Academic judgments under uncertainty: A study of collective anchoring effects in Swedish Research Council panel groups

Social Studies of Science

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 95-116

  Roumbanis, Lambros ^a  

^a STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

academic judgment; anchoring effects; double heuristics; evaluation; peer review; uncertainty

Indexed keywords

ADVISORY COMMITTEE; DECISION MAKING; HEURISTICS; HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; STATISTICAL BIAS; SWEDEN;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; BIAS; DECISION MAKING; HEURISTICS; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; SWEDEN;

EID: 85012982851     PISSN: 03063127     EISSN: 14603659     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0306312716659789     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Beggs A, Graddy K, (2009) Anchoring effects: Evidence from art auctions. American Economic Review 99(3): 1027–1039.
2. Bourdieu P, (1975) The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information 14(6): 19–47.
3. Braben DW, (2004) Pioneering Research: A Risk Worth Taking. New York: Wiley.
4. Chapman GB, Johnson EJ, (1994) The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 7(4): 223–242.
5. Chubin DE, Hackett EJ, (1990) Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. New York: State University of New York Press.
6. Cole S, Cole JR, Simon GA, (1981) Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 214(4523): 881–886.
7. Collins HM, Evans RE, (2007) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8. Day TE, (2015) The big consequences of small biases: A simulation of peer review. Research Policy 44(6): 1266–1270.
9. Englich B, Mussweiler T, (2001) Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31(7): 1535–1551.
10. Englich B, Soder K, (2009) Moody experts: How mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring. Judgment and Decision Making 4(1): 41–50.
11. Epley N, Gilovich T, (2010) Anchoring unbound. Journal of Consumer Psychology 20(1): 20–24.
12. Epley N, Keyser B, Van Boven L, Gilovich T, (2004) Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87(3): 327–339.
13. Fogelholm M, Leppinen S, Auvinen A, Raitanen J, Nuutinen A, Väänäen K, (2012) Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 65(1): 47–52.
14. Galinsky AD, Mussweiler T, (2001) First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81(4): 657–669.
15. Glöckner A, Witteman C, (eds) (2010) Foundations for Tracing Intuition: Challenges and Methods. Hove: Psychology Press.
16. Graves N, Barnett AG, Clarke P, (2011) Funding grant proposals for scientific research: Retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel. British Medical Journal 343: d4797.
17. Hemlin S, (1996) Research on research evaluation. Social Epistemology 10(2): 209–250.
18. Holbrook JB, Frodeman R, (2011) Peer review and the ex ante assessment of societal impacts. Research Evaluation 20(3): 239–246.
19. Holton G, (1998) The Scientific Imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Huutoniemi K, (2012) Communicating and compromising on disciplinary expertise in the peer review of research proposals. Social Studies of Science 42(6): 897–921.
21. Jacowitz KE, Kahneman D, (1995) Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21(11): 1161–1165.
22. Lamont M, (2009) How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23. Langfeldt L, (2001) The decision-making constraints and processes of grant peer review, and their effects on the review outcome. Social Studies of Science 31(6): 820–841.
24. Langfeldt L, (2006) The policy challenges of peer review: Managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments. Research Evaluation 15(1): 31–41.
25. Levi Martin J, (2011) The Explanation of Social Action. New York: Oxford University Press.
26. Luukkonen T, (2012) Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices. Research Evaluation 21(1): 48–60.
27. McElroy T, Dowd K, (2007) Susceptibility to anchoring effects: How openness-to-experience influence responses to anchoring cues. Judgment and Decision Making 2(1): 48–53.
28. Manis JG, Meltzer BN, (1994) Chance in human affairs. Sociological Theory 12(1): 45–56.
29. Mayo N, Brophy J, Goldberg M. (2006) Peering at peer review revealed high degree of chance associated with funding of grant applications. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59(8): 842–848.
30. Merton RK, (1973) The Sociology of Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31. Mussweiler T, (2001) The durability of anchoring effects. European Journal of Social Psychology 31(4): 431–442.
32. Mussweiler T, Englich B, (2005) Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 98(2): 133–143.
33. Mussweiler T, Strack F, (2001) The semantics of anchoring. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86(2): 234–255.
34. Mussweiler T, Strack F, Pfeiffer T, (2000) Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26(9): 1142–1150.
35. Nortcraft GB, Neale MA, (1987) Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 19(1): 84–97.
36. Obrecht M, Tibelius K, D’Aloisio G, (2007) Examining the value added by committee discussion in the review of applications for research awards. Research Evaluation 16(2): 79–91.
37. Oppenheimer DM, LeBoeuf RA, Brewer NT, (2008) Anchors aweigh: A demonstration of cross-modality anchoring and magnitude priming. Cognition 106(1): 13–26.
38. Plous S, (1989) Thinking the unthinkable: The effects of anchoring on likelihood estimates of nuclear war. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 19(1): 67–91.
39. Polanyi M, (1962) The republic of science. Minerva 1(1): 54–73.
40. Porter R, (2005) What do grant reviewers really want, anyway? The Journal of Research Administration 36(2): 47–55.
41. Reyna V, (2012) A new intuitionism: Meaning, memory, and development in fuzzy-trace theory. Judgment and Decision Making 7(3): 332–359.
42. Reyna VF, Lloyd FJ, (2006) Physician decision making and cardiac risk: Effects of knowledge, risk perception, risk tolerance, and fuzzy processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 12(3): 179–195.
43. Ritov I, (1996) Anchoring in simulated competitive market negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67(1): 16–25.
44. Schwartzman H, (1989) The Meeting: Gatherings in Organizations and Communities. New York: Plenum Press.
45. Shelley C, (2003) Multiple Analogies in Science and Philosophy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
46. Simmons J, LeBoeuf R, Nelson L, (2010) The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: Do people adjust from provided anchors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99(6): 917–932.
47. Swedberg R, (2014) The Art of Social Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48. Thedvall R, (2013) Punctuated entries: Doing fieldworks in policy meetings in the European union. In: Garsten C, Nyqvist A, (eds) Organisational Anthropology. London: Pluto Press.
49. Travis GDL, Collins HM, (1991) New light on old boys: Cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system. Science, Technology, & Human Values 16(3): 322–341.
50. Turner SP, (2012) Double heuristics and collective knowledge: The case of expertise. Studies in Emergent Order 5: 82–103.
51. Turner SP, (2014) The Politics of Expertise. New York: Routledge.
52. Tversky A, Kahneman D, (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157): 1124–1131.
53. Wilson TD, Houston CE, Etling KM, Brekke N, (1996) A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 125(4): 387–402.