Online sponsored search advertising has emerged as a dominant form of advertising. While prior research has investigated the impact of such advertising as a signal for the advertiser, it has largely neglected the impact of sponsored ads on subsequent choice and evaluations. Using a mixed-method approach combining secondary data from a large hotel aggregator and experimental studies, the present work investigates the effect of anchoring, a commonly used heuristic in the context of online search. This research indicates that a sponsored (i.e., paid) search result acts as an anchor influencing subsequent consumer choice when it is shown as the first-ranked result. The strength of the anchoring effect varies across multiple factors, including the similarity of other search results and the size of the search device screen.
AbrateG.FraquelliG.VigliaG. (2012), “Dynamic Pricing Strategies: Evidence from European Hotels,” International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31 (1), 160–68.
AlasmariT. (2020), “The Effect of Screen Size on Students’ Cognitive Load in Mobile Learning,” Journal of Education, Teaching and Learning, 5 (2), 280–95.
4.
AndersonC.J. (2003), “The Psychology of Doing Nothing: Forms of Decision Avoidance Result from Reason and Emotion,” Psychological Bulletin, 129 (1), 139–67.
5.
AnimeshA.RamachandranV.ViswanathanS. (2010), “Research Note—Quality Uncertainty and the Performance of Online Sponsored Search Markets: An Empirical Investigation,” Information Systems Research, 21 (1), 190–201.
6.
ArielyD.LoewensteinG.PrelecD. (2003), “‘Coherent Arbitrariness’: Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118 (1), 73–106.
7.
BarlowT.WogalterM.S. (1993), “Alcoholic Beverage Warnings in Magazine and Television Advertisements,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (1), 147–56.
8.
BrunelF.F.NelsonM.R. (2003), “Message Order Effects and Gender Differences in Advertising Persuasion,” Journal of Advertising Research, 43 (3), 330–41.
9.
ChaikenS. (1980), “Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (5), 752–66.
10.
ChakravartiD.MitchellA.StaelinR. (1979), “Judgment Based Marketing Decision Models: An Experimental Investigation of the Decision calculus Approach,” Management Science, 25 (3), 251–63.
11.
ChanT.Y.ParkY.H. (2015), “Consumer Search Activities and the Value of Ad Positions in Sponsored Search Advertising,” Marketing Science, 34 (4), 606–23.
12.
ChandonP.WansinkB. (2006), “How Biased Household Inventory Estimates Distort Shopping and Storage Decisions,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 118–35.
13.
ChapmanG.B.JohnsonE.J. (1994), “The Limits of Anchoring,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7 (4), 223–42.
14.
ChapmanG.B.JohnsonE.J. (1999), “Anchoring, Activation, and the Construction of Values,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79 (2), 115–53.
15.
ChapmanG.B.JohnsonE.J. (2002), “Incorporating the Irrelevant: Anchors in Judgments of Belief and Value,” in Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, GilovichT.GriffinD.KahnemanD., eds. Cambridge University Press, 120–38.
16.
ChenS.ChaikenS. (1999), “The Heuristic-Systematic Model in its Broader Context,” in Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology, ChaikenS.TropeY., eds. Guilford Press, 73–96.
17.
ChernevA. (2011), “Semantic Anchoring in Sequential Evaluations of Vices and Virtues,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (5), 761–74.
18.
CiobanuD.DinucaC.E. (2012), “Predicting the Next Page That Will Be Visited by a Web Surfer Using Page Rank Algorithm,” International Journal of Computers and Communications, 6 (1), 60–67.
CutrellE.GuanZ. (2007), “What Are You Looking For? An Eye-Tracking Study of Information Usage in Web Search,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, 407–16.
23.
DavisD.F.BagchiR. (2018), “How Evaluations of Multiple Percentage Price Changes are Influenced by Presentation Mode and Percentage Ordering: The Role of Anchoring and Surprise,” Journal of Marketing Research, 55 (5), 655–66.
24.
DelVecchioD.SmithD.C. (2005), “Brand-extension Price Premiums: The Effects of Perceived fit and Extension Product Category Risk,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33 (2), 184–96.
25.
DevetagM.G. (1999), “From Utilities to Mental Models: A Critical Survey on Decision Rules and Cognition in Consumer Choice,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 8 (2), 289–51.
26.
DownenT.FurnerZ.CataldiB. (2018), “The Effects on Anchoring of Increasing Quantities of Disconfirming Evidence,” International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 18 (3), 309–31.
27.
DoyleJ.OjiakoU.MarshallA.DawsonI.BritoM. (2021), “The Anchoring Heuristic and Overconfidence Bias among Frontline Employees in Supply Chain Organizations,” Production Planning & Control, 32 (7), 549–66.
EpleyN.GilovichT. (2006), “The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic: Why the Adjustments Are Insufficient,” Psychological Science, 17 (4), 311–18.
30.
EpplerM.J.MengisJ. (2004, July), “Side-Effects of the e-Society: The Causes of Information Overload and Possible Countermeasures,” in Proceedings of IADIS International Conference e-Society, Vol. 2, P. Isaías, M. McPherson, and P. Kommers, eds. IADIS Press, 1119–24.
