en pl
en pl

Decyzje

Zobacz wydanie
Rok 8/2020 
Numer 33

Siła zakotwiczenia w zadaniach związanych z wyceną produktu

Magdalena Brzozowicz
University of Warsaw

8/2020 (33) Decyzje

DOI 10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.138

Zawartość artykułu

Abstrakt

W niniejszym artykule zbadano stabilność efektu zakotwiczenia, uwzględniając użytą metodę wyceny, typ kotwicy i dostępność informacji o prezentowanym produkcie. W czterech różnych eksperymentach laboratoryjnych pozyskano graniczne ceny kupna (WTP) produktu kosmetycznego, manipulując przedstawioną uczestnikom kotwicą (niska vs. wysoka kotwica lub brak kotwicy vs. wysoka kotwica). Zaobserwowano, że jedynie kotwica rynkowa (realna cena podobnego produktu) miała wpływ na WTP za prezentowany produkt. Wskazano również, że siła efektu zakotwiczenia, w porównaniu z wyceną hipotetyczną, jest mniejsza w przypadku zastosowania zachęt finansowych do wskazywania
rzeczywistej wyceny. Zaobserwowano istotny statystycznie efekt zakotwiczenia jedynie w eksperymencie z wyceną deklaratywną. Wnioski z badania sugerują, że odporność efektu zakotwiczenia jest ograniczona.

