en pl
en pl


Show issue
Year 8/2020 
Issue 33

The robustness of the anchoring effect in valuation tasks

Magdalena Brzozowicz
University of Warsaw

8/2020 (33) Decyzje

DOI 10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.138


I examined the robustness of the anchoring effect with respect to the method of valuation, type of anchor and the availability of information about the presented product. In four different laboratory experiments, I elicited consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for cosmetic product manipulating anchoring conditions (low vs. high anchor or no anchor vs. high anchor). I observed that only the market anchor (the real price of a similar product) had an impact on WTP. I also found that the strength of the anchoring effect is lower in incentivised
valuation tasks compared to hypothetical anchoring questions (I observed a significant anchoring effect only in experiment with declarative valuations). My findings suggest that the robustness of the anchoring effect is limited.


  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]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Brzozowicz, Magdalena (2020). The robustness of the anchoring effect in valuation tasks. (2020). The robustness of the anchoring effect in valuation tasks. Decyzje, (33), 5-24. https://doi.org/10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.138 (Original work published 8/2020AD)

MLA style

Brzozowicz, Magdalena. “The Robustness Of The Anchoring Effect In Valuation Tasks”. 8/2020AD. Decyzje, no. 33, 2020, pp. 5-24.

Chicago style

Brzozowicz, Magdalena. “The Robustness Of The Anchoring Effect In Valuation Tasks”. Decyzje, Decyzje, no. 33 (2020): 5-24. doi:10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.138.