IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jorgde/v13y2024i2d10.1007_s41469-023-00162-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of social network structure on group anchoring bias

Author

Listed:
  • Giulia Palombi

    (Sapienza University of Rome)

  • Fabio Nonino

    (Sapienza University of Rome)

  • Stephen P. Borgatti

    (University of Kentucky)

Abstract

Decisions—whether made by individuals or groups—often involve estimating quantities, a process that is subject to anchoring bias (Tversky and Kahneman in Science 185: 1124–1131, 1974). Differences in susceptibility to anchoring bias between individuals and groups have been recently explored with the result that groups appear less biased than individuals (Meub and Proeger in Theor Decis 85:117–150, 2018). However, existing studies treat groups monolithically without taking into account their network structure—the pattern of relationships among members. The present paper investigates the effects of group social network structure on anchoring bias. Using a structured survey instrument, we gathered data on competence-based trust relationships among 264 students enrolled in a university degree program. An anchoring experiment was conducted in which some of the students made estimates as individuals, while others did so in groups of different structures. The findings provide initial evidence of differences in bias levels across variously structured groups as well as relative to individuals. Groups with highly centralized trust networks (where a single person owned everyone’s trust) showed more anchoring bias than dense groups (where everyone trusted everyone else) and sparse groups (where no one trusted any other member of the group) showed more bias than dense groups. In addition, despite previous research demonstrating groups are less susceptible than individuals to anchoring bias, this study shows a higher presence of bias in both our centralized groups and sparse groups when compared to individuals, suggesting that group structure might moderate the mitigating effect of groups on anchoring bias. The research has implications for organizational behavior and social network literature. Specifically, this study contributes to the debate on anchoring bias for group decisions by highlighting the significant role of social network structure. At the same time, it contributes to the literature on network structure and performance by providing initial evidence of how network structure affects anchoring bias susceptibility. Moreover, our study contributes to management practice by alerting managers to the dangers of centralized networks, suggesting that competence-based trust plays a vital role in the resistance to anchoring bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Giulia Palombi & Fabio Nonino & Stephen P. Borgatti, 2024. "The effect of social network structure on group anchoring bias," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 13(2), pages 33-44, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jorgde:v:13:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s41469-023-00162-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s41469-023-00162-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41469-023-00162-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41469-023-00162-w?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wolk, Agnieszka & Spann, Martin, 2008. "The effects of reference prices on bidding behavior in interactive pricing mechanisms," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 2-18.
    2. Thomas W. Valente & Rebecca L. Davis, 1999. "Accelerating the Diffusion of Innovations Using Opinion Leaders," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 566(1), pages 55-67, November.
    3. Furnham, Adrian & Boo, Hua Chu, 2011. "A literature review of the anchoring effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 35-42, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Seres, Gyula, 2021. "Are strategies anchored?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    2. Tanya O’Garra & Matthew R Sisco, 2020. "The effect of anchors and social information on behaviour," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, April.
    3. Ahmetoglu, Gorkan & Furnham, Adrian & Fagan, Patrick, 2014. "Pricing practices: A critical review of their effects on consumer perceptions and behaviour," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 696-707.
    4. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    5. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    6. Scott Fay & Robert Zeithammer, 2017. "Bidding for Bidders? How the Format for Soliciting Supplier Participation in NYOP Auctions Impacts Channel Profit," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(12), pages 4324-4344, December.
    7. Siddiqi, Hammad, 2015. "Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic: A Unified Explanation for Equity Puzzles," MPRA Paper 68729, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Labro, Eva & Lang, Mark & Omartian, James D., 2023. "Predictive analytics and centralization of authority," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1).
    9. Weisstein, Fei L. & Kukar-Kinney, Monika & Monroe, Kent B., 2016. "Determinants of consumers' response to pay-what-you-want pricing strategy on the Internet," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4313-4320.
    10. Sang-June Park & Youjae Yi, 2016. "Performance-only measures vs. performance-expectation measures of service quality," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(15-16), pages 741-756, December.
    11. Melinda Craike & Bojana Klepac & Amy Mowle & Therese Riley, 2023. "Theory of systems change: An initial, middle-range theory of public health research impact," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 603-621.
    12. Edwards, Chase J. & Bendickson, Joshua S. & Baker, Brent L. & Solomon, Shelby J., 2020. "Entrepreneurship within the history of marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 259-267.
    13. Christian Koch, 2021. "Can reference points explain wage rigidity? Experimental evidence," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 55(1), pages 1-17, December.
    14. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till E., 2015. "Anchoring in social context," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 29-39.
    15. Eva Labro & Mark Lang & Jim Omartian, 2019. "Predictive Analytics and Organizational Architecture: Plant-Level Evidence from Census Data," Working Papers 19-02, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    16. Yang, Guang & Huang, Ruixian & Shi, Yukun & Jia, Zhehao, 2021. "Does a CEO's private reputation impede corporate governance?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    17. Alistair Munro & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Green Goods: Are They Good or Bad News for the Environment? Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment on Impure Public Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(2), pages 317-335, October.
    18. Chen, Yahong & Li, Jinlin & Huang, He & Ran, Lun & Hu, Yusheng, 2017. "Encouraging information sharing to boost the name-your-own-price auction," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 479(C), pages 108-117.
    19. Jetter, Michael & Walker, Jay K., 2020. "At what age does the anchoring heuristic emerge? Evidence from Jeopardy!," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 757-766.
    20. Papyrakis, Elissaios & Parcero, Osiris Jorge, 2022. "The psychology of mineral wealth: Empirical evidence from Kazakhstan," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).

    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:spr:jorgde:v:13:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s41469-023-00162-w. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.