Powiązania

  1. Alevy, J.E., Landry, C.E., List, J.A. (2015). Field Experiments on Anchoring of Economic Valuations. Economic Inquiry, 53(3), 1522–1538. 10.1111/ecin.12201 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., Prelec, D. (2003). ‘Coherent Arbitrariness’: Stable Demand Curves without Stable Preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73–106. 10.1162/00335530360535153 [Google Scholar]
  3. Becker, G.M., DeGroot, M.H., Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral science, 9(3), 226–232. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergman, O., Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M., Svensson, C. (2010). Anchoring and Cognitive Ability. Economics Letters, 107 (1), 66–68. 10.2307/1061360 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bodenhausen, G.V., Gabriel, S., & Lineberger, M. (2000). Sadness and susceptibility to judgmental bias: The case of anchoring. Psychological Science, 11(4), 320–323. [Google Scholar]
  6. Brewer, N.T. Chapman, G.B. (2002). The fragile basic anchoring effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(1), 65–77. 10.1002/bdm.403 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chapman, G.B., Johnson, E.J. (1994). The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 223–42. 10.1002/bdm.3960070402 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chapman, G.B., Johnson, E.J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(2), 115–153. 10.1006/obhd.1999.2841 [Google Scholar]
  9. Croson, R. and Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474. [Google Scholar]
  10. Englich, B., Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under Uncertainty: Anchoring Effects in the Courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1535–1551. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02687.x [Google Scholar]
  11. 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. 10.1111/1467-9280.00372 [Google Scholar]
  12. Frederick, S.W., Mochon, D. (2012). A scale distortion theory of anchoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 124. [Google Scholar]
  13. 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), 131–145. 10.1257/ mic.4.2.131 [Google Scholar]
  14. 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. 10.1037/0022- 3514.81.4.657 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gilbert, D.T., Pelham, B.W., Krull, D.S. (1988). On cognitive busyness, when busy perceivers meet persons perceiving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 733–740. 10.1037/0022- 3514.54.5.733 [Google Scholar]
  16. Green, D., Jacowitz, K. E., Kahneman, D., McFadden, D. (1998). Referendum Contingent Valuation, Anchoring, and Willingness to Pay for Public Goods. Resources and Energy Economics, 20, 85– 116. 10.1016/S0928-7655(97)00031-6 [Google Scholar]
  17. Irwin, J.R., McClelland, G.H., Schulze, W.D. (1992). Hypothetical and real consequences in experimental auctions for insurance against low-probability risks. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5(2), 107–116. 10.1002/bdm.3960050203 [Google Scholar]
  18. Johnson, E.J., Schkade, D.A., (1989). Bias in Utility Assessments: Further Evidence and Explanations. Management Science, 35(4), 406–424. 10.1287/mnsc.35.4.406 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kagel, J. (1995). Auctions: A Survey of Experimental Research. In J. Kagel, and A.E. Roth (Eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics, 501–585. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. (1993). Anchoring or Shallow Inferences: The Effect of Format. Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Berkeley. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kruger, J. (1999). Lake Wobegon be gone! The “below-average effect” and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 221–232. 10.1037//0022-3514.77.2.221 [Google Scholar]
  22. List, J.A. (2001). Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1498–1507. 10.1257/aer.91.5.1498 [Google Scholar]
  23. 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), 277–290. 10.1257/aer.104.1.277 [Google Scholar]
  24. 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. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mochon, D., Frederick, S. (2013). Anchoring in sequential judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(1), 69–79. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  26. 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. 10.1006/jesp.1998.1364 [Google Scholar]
  27. 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, 1142–1150. 10.1177/01461672002611010 [Google Scholar]
  28. Nunes, J.C., Boatwright, P. (2004). Incidental prices and their effect on willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(4), 457–466. 10.1509/jmkr.41.4.457.47014 [Google Scholar]
  29. Peterson, R.A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of consumer research, 28(3), 450–461. [Google Scholar]
  30. Plous, S. (1989). Thinking the unthinkable: The effect of anchoring on likelihood estimates of nuclear war. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 67–91. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1989.tb01221.x [Google Scholar]
  31. 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), 917–932. 10.1037/a0021540 [Google Scholar]
  32. Simonson, I. (2008). Will I like a “medium” pillow? Another look at constructed and inherent preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(3), 155–169. [Google Scholar]
  33. Simonson, I., Drolet, A. (2004). Anchoring Effects on Consumers’ Willingness-to-Pay and Willingnessto- Accept. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 681–690. 10.1086/425103 [Google Scholar]
  34. Simonson, I., Rosen, E. (2014). Absolute value: What really influences customers in the age of (nearly) perfect information. New York: HarperBusiness. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sugden, R., Zheng, J., Zizzo, D.J. (2013). Not all anchors are created equal. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39(C), 21–31. 10.1016/j.joep.2013.06.008 [Google Scholar]
  36. Strack, F., Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of personality and social psychology, 73(3), 437. [Google Scholar]
  37. Tomczak, P. (2017). Dlaczego kotwica kotwiczy? Przegląd mechanizmów i zasad działania heurystyki zakotwiczenia. Decyzje, 28, 93–110. [Google Scholar]
  38. Tufano, F. (2010). Are ‘True’ Preferences Revealed in Repeated Markets? An Experimental Demonstration of Context-Dependent Valuations. Experimental Economics, 13(1), 1–13. 10.1007/ s10683-009-9226-8 [Google Scholar]
  39. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–31. 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 [Google Scholar]
  40. Vickrey, W. (1961). Counterspeculation, Auctions, and Competitive Sealed Bids. Journal of Finance, 16, 8–37. 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1961.tb02789.x [Google Scholar]
  41. Wegener, D.T., Petty, R.E., Detweiler-Bedell, B.T., Jarvis, W.B.G. (2001). Implications of attitude change theories for numerical anchoring: Anchor plausibility and the limits of anchor effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(1), 62–69. [Google Scholar]
  42. 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. [Google Scholar]
  43. Yoon, S., Fong, N. M., Dimoka, A. (2019). The robustness of anchoring effects on preferential judgments. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(4), 470. [Google Scholar]

Kompletne metadane

Cytowanie zasobu

APA style

Brzozowicz, Magdalena (2020). Siła zakotwiczenia w zadaniach związanych z wyceną produktu. (2020). Siła zakotwiczenia w zadaniach związanych z wyceną produktu. Decyzje, (33), 5-24. https://doi.org/10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.138 (Original work published 8/2020n.e.)

MLA style

Brzozowicz, Magdalena. „Siła Zakotwiczenia W Zadaniach Związanych Z Wyceną Produktu”. 8/2020n.e. Decyzje, nr 33, 2020, ss. 5-24.

Chicago style

Brzozowicz, Magdalena. „Siła Zakotwiczenia W Zadaniach Związanych Z Wyceną Produktu”. Decyzje, Decyzje, nr 33 (2020): 5-24. doi:10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.138.

Prawa autorskie

copyright info

CC-BY

Podobne artykuły:

Brak podobnych.