We often rely on the price of a product to determine its worth. #1: Display Original and Discounted Prices Next to Each Other Let’s look at how some brands use the Anchoring Bias to appear affordable and increase the perceived value of their products and services. Ultimately, this experiment proved Kahneman and Tversky’s prediction that people rely on the initial cue to make estimates, even though it may result in an error in judgment. What’s the reason behind this big a difference?īasically, faced with a time limit, participants quickly anchored to the product of the first few numbers of the mathematical expression (1x2x3=6 & 8x7圆=336), which then influenced their estimates: a smaller number for an ascending sequence and a bigger answer for a descending sequence. The first group’s median estimate was 512, while the second group’s median estimate was 2,250. Now, although the answer to both questions is 40,320, the groups gave different answers. In the above example, the leading anchor was the $150 price tag, which helped you make a price comparison and conclude that the $150 shirt’s a steal! Origin of Anchoring Biasīack in 1974, Kahneman and Tversky conducted a study in which one group of high school students was asked to estimate the result of 1x2x3x4x5圆x7x8, and the other group was asked to calculate 8x7圆x5x4x3x2x1. Think of it as a shortcut or heuristic our brain takes to speed up the decision-making process. Know why? Because of a cognitive bias called anchoring.Īnchoring is the fact that people tend to cling on to the first piece of information (or anchor) they encounter, and let their subsequent actions, such as estimates, arguments, and conclusions, be made in relation to it. What do you do next? You go back to your first find and buy it. However, determined to find something similar and cheaper, you continue with your search, only to find that other shirt prices range between $500-850. You check its price tag, and since you see it’s quite expensive – $150 – you put it back on the rack. After a minute of window shopping, you’re drawn to a fancy silk shirt. The apparent effect of the anchoring group number on the P-complex sensitization seems to be mainly related with the visible light absorption efficiency of each P-complex.Imagine you’re at a vintage store. A phosphonate anchor, however, can provide a stronger chemical linkage to TiO(2) surface, and the overall sensitization performance was less influenced by the adsorption capability of P-complexes. The surface binding (strength and stability) of C-complexes on TiO(2) is highly influenced by the number of carboxylate groups and is the most decisive factor in controlling the sensitization efficiency. However, P6, which has the highest visible light absorption, was more efficient than P2 and P4 as a sensitizer of TiO(2). Although C4 exhibited the lowest visible light absorption, C4-TiO(2) electrode showed the best cell performance and stability among C-TiO(2) electrodes. The properties and efficiencies of C- and P-complexes as a sensitizer depended on the number of anchoring groups in very different ways. Six derivatives of Ru-bipyridyl complexes having di-, tetra-, or hexacarboxylate (C2, C4, and C6) and di-, tetra-, or hexaphosphonate (P2, P4, and P6) as the anchoring group were synthesized. The effects of the number of anchoring groups (carboxylate vs phosphonate) in Ru-bipyridyl complexes on their binding to TiO(2) surface and the photoelectrochemical performance of the sensitized TiO(2) electrodes were systematically investigated.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |