Methods of Persuasion: How to Use Psychology to Influence Human Behavior Read Online Free PDF Page A

the most accurate estimates that you can come up with. (Wilson et al., 1996, p. 397)
    Surprisingly, despite that deliberate warning, people were still influenced by their arbitrary ID number when they estimated the number of physicians in the phone book. Even when people are fully aware of the powerful impact of anchoring, they still succumb to its influence. It doesn’t get more powerful than that!
    WHY DO WE USE ANCHORS?
    We already looked at two mechanisms that explain how anchoring can influence our judgments (i.e., through priming and adjustments), but this section will explain why we tend to rely on anchors to make judgments.
    Produce Accurate Judgments. Perhaps the main reason why we use anchoring—either consciously or nonconsciously—is that we truly believe it leads to more accurate judgments. This section will discuss two pieces of evidence to support that notion: (1) people who are highly motivated to produce an accurate judgment still use anchoring, and (2) when no anchors are given, people often generate their own anchors to help make their judgment.
    Occurs When Motivation Is High . The researchers who conducted the phone book experiment conducted another experiment where they gave people an incentive to produce accurate estimates. Participants in the experiment were told that the person with the closest estimate would receive a $50 prize, but the results showed that the incentive and additional motivation made no difference—the irrelevant ID number still influenced their estimates (Wilson et al., 1996).
    Not only does anchoring influence trivial judgments, such as the number of physicians in a phonebook, but it can also influence very important decisions. Extensive research has applied the anchoring effect to criminal trials, and unfortunately, evidence shows that judges rely on anchors to determine the lengths of their sentencing. For instance, when legal professionals were asked to read a hypothetical shoplifting case and then decide a proper sentencing length, they were influenced by the prosecutor’s recommended length, even when they were informed that the length was chosen at random:
For experimental purposes, the following prosecutor’s sentencing demand was randomly determined, therefore, it does not reflect any judicial expertise: The prosecutor demands a sentence [of] 3 months on probation. (Englich, Mussweiler, & Strack, 2006, p. 192)
    When exposed to a 1 month demand from the defense and that 3 month demand from the prosecution, the legal experts gave an average sentence of 4 months. When the 3 months from the previous excerpt was replaced by 9 months, however, legal experts gave an average sentence of 6 months. The sentencing length increased by 2 months even though the description clearly mentioned that the suggested length was chosen at random.
    A 2-month difference might not seem that substantial, but research has found differences in sentencing lengths that span several years (Pepitone & DiNubile, 1976), even when there is greater emphasis on the arbitrariness of the anchor, such as a recommended length that results from rolling a pair of dice (Englich, Mussweiler, & Strack, 2006). Therefore, even people with high expertise—such as legal professionals—use anchors to produce their judgments. It’s truly mind-boggling how one quick exposure to an irrelevant number could change someone’s life forever.
    We Use Self-Generated Anchors . Further support for our misguided faith in anchors can be found in our tendency to use “self-generated anchors” (Epley & Gilovich, 2006). When we’re facing a situation where no suitable anchor has been provided, we often seek our own anchor from which we can produce our judgment (hence the term, “self-generated anchor”).
    Suppose that you’re applying for a job position and you’re asked to input your desired salary (what an aggravating question, huh?). To produce your estimate, you would likely use a three-step anchoring