Anchoring and publicity effects in clinical judgment

Abstract

Extrapolation from the literature of social-cognitive bias suggested testing anchoring and publicity effects in clinicians' (N = 46) successive judgments of detailed interview notes, five per case. If anchoring occurs, Ss' estimates of a client's pathology and prognosis at the final judgment point would be related differentially to the time (early/late) that they had received salient, pathognomonic case material. The publicity effect would be a tendency toward more conservative estimates on the part of Ss who are asked to justify their ratings in writing. Results among an experienced sample of clinicians indicated significant anchoring in one case but not the other, which suggests a clinical bias to disregard pathognomonic data about a client who is seen initially as less disturbed. Public justification was related neither to Ss' ratings, to reported confidence in their ratings, nor differentially by case. Implications and limitations are suggested.