The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on the Judgments and Choices of Doctors and Patients

Noel T. Brewer, Gretchen B. Chapman, Janet A. Schwartz and George R. Bergus
Additional contact information
Noel T. Brewer: Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, ntb1@unc.edu
Gretchen B. Chapman: Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, Camden, NJ
Janet A. Schwartz: Woodrow Wilson School of International and Public Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
George R. Bergus: Departments of Family Medicine and Psychiatry, College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City

Medical Decision Making, 2007, vol. 27, issue 2, 203-211

Abstract: Background. Little research has examined how anchor numbers affect choice, despite several decades of research showing that judgments typically and robustly assimilate toward irrelevant anchors. Methods. In one experiment, HIV-positive patients ( N = 99) judged the chances that sexual partners would become infected with HIV after sex using a defective condom and then indicated their choices of remedial action. In a second experiment, Iowa physicians ( N = 191) rated the chances that hypothetical patients had a pulmonary embolism and then formulated a treatment plan. Results. Irrelevant anchor numbers dramatically affected judgments by HIV-infected patients of the chances of HIV infection after a condom broke during sex (43% v. 64% in the low- and high-anchor conditions, respectively) and judgments by doctors of the chances of pulmonary embolism (23% v. 53%, respectively). Despite large anchoring effects in judgement, treatment choices did not differ between low-and high-anchor conditions. Accountability did not reduce the anchoring bias in the doctors' judgments. Discussion. The practical implications of anchoring for risk judgments are potentially large, but the bias may be less relevant to treatment choices. The findings suggest that the theoretical underpinnings of the anchoring bias may be more complex than previously thought. Key words: anchoring bias; assimilation effect; contrast effect; risk perception. (Med Decis Making 2007; 27: 203—211)

Date: 2007
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X06298595 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:2:p:203-211

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06298595

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().