Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Registered Report

How and Why Different Forms of Expertise Moderate Anchor Precision in Price Decisions

A Pre-Registered Field Experiment

Published Online:May 02, 2019https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000441

Abstract

Abstract. Increasing price precision leads to linearly stronger anchoring effects for amateurs, but highly precise anchors can backfire for experts. Previous research focused on experts bargaining about an object within their expertise domain (e.g., real-estate agents negotiated about a house listed at €978,781.63). This leaves unknown whether too much precision backfires for experts because of their (a) general negotiation expertise, (b) domain-specific pricing knowledge, or (c) the combination of general expertise and price-knowledge. Our pre-registered report seeks to replicate the too-much-precision effect and to experimentally separate general negotiation expertise from domain-specific price-knowledge. Seasoned experts (real-estate agents) negotiate about an object either within (house) or outside (motor yacht) their domain of expertise. We measure experts’ willingness to pay (WTP), counteroffer, self-ascribed versus other-ascribed competence, and their self-ascribed versus other-ascribed price-knowledge. Based on responses of 400 professional real-estate agents, we replicate the advantageous anchor precision effect and illustrate that too much precision backfires regardless of whether agents negotiate within (house) or outside (yacht) their domain of expertise. Mediation analysis suggests that, consistent with previous research, the impact of precise anchors is due to the competence attributed to the negotiation opponent. Our results offer insights into the psychological mechanisms and theoretical understanding of anchor precision.

References

  • Alicke, M. D., Klotz, M. L., Breitenbecher, D. L., Yurak, T. J., & Vredenburg, D. S. (1995). Personal contact, individuation, and the above-average effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 804–825. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bazerman, M. H., & Neale, M.A. (1983). The role of perspective-taking ability in negotiating under different forms of arbitration. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 36, 378–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979398303600304 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • 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, 391–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00372 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Mussweiler, T. (2009). To start low or to start high? The case of auctions versus negotiations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 357–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01667.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. ColeJ. L. MorganEds., Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Harms, C., Genau, H. A., Meschede, C., & Beauducel, A. (2018). Does it actually feel right? A replication attempt of the rounded price effect. Royal Society Open Science, 5, 171127. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171127 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Jäger, A., Loschelder, D. D., & Friese, M. (2017). How self-regulation helps to master negotiation challenges: An overview, integration, and outlook. European Review of Social Psychology, 26, 203–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2015.1112640 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Janiszewski, C., & Uy, D. (2008). Precision of the anchor influences the amount of adjustment. Psychological Science, 19, 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02057.x First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Jerez-Fernandez, A., Angulo, A. N., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). Show me the numbers precision as a cue to others’ confidence. Psychological Science, 25, 633–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504301 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Joyce, E. J., & Biddle, G. C. (1981). Anchoring and adjustment in probabilistic inference in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research, 19, 120–145. https://doi.org/10.2307/2490965 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B. Jr., Bahnik, S., Bernstein, M. J., … Cemalcilar, Z. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability. Social Psychology, 45(3), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Loschelder, D. D., Friese, M., Schaerer, M., & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). The too-much precision effect when and why precise anchors backfire with experts. Psychological Science, 1, 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616666074 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Loschelder, D. D., Friese, M., & Trötschel, R. (2017). How and why precise anchors distinctly affect anchor recipients and senders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 164–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.11.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Loschelder, D. D., Stuppi, J., & Trötschel, R. (2014). “€ 14, 875?!”: Precision boosts the anchoring potency of first offers. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613499942 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Loschelder, D. D., Swaab, R. I., Trötschel, R., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). The first-mover disadvantage: The folly of revealing compatible preferences. Psychological Science, 25, 954–962. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613520168 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Loschelder, D. D., Weber, M., Frech, M.-L., Mason, M., Galinsky, A. D., & Friese, M. (2019). The power and peril of precise numbers: An empirical and theoretical review, a p-curve, and meta-analysis. Manuscript in preparation. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Mason, M. F., Lee, A. J., Wiley, E. A., & Ames, D. R. (2013). Precise offers are potent anchors: Conciliatory counteroffers and attributions of knowledge in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 759–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.012 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McElroy, T., & Dowd, K. (2007). Susceptibility to anchoring effects: How openness-to-experience influences responses to anchoring cues. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 48. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1535–1551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02687.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mussweiler, T., & Englich, B. (2005). Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.12.002 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). Numeric judgments under uncertainty: The role of knowledge in anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 495–518. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1414 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • 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. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • O’Donnell, M., & Nelson, L. D. (2015). Study 3 Replication, Wadhwa & Zhang. Unpublished data. Retrieved from https://osf.io/am32k/ First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ritov, I. (1996). Probability of regret: Anticipation of uncertainty resolution in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 228–236. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Smith, A. R., Windschitl, P. D., & Bruchmann, K. (2013). Knowledge matters: Anchoring effects are moderated by knowledge level. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1921 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 845–851. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Wood, A. M., Brown, G. D., Maltby, J., & Watkinson, P. (2012). How are personality judgments made? A cognitive model of reference group effects, personality scale responses, and behavioral reactions. Journal of Personality, 80, 1275–1311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00763.x First citation in articleCrossref Medline, Google Scholar

  • Wright, W. F., & Anderson, U. (1989). Effects of situation familiarity and financial incentives on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic for probability assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(89)90035-6 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar