바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.25 No.3
Citation Share

If 'Who' Thinks So: The Impacts of Source Credibility on Anchoring Effects

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2011, v.25 no.3, pp.47-60
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2011.25.3.004




& (2011). If 'Who' Thinks So: The Impacts of Source Credibility on Anchoring Effects. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 25(3), 47-60, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2011.25.3.004
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

Anchoring effect refers to the phenomenon that judgments under uncertainty are likely to be influenced too much by numerical information given in advance. The previous efforts that investigated underlying mechanisms of the anchoring effects were relatively cognitive-oriented and have mostly ignored the interpersonal and social factors. But the contexts in which the anchoring effects occur involve always at least two real or hypothetical persons, information giver and receiver. The present study examined the role of source credibility (how credible the person who provides the anchoring information is) in anchoring effects. A pretest adapted from Jacowitz & Kahneman (1995) was conducted to selected the issue items that showed the biggest anchoring effects in Korea. In Study 1 of computer-administrated experiment, participants first made their own ranks potential source persons with various jobs on expertise for each issue and then made their own judgments on the issues when given anchoring information either from highly credible sources or low credible sources. As expected, the information given by high credible sources caused larger anchoring effects than that by low credible sources. In order to ruling out the possibility of demand characteristics, Study 2 replicated the finding by employing a between-subject design. Those findings were discussed suggesting the social and interpersonal perspective for understanding the anchoring effect.

keywords
anchoring effect, source credibility, uncertainty, judgmental bias, interpersonal factors, 거점효과, 출처 신빙성, 불확실성, 판단오류, 대인적 요인

Reference

1.

이종성, 강계남, 김양분, 강상진 (2007). 사회과학 연구를 위한 통계방법, 제4판. 서울: 박영사.

2.

Anderson, K. E., & Clevenger, T. (1963). Asummary of experimental research in ethos.Speech Monographs, 30, 59-78.

3.

Benoit, W. L. (1991) A cognitive response analysisof source credibility. Progress in CommunicationSciences, 10, 1-19.

4.

Berscheid, E. (1985). Interpersonal attraction.Handbook of Social Psychology, 2, 413-484.

5.

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physicalattractiveness. Advances in Experimental SocialPsychology, 7, 157-215.

6.

Cervone, D. & Peake, P. K. (1986). Anchoring,efficacy, and action: The influence of judgmentalheuristics on self-efficacy judgments andbehavior. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 50, 492-501.

7.

Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physicalattractiveness and persuasion. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 37, 1387-1397.

8.

Chapman, G. B. & Johnson, E. J. (1994). The limitsof anchoring. Journal of Behavioral DecisionMaking, 7, 223-242.

9.

Chertkoff, J. M., & Conley, M. (1967). Opening offerand frequency of concession as bargainingstrategies. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 7, 181-185.

10.

Englich, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencingunder uncertainty: Anchoring effects in thecourtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,31, 1535-1551.

11.

Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2005). When effortfulthinking influences judgmental anchoring:Differential effects of forewarning and incentiveson self-generated and externally providedanchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,18, 199-212.

12.

Epley. N. (2004). A tale of tuned decks? Anchoringas accessibility and anchoring as adjustment,Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and DecisionMaking, Chapter 12, 241-257.

13.

Hass, R. G. (1981). Effects of source characteristicson cognitive responses and persuasion. In R. E.Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.),Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

14.

Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measuresof anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161-1166.

15.

Janiszewski, C., & Uy, D. (2008). Precision of theanchor influences the amount of adjustment.Psychological Sciences, 19, 121-127.

16.

Kahle, L. R., & Homer, P. M. (1985). Physicalattractiveness of the celebrity endorser: A socialadaptation perspective. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 11, 954-961.

17.

LeBoeuf, R. A., & Shafir, E. (2009). Anchoring onthe “Here” and “Now” in time and distance judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology,35, 81-93.

18.

Liebert, R. M., Smith, W. P., Hill, J. H., & Keiffer,M. (1968). The effects of information andmagnitude of initial offer on interpersonalnegotiation. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 4, 431-441.

19.

McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes andattitude change. Handbook of Social Psychology,3, 136-314.

20.

Mussweiler, T. & Strack, F. (2000) Numericjudgment under uncertainty: The role ofknowledge in anchoring. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 36, 495-518.

21.

Mussweiler, T. & Strack, F. (2001). “Considering theimpossible”: Explaining the effects of implausibleanchors. Social Cognition, 19, 145-160.

22.

Northcraft, G. B. & Neale, M. A. (1987). Experts,amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-andadjustmentperspective on property pricingdecisions. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 39, 84-97.

23.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Issueinvolvement as a moderator of the effects onattitude of advertising content and context.Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 20-24.

24.

Qu, C., Wang, J., & Luo, Y. (2008). Inconspicuousanchoring effects generated by false information.Progress in Natural Science, 18(11), 1375-1382.

25.

Quattrone, G. A., Lawrence, C. P., Finkel, S. E., &Andrus, D. C. (1981). Explorations in anchoring:The effects of prior range, anchor extremity, andsuggestive hints. Unpublished manuscript,Stanford University.

26.

Quattrone, G. A. (1982). Overattribution and unitformation: When behavior engulfs the person.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,42, 593-607.

27.

Strack, F. & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining theenigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms ofselective accessibility. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 73, 437-446.

28.

Sternthal, B., Dholakia, R., & Leavitt, C. (1978). Thepersuasive effect of source credibility: Asituational analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly,42, 285-314.

29.

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgmentunder uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science,185, 1124-30.

30.

Walster, E., Aronson, E., & Abrahams, D. (1966). Onincreasing the persuasiveness of a low prestigecommunicator. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 2, 325-342.

31.

Wansink, B., Kent, R. J., & Hoch, S. J. (1998). Ananchoring and adjustment model of purchasequantity decisions. Journal of MarketingResearch, 35, 71-81.

32.

Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B.T., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (2001). Implications ofattitude change theories for numerical anchoring:Anchor plausibility and the limits of anchoreffectiveness. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 37, 62-69.

33.

Wegener. D. T., Petty, R. E., Blankenship, K. L., &Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2010). Elaboration andnumerical anchoring: Implications of attitudetheories for consumer judgment and decisionmaking. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20,5-6.

34.

Wilson, E. J., & Sherrell, D. L. (1993). Source effectsin communication and persuasion research: Ameta-analysis of effect size. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 21, 101-112.

35.

Wong, K. F. E., & Kwong, J. Y. Y. (2000). Is 7300mequal to 7.3km? Same semantics but differentanchoring effects. Organizational Behavior &Human Decision Processes, 82, 314-333.

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy