POST-CHOICE ANCHORING EFFECT

Post-choice anchoring effect

Tim Parsons
Sociology 3500
Jennifer Triplett
Clemson University
8 April 2014

POST-CHOICE ANCHORING EFFECT

2

Abstract: I believe that inversing the anchoring affect will be able to alter the judgment of
subjects the same way the anchoring effect normally changes its subjects judgment. I believe
that reversing this effect showing the audience only three choices and then later revealing that
same audience an extra choice that is very similar to one of the original three choices, but not as
superior will lead to similar results of normal anchoring. The expected results are that the
audience will pick the anchored result on the second survey and that a small portion of the group
will regret their initial decision.

POST-CHOICE ANCHORING EFFECT

3

Introduction: To begin, the purpose of this study is to determine whether inversing the
anchoring effect will affect an audience the same way the anchoring effect originally works. My
proposal will consist of using multiple student groups from around the Clemson University
campus to pick from a list of three very different options. After a brief period of time, the same
three options with an additional option which would anchor one of the three options would be
present to determine how much of each group regrets their original choice and to see how many
of them change their previous decision. My interest stemmed from Dan Ariely, a Psychology
teacher at Duke University, when he spoke at a Technology, Education, Design conference that
involved the basic effects of the anchoring effect.
An anchor is a reference point in the judgment context (a list of options) that is associated
either with the stimulus scale or with the response scale (Markovsky, 1988). With this, there are
two different kinds of anchoring. One is an assimilation effect, when the judgment is biased
toward an anchor. The other is a contrast effect, when the judgment is biased away from an
anchor (Markovsky, 1988). For a simplified version, I will provide an example. Suppose you
have the option to go to California or go to Miami, Florida, both free of expenses. Obviously,
there is not an anchor imposed on the two options, and so the percentage of both options should
be somewhat equal. Now let us suppose there was an additional option added to this that said that
you could go to California, but you had to pay for all of the food you eat and hotel expenses. It is
obvious that you would not pick this additional option, but you would not notice that this option
is actually anchoring the original California option, making it look superior. The result of this
would make the original California option be picked by the majority just because it can be
compared and looks superior to the reference point.

POST-CHOICE ANCHORING EFFECT

4

One prominent study of anchoring with the contrast effect was done by Helson with a
series of weights. He would have his subjects have one object in each hand. The subject would
judge how much the second object weighed. At first, the object not being judged would be of
similar weight to the object being judged. The subject would then be given the same object, but
the object not being judged would be much lighter. According to the subjects, the object that the
subjects judged at first weighed considerably lighter than the second object that they weighed
(Helson, 1947). This study was one of the first anchoring experiments that used the contrast
effect and shows how impactful a reference point can be when we try to make a decision.
Another well-known study was carried out by Pepitone and DiNubile. They, like Helson,
used the contrast effects with the judgments of crime severity. A homicide was judged to be a
more severe criminal violation when subjects judged the seriousness of an assault case just
preceding it than when the same homicide was preceded by another homicide. Similarly, if an
assault case was judged less serious when preceded by a homicide than when it was preceded by
an assault (Pepitone et al., 1976). In this study, they determined that the magnitude of the
punishment, moral character, and personal adaptability were higher or lower depending upon the
direction of the contrasted seriousness judgments (Pepitone et al., 1976).
Another classic example of anchoring was done by Rubin, Ware, and Helson. They
utilized the anchoring effect with pitch-localization. They had a controlled tone, a higher anchor
(HA) which was at a high pitch, and a lower anchor (LA) which was at a lower pitch (Rubin et
al.). The HA and LA were both the same distance on a geometric scale from the controlled tone.
The controlled tone was always played first, followed by either the HA or LA. The subjects
would write down their judgments of the first pitch. As expected, when the HA was played after
the controlled tone, the subjects would write down that the controlled tone was higher than what

POST-CHOICE ANCHORING EFFECT

5

it actually was. Similarly, when the LA was played after the controlled tone, the subjects would
write down that the controlled tone was lower than was it actually was.
To sum most of this up, anchoring is a very real effect and can skew anyones judgment
on whatever they are judging. I believe that doing an experiment opposite to what these
previously mentioned can result in the same anchoring effects and with a small portion of the
subjects regretting their initial decision.

Hypothesis: A post-choice anchor (independent variable) will affect an audiences outcome

(dependent variable) and make a portion regret their original decision in the anchoring direction.

Methods: To make things more simplistic and easier to analyze, I believe that using two surveys
on various student groups will be the most effective way to gather results. I would recruit about
ten different student groups that consist of about ten students in each group. The first survey
given to each group will have three options, none of which anchor each other. After thirty
minutes, each group will be given the exact same survey but with an additional option added to
the survey they were initially given. This additional option will anchor one of the original
options. There are two main goals in this experiment to see whether the groups regret their
original decision and to see if there is a significant change from the first and second times the
groups chose an option.
Each group will be asked a question about their membership with a website that one can
order items off of (like Amazon, Ebay, etc.). They will initially be asked these three options:

POST-CHOICE ANCHORING EFFECT

6

1. 1-month membership no other benefits; $7.99 per month ($7.99 total recurring)
2. 6-month membership no other benefits; $5.99 per month ($36.00 total)
3. 12-month membership additional benefits (free shipping, no ads, etc.); $3.99 per
month ($48.00 total)
Once the groups wait thirty minutes, they will then be given a survey with these options:
1.
2.
3.
4.

1-month membership no other benefits; $7.99 per month ($7.99 total)

6-month membership no other benefits; $5.99 per month ($36.00 total)
12-month membership no other benefits; $3.99 per month ($48.00 total)
12-month membership additional benefits (free shipping, no ads, etc.); $3.99 per
month ($48.00 total)

I believe that the results of the first survey will be mixed as nothing in it is anchored. The results
of the second survey, however, will be more inclined to pick the 12-month membership with
additional benefits. Once each group finishes the first survey, they will be asked if they regret
their original decision. Those who switched their original answer to the 12-month membership
with additional benefits option on the second survey would be asked why they changed their
decision.
In conclusion, I would expect that this post-choice (rather than the original pre-choice)
anchoring technique would be just as effective as the original anchoring effect. If the actual
results of this experiment prove to be successful, this technique can then be applied to companies
that offer options that are not already anchored to customers.

References

POST-CHOICE ANCHORING EFFECT

7

Helson, H. (1947). The american journal of psychology. 60(1), 1-29. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1417326?seq=5
Markovsky, B. (1988). Social psychology quarterly. 51(1), 213-224. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786920
Pepitone, A., & DiNubile, M. (1976). Contrast effects in judgments of crime severity and the
punishment of criminal violators. 33(4), 448-459.
Rubin, E. D., Ware, M. E., & Helson, H. (1966). Anchor-effects in pitch-localization. 79(3), 458463. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1420887