The Effect of Multiple Anchors on Anchoring in Individual and Group Judgment

Abstract

This article examines whether the availability of multiple anchors reduces anchoring induced bias in individual and group judgment. Based on earlier research, it was unclear whether multiple anchors would mitigate anchoring effects. This issue was investigated in the context of a two-party, single issue negotiation. ANOVA revealed that an unreliable anchor introduced just before the negotiation was to occur was sufficient to induce substantial anchoring effects that were as large for groups as they were for individuals. This pattern was equally apparent in the judgments of MBA students (n= 105) and experienced managers (n= 135). Initial offers, aspiration levels, and bottom lines were all affected even though relevant anchors such as information about the certain financial consequences associated with a failure to reach a negotiated agreement were provided. An analysis based on social decision scheme theory suggests that groups did not debias individual judgment because groups did not use anchoring and adjustment to make estimates. Rather, group decisions reflected the majority point of view as it existed at the outset of group discussion. If no majority existed, groups tended to reach consensus by averaging the pre-group estimates of individuals. Implications of these findings for anchoring theory are discussed.