.png){kind=logo}
ISSN : 1229-8778
The purpose of this study is to specify how consumers make final judgments of prices between two different standards, externally-provided anchor and self-generated anchor. In addition, two other factors were applied, plausibility of anchor and self-monitoring. The first dependent variable was Willing to Pay(WTP) and three-way ANOVA was conducted. As a result, it was shown that as more as the external anchor is implausible, the anchoring effect increased. Also, low self-monitors were more susceptible to the external anchor than high self-monitors. Moreover, as was the case with the two-way interaction effect of self-generated anchor and self-monitoring, the three-way interaction effect of self-generated anchor, self-monitoring and plausibility of the external anchor was significant. Subsequently, the three-way ANOVA using the amount of adjustment as a dependent variable was carried out to find out the psychological mechanism based on the anchoring effect. The result showed that the more implausible the external anchor became, the more the amount of adjustment increased, and low self-monitors adjusted less from the external anchor than high self-monitors. Furthermore, like the first analysis, not only the two-way interaction between self-generated anchor and self-monitoring but the three-way interaction among self-generated anchor, self-monitoring and plausibility of the external anchor was significant.
양 윤 (2003). 인지욕구와 자기감시가 제품속성에 대한 반응시간에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 소비자․광고, 4(1), 25-40.
Adaval, R., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (2011). Conscious and nonconscious comparisons with price anchors: Effects on willingness to pay for related and unrelated products. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(2), 355-365.
Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational (p. 20). New York: HarperCollins.
Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 79, 1-39.
Critcher, C. R., & Gilovich, T. (2008). Incidental environmental anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(3), 241-251.
Englich, B., & Soder, K., (2009). Moody experts: How mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring. Judgmental and Decision Making, 4, 41-50.
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.
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Are adjustments insufficient? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 447-460.
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2005). When effortful thinking influences judgmental anchoring: Differential effects of forewarning and incentives on self-generated and externally provided anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 199-212.
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring- and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17(4), 311-318.
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2010). Anchoring unbound. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 20-24.
Eroglu, C., & Croxton, K. L. (2010). Biases in judgmental adjustments of statistical forecasts: the role of individual differences. International Journal of Forecasting 26, 116–133.
Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 35-42.
Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 530-555.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
McElroy, T., & Dowd, K. (2007). Susceptibility to anchoring effects: How openness to experience influences responses to anchoring cues. Judgment and Decision Making 2, 48-53.
Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999a). Comparing is believing: A selective accessibility model of judgmental anchoring. European Review of Social Psychology, 10(1), 135-167.
Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999b). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(2), 136-164.
Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). The use of category and exemplar knowledge in the solution of anchoring tasks. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(6), 1038.
Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2001a). Considering the impossible: Explaining the effects of implausible anchors. Social Cognition, 19(2), 145-160.
Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2001b). The semantics of anchoring. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 234-255.
Novemsky, N., & Kahneman, D. (2005). The boundaries of loss aversion. Journal of Marketing Research 42(2), 119-128.
Parks-Leduc, L., Pattie, M. W., Pargas, F., & Eliason, R. G. (2014). Self-monitoring as an aggregate construct: Relationships with personality and values. Personality and Individual Differences, 58, 3-8.
Shahrabani, S., Benzion, U., & Shavit, T. (2008). WTP and WTA in competitive and non-competitive environments. Judgment and Decision Making 3(2), 153-161.
Simonson, I., & Drolet, A. (2004). Anchoring effects on consumers’ willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 681-690.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526-537.
Snyder, M., & DeBono, K. G. (1985). Appeals to image and claims about quality: Understanding the psychology of advertising. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 586-597.
Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 125-139.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94, 672–695.
Stayman, D. M., & Kardes, F. R. (1992). Spontaneous inference processes in advertising: Effects of need for cognition and self-monitoring on inference generation and utilization. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(2), 125-142.
Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 437-446.
Urbany, J. E., Bearden W. O., & Weilbaker, D. C. (1988). The effect of plausible and exaggerated reference prices on consumer perceptions and price search. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(1), 95-110.
Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Blankenship, K. L., & Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2010a). Elaboration and numerical anchoring: Breadth, depth, and the role of (non-)thoughtful processes in anchoring theories. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 28-32.
Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Blankenship, K. L., & Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2010b). Elaboration and numerical anchoring: Implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 5-16.
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.
Wolk, A., & Spann, M. (2008). The effects of reference prices on bidding behavior in interactive pricing mechanisms. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22(4), 2-18.
Wu, C. S., Cheng, F. F., & Yen, D. C. (2012). The role of Internet buyer’s product familiarity and confidence in anchoring effect. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(9), 829-838.