Jonah Lehrer writes fascinating posts about your brain, and mine, and his. His latest post is about "anchoring," roughly defined as mental bias toward an arbitrary
value. It strikes me that understanding anchoring is especially helpful for lawyers, who need to consciously understand or have a gift for intuiting mental bias -- their own, their clients, and fact-finders' -- in order to maximize success in trials and negotiations. Here's Lehrer's explanation of the phenomenon:
One of my favorite demonstrations of anchoring was done by a group of MIT economists led by Dan Ariely, as they conducted an auction with their business graduate students. (The study was later repeated with executives at the MIT Executive Education Program with similar results.) The items for sale included everything from a fancy bottle of French wine to a cordless keyboard to a box of chocolate truffles. The auction, however, came with a twist: Before the students could bid, they were asked to write down the last two digits of their social security number. Then, they were supposed to say whether or not they would be willing to pay that numerical amount for each of the products. For instance, if the last two digits of their social security number were 55, then they'd have to decide whether or not the bottle of wine or the cordless keyboard were worth $55. Finally, the students were instructed to write down the maximum amount they were willing to pay for the various items.
If people were perfectly rational, then writing down their social security numbers should have no effect on their bids. In other words, a student with a low valued social security number (like 10) should be willing to pay roughly the same price as someone with a high valued number (like 90). But that's not what happened. Look, for instance, at the bidding for the cordless keyboard. Students with the highest social security numbers (80-99) made an average bid of $56. In contrast, the average bid made by students with the lowest numbers (1-20) was a paltry $16. A similar trend held for every single item. On average, students with higher numbers were willing to spend 300 percent more than those with low numbers.
Lehrer's whole post, about how anchoring theory can be applied to belief, e.g. the reaction to the Gulf oil spill and the Icelandic ash cloud, is a provocative read. Here's the conclusion (but read the whole thing):
The only way to avoid anchoring is to know about it. We need to be more aware that anchoring is a fundamental flaw of human decision making, and that our first reaction to an event will continue to shape our ensuing thoughts, even after that reaction is no longer relevant or valid. Our old beliefs might be wrong, but their influence lingers on, an intellectual anchor holding us back.
