scholarly journals COVID-19 and the Consequences of Anchoring Bias

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (8) ◽  
pp. 2235-2236
Author(s):  
Harold W. Horowitz ◽  
Caren Behar ◽  
Jeffrey Greene
Keyword(s):  
Anchoring Bias

External Auditors' Involvement in the Internal Audit Function's Work Plan and Subsequent Reliance Before and After a Negative Audit Discovery

2016 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 159-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Byron J. Pike ◽  
Lawrence Chui ◽  
Kasey A. Martin ◽  
Renee M. Olvera
Keyword(s):  
Internal Control ◽  
Internal Audit ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Professional Standards ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Internal Auditors ◽  
External Auditors ◽  
Internal Audit Function ◽  
Anchoring Bias ◽  
Before And After

SUMMARY To reduce redundancies and increase efficiency in the evaluation of internal controls (PCAOB 2007, 402–403), professional standards encourage coordination between external auditors and their clients' internal audit function (IAF). Recent surveys of internal auditors find that a component of this coordination is external auditors' involvement in developing the IAF's audit plans. Nevertheless, it is not known how such involvement affects external auditors' reliance on the internal control test work of the IAF, either before or after a negative audit discovery. Based on an experiment with 107 experienced auditors, we find that external auditors involved in the development of the IAF's audit plan perceive the IAF as more objective and that both objectivity and involvement contribute to these auditors' placing more reliance on the IAF as compared to external auditors with no involvement. This initial reliance results in the involved auditors' proposing reductions to the audit budget and re-performing less of the IAF's work. Consistent with an anchoring bias, we find that involvement leads to external auditors' continuing to place greater reliance on the IAF's work, even after they become aware of a negative audit discovery that should not have occurred had the client's controls been effective. Data Availability: Data are available from the authors on request.

The role of buy-side anchoring bias: Evidence from the real estate market

2016 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
pp. 34-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chuang-Chang Chang ◽  
Ching-Hsiang Chao ◽  
Jin-Huei Yeh
Keyword(s):  
Real Estate ◽  
Real Estate Market ◽  
The Real ◽  
The Real Estate ◽  
The Real Estate Market ◽  
Anchoring Bias

scholarly journals Utilisation of musculoskeletal ultrasonography for the evaluation of septic arthritis in a patient presenting to the emergency department with fever during the era of COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. e242370
Author(s):  
Jiodany Perez ◽  
Stefani Sorensen ◽  
Michael Rosselli
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Septic Arthritis ◽  
Glenohumeral Joint ◽  
Imaging Modality ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Significant Morbidity ◽  
Anchoring Bias ◽  
Septic Bursitis ◽  
Musculoskeletal Ultrasonography ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasonography

Prompt recognition and treatment of septic arthritis are crucial to prevent significant morbidity and mortality in affected patients. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, anchoring bias may make an already challenging diagnosis like septic arthritis more difficult to diagnose quickly and efficiently. Musculoskeletal (MSK) point of care ultrasonography (POCUS) is an imaging modality that can be used to quickly and efficiently obtain objective findings that may help a clinician establish the diagnosis of septic arthritis. We report a case where MSK POCUS was a key element in establishing the diagnosis of glenohumeral joint septic arthritis and subdeltoid septic bursitis for a patient that presented to the emergency department with a fever during the era of the COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals “It’s not lupus”. A placental site trophoblastic tumor presenting as a lupus-like paraneoplastic syndrome. A grand round case

Lupus ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 096120332098176
Author(s):  
Sarah J van der Lely ◽  
Jeffrey Boorsma ◽  
Marc Hilhorst ◽  
Jesper Kers ◽  
Joris Roelofs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nephrotic Syndrome ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Kidney Biopsy ◽  
Gestational Trophoblastic Disease ◽  
Grand Round ◽  
Placental Site Trophoblastic Tumor ◽  
Trophoblastic Tumor ◽  
Anchoring Bias ◽  
Placental Site ◽  
History Of

Introduction: Placental site trophoblastic tumor (PSTT) is a rare subtype of gestational trophoblastic disease. Association of PSTT and nephrotic syndrome is exceedingly rare and has been described in 8 cases thus far. In all cases hysterectomy was performed within months after onset of symptoms, leading to immediate remission of nephrotic syndrome, except for one patient who died of complications of PSTT. Case: We describe the history of a woman in which PSTT was discovered years after onset of nephrotic syndrome. Kidney biopsy revealed lupus-like mesangiocapillary nephritis and over time the patient developed additional symptoms mimicking systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Discussion: We provide an overview of the literature on this clinical entity and elaborate on its pathophysiology. In addition, we reflect on the phenomenon of anchoring bias, that led physicians to assume the patient had SLE without questioning this diagnosis in the light of the unexplained finding of increased tumor markers.

scholarly journals Fooled by facts: quantifying anchoring bias through a large-scale experiment

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taha Yasseri ◽  
Jannie Reher
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Group ◽  
Field Experiment ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Complex Relationship ◽  
Great Care ◽  
The Future ◽  
Anchoring Bias ◽  
Scale Experiment

AbstractThrough a large-scale online field experiment, we provide new empirical evidence for the presence of the anchoring bias in people’s judgement due to irrational reliance on a piece of information that they are initially given. The comparison of the anchoring stimuli and respective responses across different tasks reveals a positive, yet complex relationship between the anchors and the bias in participants’ predictions of the outcomes of events in the future. Participants in the treatment group were equally susceptible to the anchors regardless of their level of engagement, previous performance, or gender. Given the strong and ubiquitous influence of anchors quantified here, we should take great care to closely monitor and regulate the distribution of information online to facilitate less biased decision making.

Noise Increases Anchoring Effects

2021 ◽  
pp. 095679762110242
Author(s):  
Chang-Yuan Lee ◽  
Carey K. Morewedge
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Stimulus Feature ◽  
Stimulus Magnitude ◽  
Point Estimates ◽  
Plausible Values ◽  
Anchoring Effects ◽  
Anchoring Bias ◽  
Reservation Prices ◽  
Scalar Variability

We introduce a theoretical framework distinguishing between anchoring effects, anchoring bias, and judgmental noise: Anchoring effects require anchoring bias, but noise modulates their size. We tested this framework by manipulating stimulus magnitudes. As magnitudes increase, psychophysical noise due to scalar variability widens the perceived range of plausible values for the stimulus. This increased noise, in turn, increases the influence of anchoring bias on judgments. In 11 preregistered experiments ( N = 3,552 adults), anchoring effects increased with stimulus magnitude for point estimates of familiar and novel stimuli (e.g., reservation prices for hotels and donuts, counts in dot arrays). Comparisons of relevant and irrelevant anchors showed that noise itself did not produce anchoring effects. Noise amplified anchoring bias. Our findings identify a stimulus feature predicting the size and replicability of anchoring effects—stimulus magnitude. More broadly, we show how to use psychophysical noise to test relationships between bias and noise in judgment under uncertainty.

Anchoring Bias

2021 ◽  
pp. 21-27
Author(s):  
Michail Kosmidis
Keyword(s):  
Anchoring Bias

Taxonomy and Epidemiology of Error in Radiology

2019 ◽  
pp. 29-74
Author(s):  
Michael A. Bruno
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Confirmation Bias ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Attentional Focus ◽  
Relative Contribution ◽  
Anchoring Bias ◽  
Classification Of Error

This chapter provides an overview of the prevalence and classification of error types in radiology, including the frequency and types of errors made by radiologists. We will review the relative contribution of perceptual error—in which findings are simply not seen—as compared to other common types of error. This error epidemiology will be considered in the light of the underlying variability and uncertainties present in the radiological process. The role of key cognitive biases will also be reviewed, including anchoring bias, confirmation bias, and availability bias. The role of attentional focus, working memory, and problems caused by fatigue and interruption will also be explored. Finally, the problem of radiologist error will be considered in the context of the overall problem of diagnostic error in medicine.

Comparing One and Many

2019 ◽  
pp. 386-429
Author(s):  
Eleanor Putnam-Farr ◽  
Carey K. Morewedge
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Comparison ◽  
Social Comparisons ◽  
Judgment And Decision Making ◽  
Mental Processes ◽  
Comparison Research ◽  
Anchoring Bias ◽  
Comparison Standards ◽  
One And Many ◽  
Selection Of

Social comparisons are not only ubiquitous and influential but also represent a naturally occurring example of more general evaluative judgment. As such, they can be examined using the general types of mental processes that are used in the judgment and decision-making literature. While the direction of social comparison processes can be easily characterized as upward or downward, for instance, their specific calibration (e.g., sensitivity to absolute differences) is more difficult to determine. Insights gleaned from judgment and decision-making can inform research examining the calibration of social comparisons to different standards. In turn, the specific lessons gleaned from social comparisons, particularly with respect to how comparison targets are chosen, can inform judgment and decision-making. The chapter begins with a successful example of the integration of these literatures, research on anchoring bias. The authors then explain how social comparison research might benefit from judgment and decision-making research examining how calibration and sensitivity to absolute differences depend on the number of standards in the comparison set and their relative position on a continuum. The authors review different prototype, exemplar, and hybrid models explaining how people compare a target to distributions and sets of multiple standards, which could be of use to researchers examining social comparisons to multiple targets and groups. The chapter ends by noting how judgment and decision-making may benefit from the insight that social comparisons provide into the selection of comparison standards and directions for cross-pollination between these fields.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document