31.
FurnhamA.BooH.C. (2011), “A Literature Review of the Anchoring Effect,” Journal of Socio-Economics, 40 (1), 35–42.
32.
GastwirthJ.L. (1971), “A General Definition of the Lorenz Curve,” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 39 (6), 1037–39.
33.
GhoseA.YangS. (2009), “An Empirical Analysis of Search Engine Advertising: Sponsored Search in Electronic Markets,” Management Science, 55 (10), 1605–22.
34.
GhoshalT.YorkstonE.NunesJ.C.BoatwrightP. (2014), “Multiple Reference Points in Sequential Hedonic Evaluation: An Empirical Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (5), 563–77.
35.
GinterJ.L. (1974), “An Experimental Investigation of Attitude Change and Choice of a New Brand,” Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (1), 30–40.
36.
GlöcknerA.EnglichB. (2015), “When Relevance Matters: Anchoring Effects Can Be Larger for Relevant Than for Irrelevant Anchors,” Social Psychology, 46 (1), 4–12.
37.
GreeneA.J.PrepsciusC.LevyW.B. (2000), “Primacy Versus Recency in a Quantitative Model: Activity is the Critical Distinction,” Learning & Memory, 7 (1), 48–57.
38.
HanS.HanJ.K.ImI.JungS.I.LeeJ.W. (2022), “Mapping Consumer’s Cross-Device Usage for Online Search: Mobile- vs. PC-Based Search in the Purchase Decision Process,” Journal of Business Research, 142, 387–99.
JerathK.MaL.ParkY.H. (2014), “Consumer Click Behavior at a Search Engine: The Role of Keyword Popularity,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (4), 480–86.
43.
KahnemanD. (1992), “Reference Points, Anchors, Norms, and Mixed Feelings,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51 (2), 296–312.
44.
KeaneM.WasiN. (2013), “Comparing Alternative Models of Heterogeneity in Consumer Choice Behavior,” Journal of Applied Econometrics, 28 (6), 1018–45.
45.
KimK.J.SundarS.S. (2016), “Mobile Persuasion: Can Screen Size and Presentation Mode Make a Difference to Trust?” Human Communication Research, 42 (1), 45–70.
46.
KirmaniA.ShivB. (1998), “Effects of Source Congruity on Brand Attitudes and Beliefs: The Moderating Role of Issue-Relevant Elaboration,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7 (1), 25–47.
47.
KöcherS.JugovacM.JannachD.HolzmüllerH.H. (2019), “New Hidden Persuaders: An Investigation of Attribute-Level Anchoring Effects of Product Recommendations,” Journal of Retailing, 95 (1), 24–41.
48.
LewisJ.GaertigC.SimmonsJ.P. (2019), “Extremeness Aversion is a Cause of Anchoring,” Psychological Science, 30 (2), 159–73.
49.
LiederF.KruegerP.M.GriffithsT. (2017), “An Automatic Method for Discovering Rational Heuristics for Risky Choice,” in CogSci 2017—Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 742–47.
50.
MadzharovA.V.BlockL.G. (2010), “Effects of Product Unit Image on Consumption of Snack Foods,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20 (4), 398–409.
51.
MalhotraN.K. (1984), “Reflections on the Information Overload Paradigm in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (4), 436–40.
52.
MartinK.D.SmithN.C. (2008), “Commercializing Social Interaction: The Ethics of Stealth Marketing,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27 (1), 45–56.
53.
McFaddenD. (1973), “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior,” in Frontiers in Econometrics, ZarembkaP., ed. Academic Press, 105–42.
54.
MillerG.A.GalanterE.PribramK.H. (1960), “The Unit of Analysis,” in Plans and the Structure of Behavior, MillerG.A.GalanterE.PribramK.H., eds. Henry Holt and Co, 21–39.
55.
MinkowskiH. (1908), “Die Grundgleichungen für die elektromagnetischen Vorgänge in bewegten Körpern,” Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse, 1908, 53–111.
56.
MummaG.H.WilsonS.B. (1995), “Procedural Debiasing of Primacy/Anchoring Effects in Clinical-Like Judgments,” Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51 (6), 841–53.
57.
MussweilerT.EnglichB. (2005), “Subliminal Anchoring: Judgmental Consequences and Underlying Mechanisms,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98 (2), 133–43.
58.
MussweilerT.StrackF. (1999), “Comparing is Believing: A Selective Accessibility Model of Judgmental Anchoring,” European Review of Social Psychology, 10 (1), 135–67.
59.
NazlanN.H.TanfordS.MontgomeryR. (2018), “The Effect of Availability Heuristics in Online Consumer Reviews,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 17 (5), 449–60.
60.
NunesJ.C.BoatwrightP. (2004), “Incidental Prices and Their Effect on Willingness to pay,” Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (4), 457–66.
61.
PanB. (2015), “The Power of Search Engine Ranking for Tourist Destinations,” Tourism Management, 47, 79–87.
62.
PapoutsakiA.LaskeyJ.HuangJ. (2017, March), “Searchgazer: Webcam Eye Tracking for Remote Studies of Web Search,” in Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. Association for Computing Machinery, 17–26.
63.
ParducciA. (1974), “Contextual Effects: A Range-Frequency Analysis,” in Handbook of Perception, Vol. 2, CarteretteE.C.FriedmanM.P., eds. Academic Press, 127–41.
64.
PayneJ.W.BettmanJ.R.JohnsonE.J. (1993), “The Use of Multiple Strategies in Judgment and Choice,” in Individual and Group Decision Making: Current Issues, CastellanN.J.Jr., ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 19–39.
65.
RaghubirP.ValenzuelaA. (2006), “Center-of-Inattention: Position Biases in Decision-Making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99 (1), 66–80.
66.
RatchfordB.T. (1982), “Cost-Benefit Models for Explaining Consumer Choice and Information Seeking Behavior,” Management Science, 28 (2), 197–212.
67.
RedlingerE.GlasB.RongY. (2021), “Impact of Screen Size on Cognitive Training Task Performance: An HMD Study,” International Journal of Psychophysiology, 166, 166–73.
68.
RooderkerkR.P.LehmannD.R. (2021), “Incorporating Consumer Product Categorizations into Shelf Layout Design,” Journal of Marketing Research, 58 (1), 50–73.
RutzO.J.SonnierG.P.TrusovM. (2017), “A new Method to aid Copy Testing of Paid Search Text Advertisements,” Journal of Marketing Research, 54 (6), 885–900.
71.
ScheibehenneB.GreifenederR.ToddP.M. (2010), “Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (3), 409–25.
72.
ScottP.J.LizieriC. (2012), “Consumer House Price Judgements: New Evidence of Anchoring and Arbitrary Coherence,” Journal of Property Research, 29 (1), 49–68.
73.
ShilohS.SaltonE.SharabiD. (2002), “Individual Differences in Rational and Intuitive Thinking Styles as Predictors of Heuristic Responses and Framing Effects,” Personality and Individual Differences, 32 (3), 415–29.
74.
SimonovA.NoskoC.RaoJ.M. (2018), “Competition and Crowd-Out for Brand Keywords in Sponsored Search,” Marketing Science, 37 (2), 200–215.
75.
StrackF.MussweilerT. (1997), “Explaining the Enigmatic Anchoring Effect: Mechanisms of Selective Accessibility,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (3), 437–46.
76.
TakahashiT. (2007), “A Comparison of Intertemporal Choices for Oneself Versus Someone Else Based on Tsallis’ Statistics,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 385 (2), 637–44.
77.
TanL.WardG. (2000), “A Recency-Based Account of the Primacy Effect in Free Recall,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26 (6), 1589–625.
78.
TangariA.H.BuiM.HawsK.L.LiuP.J. (2019), “That’s Not So Bad, I’ll Eat More! Backfire Effects of Calories-per-Serving Information on Snack Consumption,” Journal of Marketing, 83 (1), 133–50.
79.
TeasR.K. (1993), “Expectations, Performance Evaluation, and Consumers’ Perceptions of Quality,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (4), 18–34.
80.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974), “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science, 185 (4157), 1124–31.
81.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1989), “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions,” in Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Risk Analysis Using Microcomputers, KarpakB.ZiontsS., eds. Springer, 81–126.
82.
TverskyA.ShafirE. (1992), “Choice Under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision,” Psychological Science, 3 (6), 358–61.
WangR.SahinO. (2018), “The Impact of Consumer Search Cost on Assortment Planning and Pricing,” Management Science, 64 (8), 3649–66.
85.
WangF.ZuoL.YangZ.WuY. (2019), “Mobile Searching Versus Online Searching: Differential Effects of Paid Search Keywords on Direct and Indirect Sales,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47 (6), 1151–65.
86.
WegenerD.T.PettyR.E.BlankenshipK.L.Detweiler-BedellB. (2010), “Elaboration and Numerical Anchoring: Implications of Attitude Theories for Consumer Judgment and Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20 (1), 5–16.
87.
WertenbrochK.SkieraB. (2002), “Measuring Consumers’ Willingness to pay at the Point of Purchase,” Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (2), 228–41.
88.
WilsonT.D.HoustonC.E.EtlingK.M.BrekkeN. (1996), “A New Look at Anchoring Effects: Basic Anchoring and Its Antecedents,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125 (4), 387–402.
89.
WrightW.F.AndersonU. (1989), “Effects of Situation Familiarity and Financial Incentives on Use of the Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic for Probability Assessment,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44 (1), 68–82.
90.
YangS.GhoseA. (2010), “Analyzing the Relationship Between Organic and Sponsored Search Advertising: Positive, Negative, or Zero Interdependence?” Marketing Science, 29 (4), 602–23.
91.
YaoS.MelaC.F. (2011), “A Dynamic Model of Sponsored Search Advertising,” Marketing Science, 30 (3), 447–68.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
