1 / 19

Anchoring and Gender Effects on the Assessment of Likelihood of Success

Anchoring and Gender Effects on the Assessment of Likelihood of Success. André Heiber Undergraduate Student Fort Lewis College. Important Theories. Kahneman & Tversky (1983); Kahneman (1992) Epley & Gilovich (2001) Biernat, Manis, & Nelson (1991); Biernat & Manis (1994)

loring
Download Presentation

Anchoring and Gender Effects on the Assessment of Likelihood of Success

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Anchoring and Gender Effects on the Assessment of Likelihood of Success André Heiber Undergraduate Student Fort Lewis College

  2. Important Theories • Kahneman & Tversky (1983); Kahneman (1992) • Epley & Gilovich (2001) • Biernat, Manis, & Nelson (1991); Biernat & Manis (1994) • Kobrynowicz & Biernat (1997); Biernat & Fuegen (2001)

  3. Will gender of subjects change their responses when rating success of male and female targets under the influence of an anchor?

  4. Hypotheses • Anchors will show an effect across both genders. • Female subjects will rate female targets lower on a success scale than male targets.

  5. Research Design

  6. Survey text • We are in the process of developing a test of empathy. This test is designed to show how well people are able to put themselves into someone else’s place. You will examine two photographs. For each photograph, judge whether the person has been experiencing success or failure. To help you make more exact judgments use the rating scale below each photo. • As you can see the scale runs from –10 (failure) to +10 (success). For example, in previous studies subjects have rated similar photos with an average [success rating of +5 / failure rating of –5]. Please rate each photo as accurately as you can, and circle the appropriately numbered response.

  7. Definitions • Independent variable was operationally defined as the version of the survey received, with either a high or low anchor. • High anchor = success rating of +5. • Low anchor = failure rating of –5. • Dependent variable operationally defined as the success score given.

  8. Target Photos

  9. Descriptive Statistics (Total)

  10. Total

  11. Descriptive Statistics (Male subjects)

  12. Male subjects

  13. Descriptive Statistics (Female subjects)

  14. Female subjects

  15. Inferential Statistics

  16. Hypotheses • Anchor effects showed no significance for either gender. • Female subjects did rate female targets lower than male targets, but only in the success condition.

  17. Conclusion • Anchoring effects did not support earlier literature. • Success condition showed much greater effect. • The two notable effects due to female subjects’ responses do support shifting standard theories.

  18. Confounds • Anchor either too weak or completely out of proportion. • Relative attractiveness of individuals in photograph unequal

  19. Additional comments • Time of response would have been an interesting and easy dependent variable to add.

More Related