Hannah Perfecto

Anchoring in Payment: Evaluating a Judgmental Heuristic in Field Experimental Settings

Anchoring, the biasing of estimates toward a previously considered value, is a long-standing and oft-studied phenomenon in consumer research. However, most anchoring work has been in the lab, and the results from field work have been mixed. Here, the authors use real transactions from an empirically investigated and commercially-employed pricing scheme (“pay what you want”) to better understand how anchors influence payments. Sixteen field studies (N = 21,997) and four hypothetical studies (N = 3,174) reveal four main points: (1) Although anchoring replicates both with and without financial consequences (Studies 1–2), the percentile rank gap between anchors in the distribution of payments is a much stronger predictor of anchoring emerging than merely the absolute gap between the anchors on a number line (Studies 3–5). (2) Low anchors influence payments more than high anchors (Studies 6a–b). (3) Findings from the literature that should enhance anchoring effects—anchor precision, descriptive and injunctive norms, nonsuggestions—yield null results in payment (Studies 7–13). (4) The above patterns do not emerge in hypothetical settings (Studies 14a–d), in which anchoring is as big and reliable as the literature has previously suggested.

Rejecting a bad option feels like choosing a good one.

Across 4,151 participants, the authors demonstrate a novel framing effect, attribute matching, whereby matching a salient attribute of a decision frame with that of a decision’s options facilitates decision-making. This attribute matching is shown to increase decision confidence and, ultimately, consensus estimates by increasing feelings of metacognitive ease. In Study 1, participants choosing the more attractive of two faces or rejecting the less attractive face reported greater confidence in and perceived consensus around their decision. Using positive and negative words, Study 2 showed that the attribute’s extremity moderates the size of the effect. Study 3 found decision ease mediates these changes in confidence and consensus estimates. Consistent with a misattribution account, when participants were warned about this external source of ease in Study 4, the effect disappeared. Study 5 extended attribute matching beyond valence to objective judgments. The authors conclude by discussing related psychological constructs as well as downstream consequences.