Overcoming the Inevitable Anchoring Effect: Considering the Opposite Compensates for Selective Accessibility

TLDR

Anchoring effects—the assimilation of a numeric estimate to a previously considered standard—have proved to be remarkably robust. The authors hypothesized that increasing the accessibility of anchor‑inconsistent knowledge would mitigate anchoring. They tested this by having participants generate reasons why an anchor was inappropriate, thereby increasing anchor‑inconsistent knowledge. The consider‑the‑opposite strategy reduced anchoring in both studies, with Study 1 showing a reduction and Study 2 indicating additive effects of anchoring and the strategy.

Abstract

Anchoring effects—the assimilation of a numeric estimate to a previously considered standard—have proved to be remarkably robust. Results of two studies, however, demonstrate that anchoring can be reduced by applying a consider-the-opposite strategy. Based on the Selective Accessibility Model, which assumes that anchoring is mediated by the selectively increased accessibility of anchor-consistent knowledge, the authors hypothesized that increasing the accessibility of anchor-inconsistent knowledge mitigates the effect. Considering the opposite (i.e., generating reasons why an anchor is inappropriate) fulfills this objective and consequently proves to be a successful corrective strategy. In a real-world setting using experts as participants, Study 1 dem-onstrated that listing arguments that speak against a provided anchor value reduces the effect. Study 2 further revealed that the effects of anchoring and considering the opposite are additive.