IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v162y2019icp49-65.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anchoring in project duration estimation

Author

Listed:
  • Lorko, Matej
  • Servátka, Maroš
  • Zhang, Le

Abstract

The success of a business project often relies on the accuracy of its schedule. Inaccurate and overoptimistic schedules can lead to significant project failures. In this paper, we explore whether the presence of anchors, such as relatively uninformed suggestions or expectations of the duration of project tasks, play a role in the project estimating and planning process. Our laboratory experiment contributes to the methodology of investigating the robustness and persistence of the anchoring effect in the following ways: (1) we investigate the anchoring effect by comparing the behavior in low and high anchor treatments with a control treatment where no anchor is present; (2) we provide a more accurate measurement by incentivizing participants to provide their best duration estimates; (3) we test the persistence of the anchoring effect over a longer horizon; (4) we evaluate the anchoring effect also on retrospective estimates. We find strong anchoring effects and systematic estimation biases that do not vanish even after the task is repeatedly estimated and executed. In addition, we find that such persisting biases can be caused not only by externally provided anchors, but also by the planner's own initial estimate.

Suggested Citation

  • Lorko, Matej & Servátka, Maroš & Zhang, Le, 2019. "Anchoring in project duration estimation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 49-65.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:162:y:2019:i:c:p:49-65
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2019.04.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268119301180
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.04.014?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Woods, Daniel & Servátka, Maroš, 2016. "Testing psychological forward induction and the updating of beliefs in the lost wallet game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 116-125.
    2. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    3. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    4. Davis, Harry L & Hoch, Stephen J & Ragsdale, E K Easton, 1986. "An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of Spousal Predictions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(1), pages 25-37, June.
    5. Josephs, Robert A. & Hahn, Eugene D., 1995. "Bias and Accuracy in Estimates of Task Duration," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 202-213, February.
    6. Smith, Vernon L, 1991. "Rational Choice: The Contrast between Economics and Psychology," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(4), pages 877-897, August.
    7. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    8. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 73-106.
    9. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Chapman, Gretchen B. & Johnson, Eric J., 1999. "Anchoring, Activation, and the Construction of Values, , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 115-153, August.
    12. Jonathan E. Alevy & Craig E. Landry & John A. List, 2015. "Field Experiments On The Anchoring Of Economic Valuations," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 53(3), pages 1522-1538, July.
    13. Ritov, Ilana, 1996. "Anchoring in Simulated Competitive Market Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 16-25, July.
    14. Holt, Charles A, 1986. "Preference Reversals and the Independence Axiom," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(3), pages 508-515, June.
    15. Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 296-312, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. C. Mónica Capra & Bing Jiang & Yuxin Su, 2022. "Do pledges lead to more volunteering? An experimental study," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(1), pages 87-100, January.
    2. Lorko, Matej & Servátka, Maroš & Zhang, Le, 2023. "Hidden inefficiency: Strategic inflation of project schedules," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 313-326.
    3. Matej Lorko & Maroš Servátka & Le Zhang, 2021. "Improving the Accuracy of Project Schedules," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(6), pages 1633-1646, June.
    4. Hsiao, Yu-Chin & Kemp, Simon & Servátka, Maroš & Ward, Matt & Zhang, Le, 2021. "Time Costs and Search Behavior," MPRA Paper 105412, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Wang, Shixuan & Syntetos, Aris A. & Liu, Ying & Di Cairano-Gilfedder, Carla & Naim, Mohamed M., 2023. "Improving automotive garage operations by categorical forecasts using a large number of variables," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 893-908.
    6. Bahník, Štěpán & Yoon, Sangsuk, 2023. "Anchoring effect in business," OSF Preprints 98qdv, Center for Open Science.
    7. Magdalena Brzozowicz & Michał Krawczyk, 2020. "Honey, Mugs and Caricatures: anchors on prices of consumer goods only hold hypothetically," Working Papers 2020-40, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    8. Lorko, Matej & Servátka, Maroš & Zhang, Le, 2019. "How to Improve the Accuracy of Project Schedules? The Effect of Project Specification and Historical Information on Duration Estimates," MPRA Paper 95585, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Magdalena Brzozowicz & Michał Krawczyk, 2022. "Anchors on prices of consumer goods only hold when decisions are hypothetical," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, January.

    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. Lorko, Matej & Servátka, Maroš & Zhang, Le, 2019. "How to Improve the Accuracy of Project Schedules? The Effect of Project Specification and Historical Information on Duration Estimates," MPRA Paper 95585, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Lorko, Matej & Servátka, Maroš & Zhang, Le, 2023. "Hidden inefficiency: Strategic inflation of project schedules," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 313-326.
    3. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till, 2014. "Are groups 'less behavioral'? The case of anchoring," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 188, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    4. Matej Lorko & Maroš Servátka & Le Zhang, 2021. "Improving the Accuracy of Project Schedules," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(6), pages 1633-1646, June.
    5. Galliera, Arianna, 2018. "Self-selecting random or cumulative pay? A bargaining experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 106-120.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Francesca Gioia, 2017. "Peer effects on risk behaviour: the importance of group identity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 100-129, March.
    9. Lukas Meub & Till Proeger, 2018. "Are groups ‘less behavioral’? The case of anchoring," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(2), pages 117-150, August.
    10. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "Anchoring: A valid explanation for biased forecasts when rational predictions are easily accessible and well incentivized?," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 166, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    11. Noemí Herranz-Zarzoso & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2018. "Framing and repetition effects on risky choices: A behavioral approach," Working Papers 2018/04, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    12. Roxane Bricet, 2018. "Preferences for information precision under ambiguity," THEMA Working Papers 2018-09, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    13. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    14. Kairies-Schwarz, Nadja & Kokot, Johanna & Vomhof, Markus & Weßling, Jens, 2017. "Health insurance choice and risk preferences under cumulative prospect theory – an experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 374-397.
    15. Fochmann, Martin & Müller, Nadja & Overesch, Michael, 2018. "Less cheating? The effects of prefilled forms on compliance behavior," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 227, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    16. Yi Li, 2021. "The ABC mechanism: an incentive compatible payoff mechanism for elicitation of outcome and probability transformations," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 1019-1046, September.
    17. Bernasconi, Michele & Bernhofer, Juliana, 2020. "Catch Me If You Can: Testing the reduction of compound lotteries axiom in a tax compliance experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    18. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till, 2016. "Are groups 'less behavioral'? The case of anchoring," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 188 [rev.], University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    19. Yigit Oezcelik & Michel Tolksdorf, 2023. "Non-numerical and social anchoring in consumer-generated ratings," Working Papers 202319, University of Liverpool, Department of Economics.
    20. Brown, Alexander L. & Healy, Paul J., 2018. "Separated decisions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 20-34.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Project management; Project planning; Time management; Anchors; Anchoring effect; Task duration; Duration estimation; Time estimation; Anchoring bias;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • D92 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Intertemporal Firm Choice, Investment, Capacity, and Financing
    • O21 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Planning Models; Planning Policy
    • O22 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Project Analysis

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:jeborg:v:162:y:2019:i:c:p:49-65. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    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.