How and Why Precise Anchors Distinctly Affect Anchor Recipients and Senders

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Standard

How and Why Precise Anchors Distinctly Affect Anchor Recipients and Senders. / Loschelder, David D.; Friese, Malte; Trötschel, Roman.
in: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Jahrgang 70, 01.05.2017, S. 164-176.

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{290fb45136ea4c61a07a45e0e49abcbf,
title = "How and Why Precise Anchors Distinctly Affect Anchor Recipients and Senders",
abstract = "A negotiation commonly starts with one party sending and the counterpart receiving a first offer. This first offer anchors recipients and yields higher profits to the sender. Recent research has shown that precise anchors (e.g., $28.75) - those featuring fewer trailing zeros - are more potent than round anchors ($30.00). The present studies extend this literature in two ways: First, prior research has exclusively focused on anchor recipients while ignoring the sender. Here, we examine precision effects for (1) recipients, (2) senders, and (3) both recipients and senders in a dyadic negotiation. Three experiments establish distinct and opposing effects: Whereas increasing precision elevates a first offer's anchoring potency for recipients, it lowers the first-offer extremity that senders opt for. Second, prior research has disagreed upon the theoretical mechanisms behind the precision effect: The . scale-granularity account posits that decision-makers adjust in smaller steps on a finer-grained mental scale. The . attribution-of-competence account posits that people ascribe more competence to a precise-opening individual. We examine these competing theoretical accounts simultaneously. Multiple mediation analyses across all three experiments suggested consistently that the beneficial impact of precise anchors on recipients is due to a social attribution-of-competence, whereas the detrimental impact on anchor-senders is due to a cognitive scale-granularity process. In all, the present findings show (a) that senders and recipients are distinctly affected by anchor precision, and (b) that these opposing effects are due to distinct psychological processes.",
keywords = "Psychology, Anchoring, Negotiation, First offers, Decision-making, Anchor precision",
author = "Loschelder, {David D.} and Malte Friese and Roman Tr{\"o}tschel",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2016 Elsevier Inc.",
year = "2017",
month = may,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jesp.2016.11.001",
language = "English",
volume = "70",
pages = "164--176",
journal = "Journal of Experimental Social Psychology",
issn = "0022-1031",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - How and Why Precise Anchors Distinctly Affect Anchor Recipients and Senders

AU - Loschelder, David D.

AU - Friese, Malte

AU - Trötschel, Roman

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2016 Elsevier Inc.

PY - 2017/5/1

Y1 - 2017/5/1

N2 - A negotiation commonly starts with one party sending and the counterpart receiving a first offer. This first offer anchors recipients and yields higher profits to the sender. Recent research has shown that precise anchors (e.g., $28.75) - those featuring fewer trailing zeros - are more potent than round anchors ($30.00). The present studies extend this literature in two ways: First, prior research has exclusively focused on anchor recipients while ignoring the sender. Here, we examine precision effects for (1) recipients, (2) senders, and (3) both recipients and senders in a dyadic negotiation. Three experiments establish distinct and opposing effects: Whereas increasing precision elevates a first offer's anchoring potency for recipients, it lowers the first-offer extremity that senders opt for. Second, prior research has disagreed upon the theoretical mechanisms behind the precision effect: The . scale-granularity account posits that decision-makers adjust in smaller steps on a finer-grained mental scale. The . attribution-of-competence account posits that people ascribe more competence to a precise-opening individual. We examine these competing theoretical accounts simultaneously. Multiple mediation analyses across all three experiments suggested consistently that the beneficial impact of precise anchors on recipients is due to a social attribution-of-competence, whereas the detrimental impact on anchor-senders is due to a cognitive scale-granularity process. In all, the present findings show (a) that senders and recipients are distinctly affected by anchor precision, and (b) that these opposing effects are due to distinct psychological processes.

AB - A negotiation commonly starts with one party sending and the counterpart receiving a first offer. This first offer anchors recipients and yields higher profits to the sender. Recent research has shown that precise anchors (e.g., $28.75) - those featuring fewer trailing zeros - are more potent than round anchors ($30.00). The present studies extend this literature in two ways: First, prior research has exclusively focused on anchor recipients while ignoring the sender. Here, we examine precision effects for (1) recipients, (2) senders, and (3) both recipients and senders in a dyadic negotiation. Three experiments establish distinct and opposing effects: Whereas increasing precision elevates a first offer's anchoring potency for recipients, it lowers the first-offer extremity that senders opt for. Second, prior research has disagreed upon the theoretical mechanisms behind the precision effect: The . scale-granularity account posits that decision-makers adjust in smaller steps on a finer-grained mental scale. The . attribution-of-competence account posits that people ascribe more competence to a precise-opening individual. We examine these competing theoretical accounts simultaneously. Multiple mediation analyses across all three experiments suggested consistently that the beneficial impact of precise anchors on recipients is due to a social attribution-of-competence, whereas the detrimental impact on anchor-senders is due to a cognitive scale-granularity process. In all, the present findings show (a) that senders and recipients are distinctly affected by anchor precision, and (b) that these opposing effects are due to distinct psychological processes.

KW - Psychology

KW - Anchoring

KW - Negotiation

KW - First offers

KW - Decision-making

KW - Anchor precision

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85009399919&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.11.001

DO - 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.11.001

M3 - Journal articles

VL - 70

SP - 164

EP - 176

JO - Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

JF - Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

SN - 0022-1031

ER -

DOI

Zuletzt angesehen

Publikationen

  1. Collaboration for a more sustainable agriculture – when does it work?
  2. Effect of Welding Speed on Friction Stir Welds of PM2000 Alloy
  3. Analysis of benzalkonium chloride in the effluent from European hospitals by solid-phase extraction and high-performance liquid chromatography with post-column ion-pairing and fluorescence detection
  4. Carbon Management Accounting and Reporting in Practice
  5. The measurement of work ability
  6. Frankfurter Auschwitz-Prozess
  7. Leveling up? An inter-neighborhood experiment on parochialism and the efficiency of multi-level public goods provision
  8. Priming effects induced by glucose and decaying plant residues on SOM decomposition: A three-source 13C/14C partitioning study
  9. Das Essen und seine Genderscripte.
  10. Phantasmal Spaces
  11. The prospects of product carbon footprints in ERP systems
  12. Implementing education for sustainable development in the German school system
  13. Give and take frames in shared-resource negotiations
  14. The Effects of Altruism and Social Background in an Online-Based, Pay-What-You-Want Situation
  15. Framing climate uncertainty
  16. Reconceptualising Business-IT Alignment for Enabling Organisational Agility
  17. The Managerial Relevance of Marketing Science: Properties and Genesis
  18. Epistemologies of Diversity and Otherness
  19. Effects of pesticides on community structure and ecosystem functions in agricultural streams of three biogeographical regions in Europe
  20. Cultural influences on social feedback processing of character traits
  21. Land use modulates resistance of grasslands against future climate and inter-annual climate variability in a large field experiment
  22. Mathematics teachers’ domain-specific professional knowledge: conceptualization and test construction in COACTIV