Anchoring, the assimilation of judgments to previously considered values, is one of the most robust findings in psychology, and researchers have been increasingly interested in finding individual difference moderators of anchoring effects. Several investigations have examined the relation between Big Five traits and anchoring susceptibility, but previous studies have produced a confusing and contradictory pattern of results. We identify limitations of previous work and report a large preregistered study (N = 945) to test whether Big Five traits and facets relate to anchoring. We find no significant relations between any traits or facets and anchoring susceptibility. We discuss the implications of our results and future directions for research on individual differences in anchoring susceptibility.
AdairW. L.WeingartL.BrettJ. (2007). The timing and function of offers in U. S. and Japanese negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1056–1068. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1056
2.
BahníkŠ.StrackF. (2016). Overlap of accessible information undermines the anchoring effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 11, 92–98.
3.
BodenhausenG. V.GabrielS.LinebergerM. (2000). Sadness and susceptibility to judgmental bias: The case of anchoring. Psychological Science, 11, 320–323. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00263
4.
BrandtM. J.EvansA.CrawfordJ. T. (2015). The unthinking or confident extremist? Political extremists are more likely than moderates to reject experimenter-generated anchors. Psychological Science, 26, 189–202. doi:10.1177/0956797614559730
5.
BrewerN. T.ChapmanG. B.SchwartzJ. A.BergusG. R. (2007). The influence of irrelevant anchors on the judgments and choices of doctors and patients. Medical Decision Making, 27, 203–211. doi:10.1177/0272989X06298595
6.
ButtonK. S.IonnidisJ. P. A.MokryszC.NosekB. A.FlintJ.RobinsonE. S. J.MunafòM. R. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews, 14, 365–376. doi:10.1038/nrn3475
7.
CaputoA. (2014). Relevant information, personality traits, and anchoring effect. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 13, 62–76. doi:10.1504/IJMDM.2014.058470
8.
ChapmanG. B.BornsteinB. H. (1996). The more you ask for, the more you get: Anchoring in personal injury verdicts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 519–540. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199612)10:6<519::AID-ACP417>3.0.CO;2-5
9.
ChapmanG. B.JohnsonE. J. (2002). Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. In GilovichT.GriffinD.KahnemanD. (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 120–138). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
10.
CheekN. N.Coe-OdessS.SchwartzB. (2015). What have I just done? Anchoring, self-knowledge, and judgments of recent behavior. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 76–85.
11.
CheekN. N.NoremJ. K. (2017). Holistic thinkers anchor less: Exploring the roles of self-construal and thinking styles in anchoring susceptibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 174–176. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.034
12.
CheekN. N.NoremJ. K. (2018). On moderator detection in anchoring research: Implications of ignoring estimate direction. Collabra: Psychology, 4, 12. doi:10.1525/collabra.125
13.
ChoiI.NisbettR. E., (1998). Situational salience and cultural differences in the correspondence bias and actor-observer differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 949–960. doi:10.1177/0146167298249003
14.
ColmanD. E.VineyardJ.LetzringT. D., (2018). Exploring beyond simple demographic variables: Differences between traditional laboratory samples and crowdsourced online samples on the Big Five personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 133, 41–46. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.023
15.
CostaR.McCraeR. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21–50. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6401_2
16.
CredéM.HarmsP.NiehorsterS.Gaye-ValentineA. (2012). An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the Big Five personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 874–888. doi:10.1037/a0027403
de OliveiraS.NisbettR. E. (2017). Culture changes how we think about thinking: From “human inference” to “geography of thought.”Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 782–790.
19.
DowdK. W.PetrocelliJ. V.WoodM. T. (2014). Integrating information from multiple sources: A metacognitive account of self-generated and externally provided anchors. Thinking & Reasoning, 20, 315–332. doi:10.1080/13546783.2013.811442
20.
DuckittJ. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). New York, NY: Academic Press.
21.
EnglichB.MussweilerT.StrackF. (2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 188–200. doi:10.1177/0146167205282152
22.
EnglichB.SoderK. (2009). Moody experts—How mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 41–50.
23.
EpleyN. (2004). A tale of tuned decks? Anchoring as accessibility and anchoring as adjustment. In KoehlerD. J.HarveyN. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 240–257). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.
24.
EpleyN.GilovichT. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12, 391–396. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00372
25.
EpleyN.GilovichT. (2006). The anchor-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17, 311–318. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01704.x
ErogluC.CroxtonK. L. (2010). Biases in judgment of statistical forecasts: The role of individual differences. International Journal of Forecasting, 26, 116–133. doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2009.02.005
28.
