Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Are groups 'less behavioral'? The case of anchoring

Contents:

Author Info

  • Meub, Lukas
  • Proeger, Till
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Economic small group research points to groups as more rational decision-makers in numerous economic situations. However, no attempts have been made to investigate whether groups are affected similarly by behavioral biases that are pervasive for individuals. If groups were also able to more effectively avoid these biases, the relevance of biases in actual economic contexts dominated by group decision-making might be questioned. We consider the case of anchoring as a prime example of a well-established, robust bias. Individual and group biasedness in three economically relevant domains are compared: factual knowledge, probability estimates and price estimates. In contrast to previous anchoring studies, we find groups to successfully reduce, albeit not eliminate, anchoring in factual knowledge tasks. For the other domains, groups and individuals are equally biased by external anchors. We thus suggest that group cooperation reduces biases prevalent on the individual level for predominantly intellective tasks, yet fails to improve decision-making when judgmental aspects are involved. --

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/92934/1/77881260X.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by University of Goettingen, Department of Economics in its series Center for European, Governance and Economic Development Research Discussion Papers with number 188.

    as in new window
    Length:
    Date of creation: 2014
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:zbw:cegedp:188

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Platz der Göttinger Sieben 3, 37073 Göttingen
    Web page: http://www.cege.wiso.uni-goettingen.de/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: anchoring bias; group decision-making; heuristics and biases; incentives; laboratory experiment;

    Find related papers by JEL classification:

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine & Zacharias Maniadis, 2012. "On the Robustness of Anchoring Effects in WTP and WTA Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 131-45, May.
    2. John List & Daniel Millimet, 2008. "The market: Catalyst for rationality and filter of irrationality," Framed Field Experiments, The Field Experiments Website 00179, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Fabio Tufano, 2008. "Are ‘True’ Preferences Revealed in Repeated Markets? An Experimental Demonstration of Context-dependent Valuations," Discussion Papers, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham 2008-12, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    4. repec:feb:framed:0081 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. James C. Cox & Stephen C. Hayne, . "Barking Up the Right Tree: Are Small Groups Rational Agents?," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University 2006-02, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    6. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    7. Zacharias Maniadis & Fabio Tufano & John A List, 2013. "One Swallow Doesn’t Make a Summer: New Evidence on Anchoring Effects," Discussion Papers, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham 2013-07, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    8. Birte Englich & Kirsten Soder, 2009. "Moody experts --- How mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(1), pages 41-50, February.
    9. Fujiwara, Ippei & Ichiue, Hibiki & Nakazono, Yoshiyuki & Shigemi, Yosuke, 2013. "Financial markets forecasts revisited: Are they rational, stubborn or jumpy?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 118(3), pages 526-530.
    10. John A. List, 2005. "The Behavioralist Meets the Market: Measuring Social Preferences and Reputation Effects in Actual Transactions," NBER Working Papers 11616, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "Anchoring: A valid explanation for biased forecasts when rational predictions are easily accessible and well incentivized?," Center for European, Governance and Economic Development Research Discussion Papers 166, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    12. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    13. John List, 2003. "Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?," Natural Field Experiments, The Field Experiments Website 00297, The Field Experiments Website.
    14. Campbell, Sean D. & Sharpe, Steven A., 2009. "Anchoring Bias in Consensus Forecasts and Its Effect on Market Prices," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(02), pages 369-390, April.
    15. Ippei Fujiwara & Hibiki Ichiue & Yoshiyuki Nakazono & Yosuke Shigemi, 2012. "Financial markets forecasts revisited: are they rational, herding or bold?," Globalization and Monetary Policy Institute Working Paper, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas 106, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
    16. Kugler, Tamar & Kausel, E.E. & Kocher, Martin G., 2012. "Are groups more rational than individuals? A review of interactive decision making in groups," Munich Reprints in Economics, University of Munich, Department of Economics 18215, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    17. Lawrence, Michael & O'Connor, Marcus, 2000. "Sales forecasting updates: how good are they in practice?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 369-382.
    18. Dieter Hess & Sebastian Orbe, 2013. "Irrationality or Efficiency of Macroeconomic Survey Forecasts? Implications from the Anchoring Bias Test," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, European Finance Association, vol. 17(6), pages 2097-2131.
    19. Chapman, Gretchen B. & Johnson, Eric J., 1999. "Anchoring, Activation, and the Construction of Values, , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 115-153, August.
    20. 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, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 35-42, February.
    21. Todd McElroy & Keith Dowd, 2007. "Susceptibility to anchoring effects: How openness-to-experience influences responses to anchoring cues," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 48-53, February.
    22. Zacharias Maniadis & Fabio Tufano & John List, 2013. "One Swallow Does not Make a Summer: New Evidence on Anchoring Effects," Levine's Working Paper Archive 786969000000000824, David K. Levine.
    23. Bateman, Ian J. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George & Matthews, David I., 2008. "Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 127-141, March.
    24. Cen, Ling & Hilary, Gilles & Wei, K. C. John, 2013. "The Role of Anchoring Bias in the Equity Market: Evidence from Analysts’ Earnings Forecasts and Stock Returns," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(01), pages 47-76, February.
    25. Sugden, Robert & Zheng, Jiwei & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2013. "Not all anchors are created equal," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 21-31.
    26. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, MIT Press, vol. 118(1), pages 73-105, February.
    27. Crusius, Jan & van Horen, Femke & Mussweiler, Thomas, 2012. "Why process matters: A social cognition perspective on economic behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 677-685.
    28. Bucchianeri, Grace W. & Minson, Julia A., 2013. "A homeowner's dilemma: Anchoring in residential real estate transactions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 76-92.
    29. Smith, Vernon L & Walker, James M, 1993. "Monetary Rewards and Decision Cost in Experimental Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(2), pages 245-61, April.
    30. Jonathan E. Alevy & Craig E. Landry & John A. List, 2011. "Field Experiments on Anchoring of Economic Valuations," Working Papers 2011-02, University of Alaska Anchorage, Department of Economics.
    31. repec:feb:framed:0070 is not listed on IDEAS
    32. John A. List, 2004. "Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace," Econometrica, Econometric Society, Econometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 615-625, 03.
    33. Bergman, Oscar & Ellingsen, Tore & Johannesson, Magnus & Svensson, Cicek, 2010. "Anchoring and cognitive ability," Economics Letters, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 66-68, April.
    34. McAlvanah, Patrick & Moul, Charles C., 2013. "The house doesn’t always win: Evidence of anchoring among Australian bookies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 87-99.
    35. Francesco Cecchi & Erwin Bulte, 2013. "Does Market Experience Promote Rational Choice? Experimental Evidence from Rural Ethiopia," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(2), pages 407 - 429.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:cegedp:188. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics).

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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