IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v27y2007i2p203-211.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on the Judgments and Choices of Doctors and Patients

Author

Listed:
  • Noel T. Brewer

    (Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, ntb1@unc.edu)

  • Gretchen B. Chapman

    (Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, Camden, NJ)

  • Janet A. Schwartz

    (Woodrow Wilson School of International and Public Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ)

  • George R. Bergus

    (Departments of Family Medicine and Psychiatry, College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City)

Abstract

Background. Little research has examined how anchor numbers affect choice, despite several decades of research showing that judgments typically and robustly assimilate toward irrelevant anchors. Methods. In one experiment, HIV-positive patients ( N = 99) judged the chances that sexual partners would become infected with HIV after sex using a defective condom and then indicated their choices of remedial action. In a second experiment, Iowa physicians ( N = 191) rated the chances that hypothetical patients had a pulmonary embolism and then formulated a treatment plan. Results. Irrelevant anchor numbers dramatically affected judgments by HIV-infected patients of the chances of HIV infection after a condom broke during sex (43% v. 64% in the low- and high-anchor conditions, respectively) and judgments by doctors of the chances of pulmonary embolism (23% v. 53%, respectively). Despite large anchoring effects in judgement, treatment choices did not differ between low-and high-anchor conditions. Accountability did not reduce the anchoring bias in the doctors' judgments. Discussion. The practical implications of anchoring for risk judgments are potentially large, but the bias may be less relevant to treatment choices. The findings suggest that the theoretical underpinnings of the anchoring bias may be more complex than previously thought. Key words: anchoring bias; assimilation effect; contrast effect; risk perception. (Med Decis Making 2007; 27: 203—211)

Suggested Citation

  • Noel T. Brewer & Gretchen B. Chapman & Janet A. Schwartz & George R. Bergus, 2007. "The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on the Judgments and Choices of Doctors and Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(2), pages 203-211, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:2:p:203-211
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06298595
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X06298595
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X06298595?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chen Benjamin Minhao & Li Zhiyu, 2018. "The Foundations of Judicial Diffusion in China: Evidence from an Experiment," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(3), pages 1-27, November.
    2. Nathan N. Cheek & Sarah Coe-Odess & Barry Schwartz, 2015. "What have I just done? Anchoring, self-knowledge, and judgments of recent behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(1), pages 76-85, January.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:1:p:76-85 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Ibrahim Senay & Kimberly A. Kaphingst, 2009. "Anchoring-and-Adjustment Bias in Communication of Disease Risk," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(2), pages 193-201, March.
    5. Lijie Shan & Shusai Wang & Linhai Wu & Fu-Sheng Tsai, 2019. "Cognitive Biases of Consumers’ Risk Perception of Foodborne Diseases in China: Examining Anchoring Effect," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-14, June.
    6. Egginton, Jared & Hur, Jungshik, 2018. "The robust “maximum daily return effect as demand for lottery” and “idiosyncratic volatility puzzle”," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 229-245.
    7. Mochon, Daniel & Frederick, Shane, 2013. "Anchoring in sequential judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 69-79.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:2:p:203-211. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.