Underpowered studies and exaggerated effects: A replication and re‐evaluation of the magnitude of anchoring effects
Bibliographic record
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%]).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.640 | 0.887 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".