Underpowered studies and exaggerated effects: A replication and re‐evaluation of the magnitude of anchoring effects

Abstract We reconsider one of the most widely studied behavioral biases: anchoring effects. We estimate that study designs in this literature, including replication studies, routinely fail to achieve statistical power of more than 30%. This study replicates an anchoring study that reported an effect size of a 31% increase in participants' bids. In the replication, we increased the design's statistical power from 46% to 96%, reducing the average exaggeration of a statistically significant result by a factor of seven. Our replication results reject the size of the original estimated effects. We find an estimated effect of 3.4% (95% CI [−3.4%, 10%]).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Economic Inquiry
Published
2025-02-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.13279
Primary Topic
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Underpowered studies and exaggerated effects: A replication and re‐evaluation of the magnitude of anchoring effects

Kent D. Messer, Paul J. Ferraro, Collin Weigel, Tongzhe Li
Economic Inquiry
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
article

Underpowered studies and exaggerated effects: A replication and re‐evaluation of the magnitude of anchoring effects

Kent D. Messer, Paul J. Ferraro, Collin Weigel, Tongzhe Li
article en

Abstract

Abstract We reconsider one of the most widely studied behavioral biases: anchoring effects. We estimate that study designs in this literature, including replication studies, routinely fail to achieve statistical power of more than 30%. This study replicates an anchoring study that reported an effect size of a 31% increase in participants' bids. In the replication, we increased the design's statistical power from 46% to 96%, reducing the average exaggeration of a statistically significant result by a factor of seven. Our replication results reject the size of the original estimated effects. We find an estimated effect of 3.4% (95% CI [−3.4%, 10%]).

Economic InquiryVol. 63(2)
California Air Resources Board (US), Johns Hopkins University (US), University of Guelph (CA), University of Delaware (US)
National Science Foundation, California Air Resources Board, National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Openalex Percentile: Top 96%
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Underpowered studies and exaggerated effects: A replication and re‐evaluation of the magnitude of anchoring effects — Kent D. Messer, Paul J. Ferraro, et al. · Economic Inquiry (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS