How Attribution-of-Competence and Scale-Granularity Explain the Anchor Precision Effect in Negotiations and Estimations

Abstract

Precise numbers are more potent anchors than round ones. Two theoretical mechanisms have been suggested to account for this anchor precision effect: (1) the scale-granularity account postulates that individuals adjust away from the anchor in smaller steps on a finer-grained mental scale, and (2) the attribution-of-competence account postulates that people ascribe more competence to a precise-opening individual. Direct empirical evidence for both accounts is scarce, however, and exists mainly for the attribution-of-competence account in a negotiation context. In two experiments, we examined the two competing mechanisms simultaneously (Experiment 1) and contrasted them in a negotiation and in an estimation context (Experiment 2). Moreover, we developed and validated (Pilot Study) a direct measurement of scale-granularity. Mediation analyses showed that both attribution-of-competence and, for the first time, scale-granularity mediate the anchor-precision effect. The results refine our theoretical understanding of anchor precision. Implications for decision-making, negotiation, and estimation research are discussed.

The Stepwise Anchoring Paradigm: Measuring Reliable Components of Anchoring and Adjustment as the Next Step in Moderator Research

“…This was still much higher than commonly estimated reliabilities of anchoring tasks (for an overview, see Röseler et al, 2019, p. 21). Our expectation was that, despite the high power, we would not find a significant difference between the reliability reported by Frech et al (2020) and the reliability in the present study, and thus, we would be able to conclude that the number of adjustment steps is indeed a reliable anchoring parameter.…”

“…Hypothetical Adjustment Functions from a High Anchor for Two Subjects A and B Individual TOTE parameters have already been measured. Frech et al (2020) introduced a paradigm that required participants to indicate the adjustment steps they made. We used their data (https://osf.io/dq48j/, Study 2) to compute the reliabilities of different parameters and found that the total adjustment (α = .513, three items, N = 146) and the number of steps (α = .693) were reliable, but the average step size (α = .097) was not.…”

“…As equivalence testing (Lakens et al, 2018) for coefficient alpha is not implemented in common statistical software, we tested for whether the reliability in our paradigm was lower (one-tailed test) than the reliability reported by Frech et al (2020), that is, α = .69, three items, N = 146. Given a sample size of N = [100, 208], reliability needed to be α = [.415, .485] for us to detect a significant difference with α = β = 5%.…”

“…The task we used to measure the anchoring parameters was a computerized, modified version of the paradigm used by Frech et al (2020). Participants estimated the weights of animals on a scale ranging from 0 to 100 kg (of which only options 1 to 99 kg were selectable due to technical restrictions 1 ).…”

“…We asked the participants to adjust their estimates by starting from the provided anchor and indicating all steps by clicking on the respective points of the scale. The instructions were adapted from the procedure used by Frech et al (2020). The respective numeric values were automatically displayed when someone moved the mouse over the scale.…”