Anchoring and Advice

When making judgments – such as forecasting how long a project will take or how much to save for retirement – people often turn to others for advice. Seeking advice is a helpful strategy for improving judgment quality because other people may have different information or perspectives than we do. Combining independent opinions from multiple advisors is often an effective strategy for improving judgments – an effect known as the "wisdom of crowds".

In my research with Rick Larrick and Jack Soll, we discovered something surprising about how people ask for advice. Across naturalistic and laboratory samples, people include their own thinking when asking others for input between 20 and 50% of the time. For instance, rather than asking an open-ended question like "How long do you think this project will take?", they might ask "Do you think this project will take more than 12 weeks?"

This tendency caught our attention because half a century of research on 'anchoring' – the tendency of judgments to be influenced by an initial reference point – suggests that questions including one's own judgment will yield different advice than neutral questions. When advice seekers supply their own judgments to their advisors, they anchor their advisors to a specific value. As a consequence, the resulting advice is more similar to the initial judgment than it otherwise might have been. In a recent paper published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, we examined why people sometimes anchor others when seeking advice and the consequences of doing so.

Why do people anchor their advisors?

Advice seeking is a humbling act: To ask for advice is to admit we don't know the answer. People who seek advice sometimes worry they will look incompetent or lazy. By including their tentative conclusions in requests for advice, they can demonstrate they've put thought into the problem. Our research confirmed this intuition: people with impression management goals (such as looking smart or demonstrating effort) were more likely to include anchors than those without such goals.

Conversely, when we gave people the explicit goal of maintaining their advisors' independence, they anchored at a lower rate than control groups. This suggests people understand how to ask unbiased questions when this goal is top-of-mind.

What are the consequences of anchoring the advisor?

We examined the consequences of anchoring in advice interactions from both a social and informational perspective.

From a social perspective, the intuition about being judged more favorably proved correct: advisors rated advice seekers as more competent and diligent when they included anchors. However, we discovered an equally effective alternative strategy: When advice seekers signaled they had formed a tentative conclusion but were withholding it to obtain independent advice, they were viewed just as favorably. In other words, saying "I have a number in mind, but I'd like to hear yours first" was as effective as saying "I estimate 12 weeks, what do you think?"

From an accuracy perspective, we found that advice seekers who anchored their advisors benefited less from averaging judgments. Those who asked neutral questions were more likely to benefit from the "wisdom of crowds" effect that comes from combining independent opinions.

Advice to Advice Seekers

When seeking advice from others, take a moment to reflect on how you are framing your request and any biases your framing might introduce. Giving your advisor a chance to think independently before sharing your own opinion will give you the best chance at receiving advice that meaningfully improves your judgment.

If you're worried about appearing incompetent or unprepared, consider letting advisors know you have a tentative conclusion in mind but would like to hear their opinions first. This approach maintains their independence while still demonstrating your effort and ability.