Not all anchors are created equal

Journal of Economic Psychology

Volumn 39, Issue , 2013, Pages 21-31

  Sugden, Robert ^a   Zheng, Jiwei ^a   Zizzo, Daniel John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Anchoring effect; Endowment effect

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880980203     PISSN: 01674870     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2013.06.008     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Alevy, J. E., Landry, C. E., & List, J. A. (2011). Field experiments on anchoring of economic valuations. Working Paper 2011-02, Department of Economics, University of Alaska Anchorage.
2. Ariely D., Loewenstein G., Prelec D. Coherent arbitrariness: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics 2003, 118:73-105.
3. Bateman I., Munro A., Rhodes B., Starmer C., Sugden R. Anchoring and yea-saying with private goods: An experiment. Using Experimental Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 2006, 1-19. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA. J. List (Ed.).
4. Bergman O., Ellingsen T., Johannesson M., Svensson C. Anchoring and cognitive ability. Economics Letters 2010, 107:66-68.
5. Coursey D.L., Hovis J.L., Schulze W.D. The disparity between willingness to accept and willingness to pay measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1987, 102:679-690.
6. Fudenberg D., Levine D.K., Maniadis Z. On the robustness of anchoring effects in WTP and WTA experiments. American Economic Journal - Microeconomics 2012, 4:131-145.
7. Grice H.P. Logic and conversation. Speech Acts 1975, Vol. 3:41-58. Academic Press, New York. P. Cole, J.L. Morgan (Eds.).
8. Horowitz J.K., McConnell K.E. A review of WTA/WTP studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2002, 44:426-447.
9. Isoni A. The willingness-to-accept/willingness-to-pay disparity in repeated markets: Loss aversion or 'bad-deal' aversion?. Theory and Decision 2011, 71:409-430.
10. Isoni, A., Brooks, P., Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (2011). Do markets reveal preferences - Or shape them? Working paper.
11. Jacowitz K.E., Kahneman D. Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1995, 21:1161-1166.
12. Johnson E.J., Schkade D.A. Bias in utility assessments: Further evidence and explanations. Management Science 1989, 35:406-424.
13. Loomes G., Starmer C., Sugden R. Do anomalies disappear in repeated markets?. Economic Journal 2003, 113:153-166.
14. Mazar, N., Koszegi, B., & Ariely, D. (2010). Price-sensitive preferences. SSRN Discussion Paper.
15. Mussweiler T., Strack F. Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1999, 35:136-164.
16. Mussweiler T., Strack F. The semantics of anchoring. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2001, 86:234-255.
17. Schwarz N. Judgement in social context: Biases, shortcomings, and the logic of conversation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 1994, 26:123-162.
18. Simonson I., Drolet A. Anchoring effects on consumers' willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. Journal of Consumer Research 2004, 31:681-690.
19. Slovic P., Lichtenstein S. Relative importance of probabilities and payoffs in risk taking. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1968, 78:1-18.
20. Thaler R.H. Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science 1985, 4:199-214.
21. Tufano F. Are 'true' preferences revealed in repeated markets? An experimental demonstration of context-dependent valuations'. Experimental Economics 2010, 13:1-13.
22. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 1974, 185:1124-1131.
23. Wilson T.D., Houston C.E., Etling K.M., Brekke N. A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1996, 125:387-402.