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
- Kent D. Messer (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9458-5278)
- Paul J. Ferraro (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4777-5108)
- Collin Weigel (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3090-4484)
- Tongzhe Li (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3129-2248)
Institutions
- California Air Resources Board (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- University of Guelph (CA)
- University of Delaware (US)
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
- National Science Foundation
- California Air Resources Board
- National Institute of Food and Agriculture