Hur Tungt Väger Ankaret? En Studie om Ankareffekten i Allvarlighetsbedömningar
(2025) PSYK12 20251Department of Psychology
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Kognitiva bias omfattar flertalet systematiska avvikelser från rationellt tänkande. Anchoring är ett sådant bias där människor tenderar att förlita sig för mycket på en initial siffra eller information i beslutsfattande eller bedömningar. Syftet med denna studie var att undersöka ankareffekten i allvarlighetsbedömningar av möjliga hotbilder mot Sveriges totalförsvar. Två hypoteser prövades: (1) Ankare har en effekt på allvarlighetsbedömningar, och (2) Allvarlighetsbedömningar påverkas av det specifika ankarvärdet: höga ankare leder till högre bedömningar och låga ankare leder till lägre bedömningar. Studien bestod av 85 deltagare och konstruerades som en experimentell repeated measures design. Deltagarna bedömde allvarligheten i fiktiva... (More)
- Kognitiva bias omfattar flertalet systematiska avvikelser från rationellt tänkande. Anchoring är ett sådant bias där människor tenderar att förlita sig för mycket på en initial siffra eller information i beslutsfattande eller bedömningar. Syftet med denna studie var att undersöka ankareffekten i allvarlighetsbedömningar av möjliga hotbilder mot Sveriges totalförsvar. Två hypoteser prövades: (1) Ankare har en effekt på allvarlighetsbedömningar, och (2) Allvarlighetsbedömningar påverkas av det specifika ankarvärdet: höga ankare leder till högre bedömningar och låga ankare leder till lägre bedömningar. Studien bestod av 85 deltagare och konstruerades som en experimentell repeated measures design. Deltagarna bedömde allvarligheten i fiktiva scenarier i form av hotbilder mot Sveriges totalförsvar, som varierade mellan tre allvarlighetsnivåer. Genom randomisering tilldelades vissa scenarier ankarbetingelser via en analytikers expertbedömning, medan andra var utan ankarbetingelser. En icke-parametrisk Repeated-Measures ANOVA (Friedman-test) indikerade en signifikant ankareffekt, dock enbart i de höga ankarbetingelserna. Resultatet motstrider viss tidigare forskning kring ankareffekten, men kan eventuellt tolkas genom Prospect Theory där risk- och förlustaversion kan leda till att individer hellre överskattar än underskattar risker i hotfulla situationer. Studien belyser även att individer påverkas av framing; hur information presenteras och hur det påverkar mottagaren, särskilt då den kommer från en trovärdig källa. Sammantaget betonar resultaten vikten av att förstå psykologiska faktorer bakom allvarlighetsbedömning i en tid av informationsöverflöd, och belyser behovet av vidare forskning kring hur ankareffekten fungerar i beslutsfattande i tillämpade, samhällsrelevanta kontexter. (Less)
- Abstract
- Cognitive biases encompass numerous systematic deviations from rational thinking. Anchoring is one such bias, where individuals tend to rely too heavily on an initial number or information when making decisions or judgements. The purpose of the following study was to examine the anchoring effect in severity assessments of potential threats towards Sweden’s total defence. The experiment tested two hypotheses: (1) Anchors affect severity assessments, and (2) Severity assessments are influenced by the specific anchor-value: high anchors lead to higher assessments and low anchors lead to lower assessments. The study consisted of 85 participants and was constructed through an experimental repeated measures design. The participants assessed the... (More)
- Cognitive biases encompass numerous systematic deviations from rational thinking. Anchoring is one such bias, where individuals tend to rely too heavily on an initial number or information when making decisions or judgements. The purpose of the following study was to examine the anchoring effect in severity assessments of potential threats towards Sweden’s total defence. The experiment tested two hypotheses: (1) Anchors affect severity assessments, and (2) Severity assessments are influenced by the specific anchor-value: high anchors lead to higher assessments and low anchors lead to lower assessments. The study consisted of 85 participants and was constructed through an experimental repeated measures design. The participants assessed the severity of fictional scenarios at three severity-levels, describing threats to Sweden’s total defence. Through randomisation, certain scenarios were assigned anchor-conditions through an analyst’s expert judgement, whilst others had no anchor-conditions. A non-parametric Repeated-Measures ANOVA (Friedman-test) indicated a significant anchoring effect, but only in the high anchor-conditions. This outcome contradicts some prior research on anchoring, yet can be interpreted through Prospect Theory as risk- and loss aversion may cause individuals to overestimate rather than underestimate risks in threatening situations. Additionally, the study indicates that individuals are subject to framing effects; how information is presented and thus influences recipients, especially when the source is credible. Overall, the findings underscore the importance of understanding the psychological factors behind severity assessments in an era of information-overload and highlight the need for further research on how anchoring operates in decision-making within applied, socially relevant contexts. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9192746
- author
- Teixeira Weidenholm, Emmy LU and Lindquist, Vera LU
- supervisor
-
- Mats Dahl LU
- organization
- course
- PSYK12 20251
- year
- 2025
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Allvarlighetsbedömning, Anchoring, Framing, Prospect Theory, Severity assessments
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9192746
- date added to LUP
- 2025-06-12 09:09:44
- date last changed
- 2025-06-12 09:09:44
@misc{9192746,
abstract = {{Cognitive biases encompass numerous systematic deviations from rational thinking. Anchoring is one such bias, where individuals tend to rely too heavily on an initial number or information when making decisions or judgements. The purpose of the following study was to examine the anchoring effect in severity assessments of potential threats towards Sweden’s total defence. The experiment tested two hypotheses: (1) Anchors affect severity assessments, and (2) Severity assessments are influenced by the specific anchor-value: high anchors lead to higher assessments and low anchors lead to lower assessments. The study consisted of 85 participants and was constructed through an experimental repeated measures design. The participants assessed the severity of fictional scenarios at three severity-levels, describing threats to Sweden’s total defence. Through randomisation, certain scenarios were assigned anchor-conditions through an analyst’s expert judgement, whilst others had no anchor-conditions. A non-parametric Repeated-Measures ANOVA (Friedman-test) indicated a significant anchoring effect, but only in the high anchor-conditions. This outcome contradicts some prior research on anchoring, yet can be interpreted through Prospect Theory as risk- and loss aversion may cause individuals to overestimate rather than underestimate risks in threatening situations. Additionally, the study indicates that individuals are subject to framing effects; how information is presented and thus influences recipients, especially when the source is credible. Overall, the findings underscore the importance of understanding the psychological factors behind severity assessments in an era of information-overload and highlight the need for further research on how anchoring operates in decision-making within applied, socially relevant contexts.}},
author = {{Teixeira Weidenholm, Emmy and Lindquist, Vera}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Hur Tungt Väger Ankaret? En Studie om Ankareffekten i Allvarlighetsbedömningar}},
year = {{2025}},
}