Revista Argentina de Clínica Psicológica 2020, Vol. XXIX, N°2, 314-321
DOI: 10.24205/03276716.2020.242 314
G
ENERATION
M
ECHANISM OF
A
NCHORING
E
FFECT IN
M
ANAGEMENT
J
UDGMENT
:
A
N
A
NALYSIS
B
ASED ON THE
N
EUROSCIENCE OF
D
ECISION
-M
AKING
Liwei Gu*, Yulian Zhu, Guolin Li
Abstract
The anchoring effect is a major cause of judgment deviation. In management judgment, the irrelevant anchors will distract the decision-making from the target issue. This paper explores the generation mechanism of anchoring effect in management judgment through an analysis based on the neuroscience of decision-making. Specifically, the author analyzed the influence of value judgment, common sense judgment and Big Five Personality traits on the generation mechanism of anchoring effect, and proved the semantic priming mechanism of anchoring effect in management judgment. The mechanism of the anchoring effect in value judgment was verified by electroencephalogram (EEG) experiment and the that in common sense judgment was studied through the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) experiment. The results show that different anchor values activate different semantic information; the mean EEG power spectrum under high anchor values is significantly higher than that under low anchor values; for common sense judgment, the reaction time of feasible anchor, infeasible anchor and no anchor decreases in turn in the comparison stage, with a significant difference in reaction time between feasible anchor and no anchor, and enhances in turn in the answer stage; there are a significant difference in the partial correlation coefficient between each trait of the Big Five Personality and the intensity of anchoring effect, and a linear relationship between the pleasantness of the Big Five Personality and the intensity of anchoring effect.
Key words: Anchoring Effect, Neuroscience of Decision-Making, Value Judgment, Common Sense Judgment.
Received: 18-02-19 | Accepted: 20-08-19
INTRODUCTION
In the field of management, decision-making is an important basic activity in the survival and development of human beings, and a correct judgment is the key to good decision-making (Frydman & Camerer, 2016). In reality, before making various management decisions, the accurate judgment of the management decision-maker will greatly improve the efficiency and execution degree of the decision-making. However, it is often influenced by various
College of Education, Hebei Normal University of Science & Technology, Qinhuangdao 066004, China.
E-Mail: 47154041@qq.com
internal or external factors before making the decision-making, so it is difficult to make correct judgment (Yoon, Vo, & Venkatraman, 2017; Gorb, Yasnolob, & Protsiuk, 2016). Since managers are people with limited rationality, it is difficult to completely abandon the heuristic thinking and thus difficult to overcome the bias in judgment (Wouters, 2006). Therefore, in order to raise the accuracy of economic management judgment, improve the decision-making and then better the management level, it is worth exploring to study the management judgment deviation and put forward the suggestions of overcoming the deviation and improving judgment and decision-making (Ramanathan & Velayudhan, 2015; Aguirre-Rodriguez, Bóveda-Lambie, & Montoya, 2014).
LIWEI GU,YULIAN ZHU,GUOLIN LI
315
In the development of multi-perspective and multi-method economic management
decision-making research, the decision-making
neuroscience of integrating psychology,
cognitive science and neuroscience has matured gradually (Hanslin & Rindell, 2014). Anchoring effect is a classical judgment deviation. After
many years’ research, scientists have given
several mechanisms of anchoring effect, including selective access model, attitude change model, scale distortion model and so on (Bossaerts & Murawski, 2015). The reasons for the generation of anchoring effect develop slowly, the attributes of anchor information itself, the mood, individual difference and other factors of the judges are all important factors affecting the anchoring effect (Schoech, 2010; Servant, White, Montagnini et al., 2016). Judgment and decision-making are the core of functions of management science. The source of management variation is the anchoring effect, which has special characteristics of neural activities (Gergaud, Plantinga, & Ringeval-Deluze, 2016; Tanskanen, Ahola, Aminoff et al.,
2017). In this paper, decision-making
neuroscience is applied to the neural activities of the judges, and the generation mechanism of the anchoring effect in management judgment and the regulation of personality traits are deeply studied. The mechanism of the anchoring effect in the empirical value judgment is verified by EEG experiment and the mechanism of the anchoring effect in fact judgment are studied through the magnetic resonance experiment.
