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 Target Gender Anchor Condition Subject Gender MaleFemale Failure (Low) Male 16 Female 15 Success (High) Male 14 Female 17

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 Extreme Failure Moderate Failure Mild Failure Mild Success Moderate Success Extreme Success –10 –9 –8 –7 –6 –5 –4 –3 –2 –1 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10

9. Descriptive Statistics (Total) Anchor Target Gender MeanSD Failure Male4.40323.6797 Female4.04843.9080 Total4.22583.7686 Success Male5.16132.2375 Female4.27423.6602 Total4.71773.0415 Total Male4.78233.0442 Female4.16133.7567 Total4.47183.4194

10. Total

11. Descriptive Statistics (Male subjects) Anchor Target Gender MeanSD Failure Male3.96884.5624 Female3.21884.2777 Total3.59384.3671 Success Male4.71432.0913 Female4.71432.9464 Total4.71432.5071 Total Male4.31673.5875 Female3.91673.7326 Total4.11673.6352

12. Male subjects

13. Descriptive Statistics (Female subjects) Anchor Target Gender MeanSD Failure Male4.86672.5033 Female4.93333.3905 Total4.90002.9285 Success Male5.52942.3483 Female3.91183.8242 Total4.80473.1967 Total Male5.21882.4061 Female4.39063.8242 Total4.80473.1967

14. Female subjects

15. Inferential Statistics EffectFSig. Subject Gender.769.384 Anchor.394.533 Target Gender1.577.214 SGender*TGender.191.664 SGender*Anchor.754.389 Anchor*Tgender.260.612 SGender*Anchor* TGender 1.765.189

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.