Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Maniadis, Zacharias; Tufano, Fabio; List, John A. (2013)
Publisher: Nottingham: The University of Nottingham, Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics (CeDEx)
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Anchoring, Methodology, Replication, Willingness to Accept, Experiment
jel: jel:D12, jel:C91
ddc: ddc:330
Some researchers have argued that anchoring in economic valuations casts doubt on the assumption of consistent and stable preferences. We present new evidence that questions the robustness of certain anchoring results. We then present a theoretical framework that provides insights into why we should be cautious of initial empirical findings in general. The model importantly highlights that the rate of false positives depends not only on the observed significance level, but also on statistical power, research priors, and the number of scholars exploring the question. Importantly, a few independent replications dramatically increase the chances that a given original finding is true.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Bergman, Oscar, Tore Ellingsen, Magnus Johannesson, and Cicek Svensson. 2010. “Anchoring and Cognitive Ability.” Economics Letters 107 (1): 66-8.
    • Bernheim, B. Douglas, and Antonio Rangel. 2007. “Toward Choice-Theoretic Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics.” American Economic Review 97 (2): 464-70.
    • Bernheim, B. Douglas, and Antonio Rangel. 2009. “Beyond Revealed Preference: Choice-Theoretic Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 124 (1): 51-104.
    • Beshears, John, James J. Choi, David Laibson, and Brigitte C. Madrian. 2008. “How Are Preferences Revealed?” Journal of Public Economics 92 (8-9): 1787-94.
    • Cartwright, Nancy. 1991. “Replicability, Reproducibility, and Robustness: Comments.” History of Political Economy 23 (1): 143-55.
    • Dawson, Erica, Thomas Gilovich, and Dennis Regan. 2002. “Motivated Reasoning and Performance on the Wason Selection Task.” Personality and Social Psychology 28 (10): 1379-87.
    • Fehr, Ernst, and Karla Hoff. 2011. “Introduction: Tastes, Castes and Culture: The Influence of Society on Preferences.” Economic Journal 121 (556): F396-412.
    • Fisher, Ronald A. 1935. The Design of Experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.
    • Fischbacher, Urs. 2007. “Z-Tree: Zurich Toolbox for Ready-Made Economic Experiments.” Experimental Economics 10 (2): 171-78.
    • Fudenberg, Drew, David K. Levine, and Zacharias Maniadis. 2012. “On the Robustness of Anchoring Effects in WTP and WTA Experiments.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 4 (2): 131-45.
    • Glaeser, Edward L. 2008. “Researcher Incentives and Empirical Methods.” In The Foundations of Positive and Normative Economics, edited by Andrew Caplin and Andrew Schotter, 300-19. New York: Oxford University Press.
    • Greiner, Ben. 2004. “An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments.” In Forschung und Wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003 (GWDG Bericht 63), edited by Kurt Kremer and Volker Macho, 79-93. Göttingen: Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung.
    • Hunter, John E. 2001. “The Desperate Need for Replications.” Journal of Consumer Research 28 (1): 149-58.
    • Ioannidis, John. 2005. “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Medicine 2 (8): 1418-22.
    • Kahneman, Daniel, and Robert Sugden. 2005. “Experienced Utility as a Standard of Policy Evaluation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 32 (1): 161-81.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.