RESEARCH ON ANCHORING EFFECT AND NEUROSCIENCE
Regulating factors of anchoring effect In order to discuss the mechanism of anchoring effect from many angles, many researchers discuss the cause of anchoring effect respectively from the the perspectives of initiation, attitude, judgment and adjustment (Pontes,Palmeira, & Jevons, 2017). From the the perspectives of initiation, the access model and the inadequate adjustment theory are the most extensive theories in the process of exploring the mechanism of anchoring effect, but the universality of the two theories is different. In addition to the above two theories, numerical and magnitude initiation, attitude change theory and scale distortion theory all discuss the generation mechanism of anchoring effect from
different perspectives, but with greater
limitations, there are many doubts about the research results.
Figure 1 shows the relationship between the extremity and strength of the anchor. The study divided the relationship into three types: linear
relationship, weakening relationship and
contrast relationship. The linear relationship increases with the increase of the extreme of anchor and the strength of anchor effect does
not change; the weakening relationship
increases with the increase of the extreme of anchor and the strength of anchor effect decreases; the contrast relationship increases with increase of extreme of the anchor, and the judgment caused by the very high anchor is lower than the judgment caused by the high anchor. In view of the feasibility of anchor as regulating factor, it is not possible to reach a unified conclusion, and mechanisms for different anchoring effects are different.
Figure 1
.
The relationship between the
extremeness of an anchor and the strength
of the anchor
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Contrast
Weakened Linear
Re
ac
tion
Anchor value
Research on neuroscience related to anchoring effect
The vigorous development of
decision-making neuroscience has expanded the
application fields of management, economics, psychology, etc., but the researches in the field of anchoring effects are rare (Fudali-Czyå, Ratomska, Cudo et al., 2016; Punyatoya, 2013). The precision of anchor value has a great influence on the experiment. In the experiment, the source of anchor is self-generated anchor and external anchor. However, it is found that the precision of anchor value has no effect on
GENERATION MECHANISM OF ANCHORING EFFECT IN MANAGEMENT JUDGMENT: AN ANALYSIS BASED ON THE NEUROSCIENCE OF DECISION-MAKING 316
external anchor. The higher the accuracy of anchor value is, the stronger the assimilation of anchoring effect is and the greater the amplitude of positive component in EEG experiment is. In the external anchor experiment, although the accuracy of the anchor value does not play a role in regulation, its anchoring effect is significant.
From the perspective of neuroscience, the individual's neurological function and neural structure have a strong regulatory effect on the anchoring effect. The subjects with both sides and hands interact more quickly between left and right brain, and the subjects in EEG experiment are easier to change their judgment and decision and to be anchored in the anchoring category. The subjects with bilateral hands interact more quickly between the left and right brain, which makes it easier for the subjects to change their judgment and decision-making and to be anchored in the anchoring category. The use of magnetic resonance imaging can provide neurological evidence of visual anchoring effect, the advantage of which is that the subjects will use their own characteristics as an anchor according to their preferences or characteristics. However, the subjects' preference differences are linearly related to the degree of activation of the medial prefrontal cortex in the brain, so the MRI study could provide the degree of activation of the brain closely related to the anchoring effect.
MECHANISM OF ANCHORING EFFECT
Mechanism of anchoring effect in value judgment
In value judgment, the existence of anchor information can easily cause the deviation of judgment (Amorim, Moraes, Fazanaro et al., 2017). In this experiment, noise evaluation is used as a value judgment task. First, the subjects are given several segments of bad noises at an interval of 1 minute. The subjects can accept the lowest price compensation of these noises once given again, and an integer is randomly introduced as the anchor information. Then the subjects' compensation amount is compared with the integer for final evaluation. According to the theory of decision-making neuroscience, it is found that environmental factors influence the coding of value by the brain, and then influence the judgment of value. The level of anchor value is related to the pain degree for noise. The pain degree caused by noise is
reflected in EEG experiment through nerve activity, so that the relationship between anchor value and EEG experiment is established.
Figure 2
.
EEG data recording method
EEG digital conversion computer
Filters and Amplifiers EEG
Stimulus presentation computer
Markup / code of digital form
Figure 3
.
Waveform of frontal area, central
area, and occipital area when a random
number anchor appears
-200 0 200 400 600 800
3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3
Amplitude/μV
Time/ms High anchor Low anchor
(a) Frontal area
-200 0 200 400 600 800
3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3
Amplitude/μV
Time/ms High anchor Low anchor
(b) Central area
-200 0 200 400 600 800
3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3
Amplitude/μV
Time/ms High anchor Low anchor
LIWEI GU,YULIAN ZHU,GUOLIN LI
317
A total of 240 subjects are recruited (without history of mental illness, and stimulant drink cited before the experiment), and 80 segments of the 5s noise is played in the experiment. The EEG experiment is divided into 90 trials, including 40 trials for high anchor, 10 trials for medium anchor and 40 trials for low anchor. As shown in Figure 2 for the record mode of EEG data, the noise stimulation is presented to the subject, whose brain stimulation is transmitted to the digital conversion computer of EEG signals through a filter and an amplifier, and finally the EEG data is analyze by a series of measures such as filtering and off-eye electric baseline correction.
Figure 3 shows the brain wave patterns of the frontal, central, and parietal areas in the presence of random number anchors. It can be seen that the main effects of the anchor value are significant, and the wave amplitudes at high
anchors are significantly higher than those at low anchors (the mean amplitude under high anchor is 1.731 μV, and the mean amplitude under high anchor is 0.291 μV). Figure 4 shows the difference of EEG power spectra (EPS) of frontal, central, occipital and hemispheric areas under high and low anchors in noise playing. It can be seen from three graphs that the anchor value has significant main effect on EEG power spectra (EPS) of three areas in noise experiment. Compared with baseline, the mean value of EEG power spectrum under high anchor condition is significantly higher than that under low anchor condition. Therefore, there are great differences in the semantic information activated by different anchor values, and the different information is integrated into the formation process of judgment because of the different degree of reaction of the brain activated by neural activity.
Figure 4
.
Theta ERS differences in different positions and hemispheres at high and low anchor
conditions
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Right Middle
Left
ERS/
%
Hemisphere
High anchor Low anchor
10 15 20 25 30 35
Right Middle
Left
ERS/
%
Hemisphere
High anchor Low anchor
(a) Frontal area (b) Central area
10 15 20 25
Right Middle
Left
ERS/
%
Hemisphere
High anchor Low anchor
GENERATION MECHANISM OF ANCHORING EFFECT IN MANAGEMENT JUDGMENT: AN ANALYSIS BASED ON THE NEUROSCIENCE OF DECISION-MAKING 318
Mechanism of anchoring effect in common sense judgment
What’s the most stable in anchoring effect is
the anchoring effect produced by the fact judgment, under which all kinds of irrelevant information as comparison criteria will play the role of assimilation to the judgment value (Herz, Bogacz, & Brown, 2016). When the anchor's semantics is activated, the anchor's feasibility influences the attitude of judges to the anchor's information processing. The anchoring response function of the infeasible anchor is weakened or compared, and the anchoring response function of the feasible anchor is linear. In comparison with the infeasible anchor, the feasible anchor will result in greater anchoring effect. There is a difference between feasible anchor and infeasible anchor at comparison stage and return stage in reaction time. Under feasible anchor condition, the reaction time of answer stage is shorter but the comparison stage is longer.
In this study, the traditional two-stage anchoring paradigm is used to investigate the mechanism of anchoring effect in factual judgment and the adjustment of anchor feasibility to anchoring effect. The test content is 120 items that the subjects are unfamiliar
with, and three anchor values are used to manipulate variables: feasible anchor, infeasible anchor and no anchor. Figure 5 shows an experimental paradigm for anchoring effects judged by common sense, which lasts for six steps, and each step has a strict time limit.
Table 1 shows the mean reaction time and standard error at different anchor levels in different stages of reaction. It can be seen that the reaction time in the comparison stage is successively reducing under feasible anchor, infeasible anchor and no anchor. Table 2 shows the information of brain zone activated by feasible anchor condition minus no anchor condition in the comparison stage, and the maximum t values of the right putamen, the left putamen and the right inferior frontal gyrus decrease in turn. Table 3 shows the information of brain zone activated by feasible anchor condition minus no anchor condition. Compared with no anchor condition, the zones of the maximum t value of left superior temporal gyrus and left middle temporal gyrus are the same, and the maximum t values are larger than that of left superior lobular gyrus in thinking and judging the answer under the condition of feasible anchor.
Figure 5
.
Common sense to determine the experimental paradigm of anchoring effect
Focus attention
Topic
31
Think about
answer Oral
answer Blank
space &#%&
1s 2s
Up to 4s until the
button
Up to 5s until the
button 3s
1
2
3
4
5
6
Advance button duration Digital Anchor Condition: comparison size
String condition: Press to continue
Think the answer but do not answer it. Think of the answer immediately press
the button
Oral answer, the answer through the fiber optic microphone transmission
LIWEI GU,YULIAN ZHU,GUOLIN LI
319
Table 1.
Mean and standard error of response at different stages of different anchor value
Anchor value
Compare phase reaction time Response time of the reaction
95% confidence interval
95% confidence interval Mean
value
Standard error
Lower limit
Upper limit
Mean value
Standard error
Lower limit
Upper limit Feasible
anchor 1.734 0.072 1.563 2.005 1.720 0.144 1.400 2.038 Infeasible
anchor 1.528 0.081 1.340 1.716 1.729 0.155 1.387 2.070 No anchor 1.138 0.070 1.073 1.304 1.760 0.146 1.437 2.084
Table 2.
The comparison stage feasible anchor condition minus the non-anchor condition
activates the brain area
Brain area Body prime number Maximum t value Maximum t value MNI coordinate position
Right putamen 20 5.1247 [20,5,-8]
Left putamen 14 4.8558 [-17,2,-4.5]
Right inferior frontal gyrus 21 4.18 [53,11,18]
Table 3.
Answering stage feasible anchor conditions minus no anchor activation of the brain area
Brain area Body prime number Maximum t value Maximum t value MNI coordinate position
Left temporal gyrus 22 7.2345 [-59,-59,18]
Left middle temporal gyrus 16 7.2345 [-59,-59,18]
Left superior lobule 25 5.2212 [-29,-62,53]
ADJUSTMENT OF BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS FOR MANAGING AND JUDGING THE ANCHORING EFFECT
Regulation of Big Five Personality Traits on anchoring effect
In the management judgment, the anchor irrelevant to the problem will play certain anchoring effect on people's judgment. Besides
the value judgment and common-sense
judgment, the personality traits also play a quite important regulating role in the anchoring effect. The Big Five Personality Traits (openness, strictness, extroversion, pleasantness and
neuroticism) influence the management
judgment and decision-making of people, that’s
say, the degree of the anchoring effect of the judge is influenced by the Big Five Personality Traits. In the experiment of adjusting the anchoring effect by the Big Five Personality Traits, questionnaire method is adopted with more than 900 questionnaires collected. Table 4 shows the confidence analysis results of Big Five Personality Scale, and Cronbach's α coefficient
of all dimension variables are greater than 0.7. The items of various dimensions of Big Five Personality Scale used in the questionnaire are consistent internally. Table 5 shows the mean score and standard deviation of each Big Five
Personality Trait of the subjects. The
pleasantness accounts for the highest mean, followed by strictness, openness, extroversion, and neuroticism successively.
Table 6 shows the partial correlation coefficient between each of Big Five Personality Traits and the strength of anchoring effect. The greater partial correlation coefficient is the pleasantness. According to the p-value analysis, there is a linear relationship between the pleasantness and the strength of anchoring effect in Big Five Personality Traits, and other traits are of non-linear relationship. In the questionnaire, it can be concluded that the higher score the pleasantness accounts for, the lower the degree of the subject approaching the anchor is, and the lower the anchoring effect, and the less the subject is anchored.
GENERATION MECHANISM OF ANCHORING EFFECT IN MANAGEMENT JUDGMENT: AN ANALYSIS BASED ON THE NEUROSCIENCE OF DECISION-MAKING 320
Table 4.
Confidence Analysis of Big Five Personality Scale
Dimension Nervous Rigorism Pleasant Openness Extraversion
Cronbach’s α coefficient 0.835 0.848 0.822 0.828 0.815
Table 5.
Big Five Personality Traits of the mean and standard deviation
Personality Traits Nervous Rigorism Pleasant Openness Extraversion
Mean value 3.3515 4.2008 4.4122 4.1588 3.7220
Standard deviation 0.82033 0.72685 0.70503 0.72225 0.80123
Table 6.
Partial correlation coefficient among strengths and anchoring effects of Big Five
Personality
Personality Traits Nervous Rigorism Pleasant Openness Extraversion
Partial correlation coefficient -0.051 -0.018 0.145 -0.051 0.075
p value 0.364 0.684 0.025 0.448 0.210
Semantic priming mechanism of anchoring effect in management judgment
In recent years, a lot of researchers have
found that it’s easy to generate anchoring effect,
but it’s hard to explain the generation of
anchoring effectd. The introduction of decision-making neuroscience analyses the generation of anchoring effect in the process of judgment with the help of EEG and MRI experiments. According to the characteristics of neural activities revealed by the EEG data and magnetic resonance data, and the behavior data of the judge, it can be concluded that the semantic information of the anchor plays an initiating role and thus causes the shift of the judgment value toward the anchor value. This research also shows that the process of semantic priming is also influenced by the attitude of the judge in the beginning of the process, and the difference of attitude due to the difference of anchor feasibility and other factors will determine the
specific activation pattern of semantic
information.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on decision-making neuroscience, this study focuses on the generation mechanism of anchoring effect in management judgment, and analyzes the effects of value judgment, common sense judgment and Big Five Personality Traits on the generation mechanism of anchoring effect. The concrete conclusions are as follows:
(1) The responses of the brain activated by neural activity are different, and the different
information is integrated into the process of the formation of judgment, so the semantic information activated by different anchor values is different.
(2) In the common sense judgment, when the anchor's semantics is initiated, the anchor's feasibility influences the attitude of the judge to process anchor information. The anchor response function of the infeasible anchor presents a weakening or contrast form, while the anchor response function of the feasible anchor presents a linear relation.
(3) There is a great difference in the partial correlation coefficient between each of Big Five Personality Traits and the strength of the anchoring effect. There is a linear relationship between the pleasantness of Big Five Personality Traits and the strength of the anchoring effect, and there is a non-linear relationship among other traits.
Acknowledgements
The project supported by the Social Science Foundation of Hebei Province, named “Research on the Supply System of ‘Internet +’ Elementary Education from the Perspective of Accurate
Education”, (Grant No. HB18JY036).
REFERENCES
Aguirre-Rodriguez, A., Bóveda-Lambie, A. M., & Montoya, D. Y. (2014). Exploring ethnic consumer response to crossover brand
LIWEI GU,YULIAN ZHU,GUOLIN LI
321
extensions. Journal of Business Research, 67(4), 457-463.
Amorim, P., Moraes, T., Fazanaro, D., Silva, J., & Pedrini, H. (2017). Electroencephalogram signal classification based on shearlet and contourlet transforms. Expert Systems with Applications,67, 140-147.
Bossaerts, P., & Murawski, C. (2015). From behavioural economics to neuroeconomics to decision neuroscience: the ascent of biology in research on human decision making. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences,5, 37-42.
Frydman, C., & Camerer, C. F. (2016). The psychology and neuroscience of financial decision making. Trends in cognitive sciences, 20(9), 661-675.
Fudali-Czyå, A., Ratomska, M., Cudo, A., Francuz, P., Kopiå›, N., & TuåNik, P. (2016). Controlled categorisation processing in brand extension
evaluation by indo-european language
speakers. an erp study. Neuroscience Letters, 628, 30-34.
Gergaud, O., Plantinga, A. J., & Ringeval-Deluze, A. (2016). Anchored in the past: persistent price effects of obsolete vineyard ratings in france. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 133, 39-51.
Gorb, O. A., Yasnolob, I. A., & Protsiuk, N. Y. (2016). Organizational-economic mechanism of management of food industry enterprises competitiveness. Annals of Agrarian Science, 14(3), 191-195.
Hanslin, K., & Rindell, A. (2014). Consumer-brand relationships in step-down line extensions of luxury and designer brands. Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management, 18(2), 145-168.
Herz, D. M., Bogacz, R., & Brown, P. (2016). Neuroscience: Impaired decision-making in
Parkinson’s disease. Current Biology, 26(14),
R671-R673.
Pontes, N., Palmeira, M., & Jevons, C. (2017).
Brand expertise and perceived consistency reversals on vertical line extensions: the moderating role of extension direction. Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services,34, 209-218.
Punyatoya, P. (2013). Consumer evaluation of brand extension for global and local brands: The moderating role of product similarity. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 25(3), 198-215.
Ramanathan, J., & Velayudhan, S. K. (2015). Consumer evaluation of brand extensions: comparing goods to goods brand extensions with goods to services. Journal of Brand Management,22(9), 778-801.
Schoech, M. F. D. (2010). Neuroscience, the
unconscious and professional decision
making: implications for ict. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 28(4), 282-294.
Servant, M., White, C., Montagnini, A., & Burle, B. (2016). Linking theoretical decision-making mechanisms in the simon task with electrophysiological data: a model-based neuroscience study in humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,28(10), 1501-1521. Tanskanen, K., Ahola, T., Aminoff, A., Bragge, J.,
Kaipia, R., & Kauppi, K. (2017). Towards evidence-based management of external resources: developing design propositions and future research avenues through research synthesis. Research Policy, 46(6), 1087-1105.
Wouters, M. (2006). Implementation costs and redistribution mechanisms in the economic evaluation of supply chain management initiatives. Supply Chain Management, 11(6), 510-521.
Yoon, S., Vo, K., & Venkatraman, V. (2017). Variability in Decision Strategies Across
Description-based and Experience-based
Decision Making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(4), 951-963.