FurnhamA.BooH. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 35–42. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2010.10.008
29.
FurnhamA.BooH. C.McClellandA. (2012). Individual differences and the susceptibility to the influence of anchoring cues. Journal of Individual Differences, 33, 89–93. doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000076
30.
GalinskyA. D.MussweilerT. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 657–669. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.81.4.657
31.
GoodmanJ. K.CryderC. E.CheemaA., (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24, 213–224. doi:10.1002/bdm.1753
32.
GoslingS. D.RentfrowP. J.SwannW. B.Jr (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
33.
JacowitzK. E.KahnemanD. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161–1166. doi:10.1177/01461672952111004
34.
JasperF.OrtnerT. M. (2014). The tendency to fall for distracting information while making judgments: Development and validation of the Objective Heuristic Thinking Test. European Journal of Personality Assessment, 30, 193–207. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000214
35.
JoelS.SpielmannS. S.MacDonaldG. (2017). Motivated use of numerical anchors for judgments relevant to the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 972–985. doi:10.1177/0146167217702613
36.
JohnsonJ. A. (2014). Measuring thirty facets of the Five Factor Model with a 120-item public domain inventory: Development of the IPIP-NEO-120. Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 78–89. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2014.05.003
37.
KleinR. A.RatliffK. A.VianelloM.AdamsR. B.JrBahníkŠBernsteinM. J.…NosekB. A. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A “Many Labs” Replication Project. Social Psychology, 45, 142–152. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000178
38.
LammersJ.BurgmerP. (2017). Power increases anchoring effects on judgment. Social Cognition, 35, 40–53. doi:10.1521/soco.2017.35.1.40
39.
MarchioriD.PapiesE. K.KleinO. (2014). The portion size effect on food intake. An anchoring and adjustment process?Appetite, 81, 108–115. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.06.018
40.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Jr (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In HoganR.JohnsonJ. A.BriggsS. R. (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825–847). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50032-9
41.
McElroyT.DowdK. (2007). Susceptibility to anchoring effects: How openness-to-experience influences responses to anchoring cues. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 48–53.
42.
MussweilerT.EnglichB. (2005). Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 133–143.
43.
NoremJ. K. (2010). Resisting the hegemony of the Five-Factor Model: There is plenty of personality outside the FFA. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 65–68. doi:10.1080/10478401003648799
44.
OppenheimerD. M.MeyvisT.DavidenkoN. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009
45.
OzerD. J.Benet-MartiniezV. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127
46.
PerryR.SibleyC. G. (2013). Seize and freeze: Openness to experience shapes judgments of societal threat. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 677–686. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.06.006
47.
RobertsB. W.KuncelN. R.ShinerR.CaspiA.GoldbergL. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 313–345. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x
48.
SaucierG.GoldbergL. R. (1996). Evidence for the Big 5 in analyses of familiar English personality adjectives. European Journal of Personality, 10, 61–77. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199603)10:1<61::AID-PER246>3.0.CO;2-D
49.
SimmonsJ. P.LeBoeufR. A.NelsonL. D. (2010). The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: Do people adjust away from provided anchors?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 917–932. doi:10.1037/a0021540
50.
SmithA. R.WindschitlP. D.BruchmannK. (2013). Knowledge matters: Anchoring effects are moderated by knowledge level. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 97–108. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1921
51.
SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2017). Short and extra-short forms of the Big Five Inventory-2: The BFI-2-S and BFI-2-XS. Journal of Research in Personality, 68, 69–81. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2017.02.004
52.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 672–695. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672
53.
TeovanovićP.KneževićG.StankovL. (2015). Individual differences in cognitive biases: Evidence against a one-factor theory of rationality. Intelligence, 50, 75–86. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.02.008
54.
ThorsteinsonT. J. (2011). Initiating salary discussions with an extreme request: Anchoring effects on initial salary offers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 1774–1792. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00779.x
55.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
56.
VadilloM. A.KonstantinidisE.ShanksD. R. (2016). Underpowered samples, false negatives, and unconscious learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 87–102. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0892-6
57.
WansinkB.KentR. J.HochS. J. (1998). An anchoring and adjustment model of purchase quantity decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 71–81. doi:10.2307/3151931
58.
WellsG. L.WindschitlP. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115–1125.
59.
WelshM. B.DelfabbroP. H.BurnsN. R.BeggS. H. (2014). Individual differences in anchoring: Traits and experience. Learning and Individual Differences, 29, 131–140. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.002
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.
