that there is not only a bias in thinking based on the anchoring bias but that due to our thinking individuals have a very poor estimation of numbers as they were very far away from the actual number.

Question 10

Pros of Tversky and Kahneman

Answer 10

The study is a very simple experiment that is easily replicated, allowing us to establish the reliability of the results.

The study is highly controlled and has high internal validity. It can be inferred that the anchor was the cause of the higher (or lower) estimates by the students.

The researchers used the median to report the data. This allowed the researchers to diminish the influence of outliers on the reporting of the data

Question 11

Cons of Tversky and Kahneman

Answer 11

The experiment has low ecological validity. The situation is very artificial. It is not too often in life that we have only five seconds to estimate the value of something! It is questionable to what extent the findings can be applied.

The study was an independent samples design. This means that participant variability may have played a role in the results.

It would be better to have a matched pairs design to attempt to have two groups with an equivalent level of maths competency.

Question 12

A study that has a higher ecological validity

Answer 12

Englich and Mussweiler (2001)

Question 13

What did Englich and Mussweiler find out?

Answer 13

Found that anchoring bias could play a significant role in determining sentencing in courtrooms

Question 14

Aim of Englich and Mussweiler

Answer 14

To know if the simple request for a certain length of prison sentence would unduly influence the decision made by a judge.

Question 15

Result of Englich and Mussweiler

Answer 15

The average rating for the realistic nature of the case was 7.17, with a standard deviation of 1.3. The judges’ certainty about their responses, however, were not as strong, with an average rating of 4.53 and a standard deviation of 2.29.

When presented with a low anchor of two months, the average sentence was 18.78 months, with a standard deviation of 9.11. in the high anchor condition of 34 months, the average sentence was 28.70 months, with a standard deviation of 6.53.

Question 16

Evaluation of Englich and Mussweiler

Answer 16

The study was a true experiment, allowing the researchers to infer a cause and effect relationship between the value of the anchor and the sentence.

The use of an independent samples design means that participant variability may have played a role in the results - serving as a confounding variable.

The sample size is small. It is difficult to generalize the findings. In addition, the sample was limited in courtroom experience - which means that the results can best be generalized to younger, less experienced judges.

The use of the pilot group helped to establish reasonable anchors. In addition, the pilot group demonstrated System 2 thinking, serving as a control group for the other two conditions, which demonstrated System 1 thinking.

The low scores on the judges’ sense of confidence indicate that they may have been aware that their judgment was being influenced by other factors.

It could also be argued that even though it supports anchoring bias, that the reason that the participants varied depending on the prosecutor demands, that they trusted prosecutor’s experience and therefore followed partially their advice.

Question 17

What does Englich and Mussweiler support?

Answer 17

This therefore supports that the first information influenced the decision and that anchoring bias can work in a high ecological setting.

Question 19

What study removes the possibility of the achor being related?

Answer 19

Kahneman and Tversky who found that two completely unrelated topics could influence each other.

Question 20

Aim of Kahneman and Tversky

Answer 20

to investigate how anchors influence thinking and decision making.

Question 21

Procedure of Kahneman and Tversky

Answer 21

The study the participants spun a wheel with numbers ranging from 1 to 100.

However, the wheel was fixed so that the wheel would always land on either the number 10 or 60.

Afterwards, participants were asked to estimate what percentage of U.N. member countries were African countries.

Question 22

Results of Kahneman and Tversky

Answer 22

The results were that participants who spun the number 10 tended to give a significantly lower estimate for African membership in the U.N. than participants who spun the number 60.

Question 23

What does Kahneman and Tversky support?

Answer 23

This suggests that the random number had an anchoring effect on participant’s estimates for African membership in the U.N., even though it clearly had no relation to the topic.

This therefore gives an even better insight into how the anchoring bias functions as it is evidence that the high first information does not even need to related to the rest of the information that is to follow and therefore that it is the thinking of a high or low number than influences it instead.

Question 24

Evaluation of Kahneman and Tversky

Answer 24

A strength of the study is that this is a simple experiment which is easy to replicate. In fact, many similar experiments have been carried out, and the results are highly reliable.

However this study only had American participants and so it remains to be seen if these results will also be found in people from different cultures.

Question 25

Conclusion of Anchoring bias

Answer 25

In conclusion the studies strongly support the theory of anchoring bias and that it can be used in a high ecological setting as presented by Englich and Mussweiler.

Kahneman and Tversky also support that the initial information does not even need to relate to the actual topic to influence it and therefore gives a lot more insight on how anchoring bias might actually affect us.