Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Anchoring and adjustment is a prevalent heuristic, common in a range of settings and decisions. While it is well studied using values, there has been limited research on its function in visual-spatial domains. The present study explored the role of anchoring and adjustment with visual displays containing uncertainty information related to spatial prediction. Participants were given a graphical briefing to anchor them on accurate, inaccurate, or no information regarding the future behavior of an object (both its average behavior and the variance in behavior). They then made predictions of future object location and estimated its likelihood at multiple locations. Overall individuals utilized the anchoring information and were able to adjust to incorrect anchors. However, individuals vastly overestimated the likelihood the object would be at any given location, suggesting that they were not anchored on the variance.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adelmman

Bresnick

Black

Marvin

Sak

(1996). Research with Patriot air defense officers: examining order effects. Human Factors, 38, 250-61.

Blankenship

K. L.

Wegener

D. T.

Petty

R. E.

Detweiler-Bedell

Macy

C. L.

(2008). Elaboration and consequences of anchored estimates. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(6), 1465-1476.

Broad

Leiserowitz

Weinkle

Steketee

(2007). Misinterpretations of the “cone of uncertainty” in Florida during the 2004 hurricane season. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 88(5), 651-667.

Chapman

G. B.

Johnson

E. J.

(1994). The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7(4), 223-242.

Chapman

G. B.

Johnson

E. J.

(2002). Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, 120-138.

Cook

Smallman

(2008). Human Factors of the confirmation bias. Human Factors, 50. 745-754.

Epley

Gilovich

(2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological science, 17(4), 311-318.

Evans

J. S. B.

Stanovich

K. E.

(2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition advancing the debate. Perspectives on psychological science,8(3), 223-241.

Furnham

Boo

H. C.

(2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(1), 35-42.

10.

Herdener

Wickens

C. D.

Clegg

B. A.

Smith

C. A. P.

(2016). Overconfidence in projecting uncertain spatial trajectories. Human Factors. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1177/0018720816645259

11.

Hogarth

Einhorn

(1992). Order effects in belief updating. Cognitive Psychology. 24. 1-55.

12.

Kahneman

(2011). Thinking, fast and slow. NY: Farrar, Straus, Giroux.

13.

Mussweiler

Strack

(1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(2), 136-164.

14.

Regnier

Kirlik

(2012). Human factors in the Joint Typhoon Warning Center watch floor (Tech. Rep. NPS-OR-11-003Rev). Monterey, CA: U.S. Navy Postgraduate School.

15.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.

Anchoring and Adjustment With Spatial Uncertainty in Trajectory Prediction

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References