IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/abg/anprac/v23y2019i31339.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anchoring Heuristic in Experts Decision: Results Under the Manipulation Test

Author

Listed:
  • Paula Tronco
  • Mauri Löbler
  • Leticia Santos
  • Juliana Nishi

Abstract

Although technology-assisted decisions have advanced in recent years, the decision-making process is still essentially human. Personal decision or context variables are explored throughout the process and the variable knowledge appears as important for literature, when looking to verify its intervention. Cognitive biases, among them anchoring, are the focus of several studies on their influence, as well as the level of knowledge of the decision-maker on the subject matter of the decision, classified as specialists and novices. Thus, the research problem arises: is the effect of Anchoring Heuristics affected by the manipulation of decision makers' knowledge? In order to answer this question, a quasi-experiment was performed with 324 decision subjects, divided into Calibration Groups and Experimental Groups, using the Jacowitz and Kahneman Model (1995). The study brings as its main results from the Manipulation Test (Cozby, 2006) of the knowledge variable the lack of anchoring effect in experts decision related to their field of knowledge, these results going against Northcraft e Neale (1987) e Dorow (2009).

Suggested Citation

  • Paula Tronco & Mauri Löbler & Leticia Santos & Juliana Nishi, 2019. "Anchoring Heuristic in Experts Decision: Results Under the Manipulation Test," RAC - Revista de Administração Contemporânea (Journal of Contemporary Administration), ANPAD - Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, vol. 23(3), pages 331-350.
  • Handle: RePEc:abg:anprac:v:23:y:2019:i:3:1339
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://rac.anpad.org.br/index.php/rac/article/view/1339/1366
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://rac.anpad.org.br/index.php/rac/article/download/1339/1366
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:abg:anprac:v:23:y:2019:i:3:1339. 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: Information Technology of ANPAD (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://anpad.org.br .

    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.