先看到貴的,後面的價錢就變了｜對比原理與錨定效應【人性微實驗 EP2】

菜單上那道很貴的招牌菜,很少人點,卻讓後面的菜都變得很合理。這一集用轉盤、房子、骰子、計算機和相機的實驗,拆開「比較」怎麼改變我們看到的價錢。 轉盤停在 10 或 65,估計就差了 20 個百分點;專業房仲看同一間房子,估價跟著開價差了 1 萬多美元;法官擲了動過手腳的骰子,刑期差了兩個半月。最後也一起檢查:哪些經典實驗重做之後,效果變小、甚至消失了。 【章節】 0:00 本集導覽 0:53 第一個實驗:毫不相干的數字 8:43 第二個實驗:專家也逃不掉的開價 15:58 第三個實驗:法官手上的骰子 23:01 第四個實驗:誰先說出第一個數字 27:45 第五個實驗:同樣省 5 塊錢 35:08 第六個實驗:沒人會選的誘餌 41:57 第七個實驗:夾在中間的那一個 47:38 第八個實驗:這些實驗被重做了嗎 54:19 八個實驗回顧 【資料來源】 ・Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. ・Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 437–446. ・Mussweiler, T., Englich, B., & Strack, F. (2004). Anchoring effect. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions. Psychology Press. ・Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1), 84–97. ・Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(2), 188–200. ・Bystranowski, P., Janik, B., Próchnicki, M., & Skórska, P. (2021). Anchoring effect in legal decision-making: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 45(1), 1–23. ・Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 657–669. ・Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. ・Li, M., & Feldman, G. (2025). Revisiting mental accounting classic paradigms: Replication Registered Report of the problems reviewed in Thaler (1999). Royal Society Open Science, 12(9), 250979. ・Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 281–295. ・Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90–98. ・Frederick, S., Lee, L., & Baskin, E. (2014). The limits of attraction. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 487–507. ・Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. P. (2014). Let's be honest about the attraction effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 520–525. ・Lichters, M., Müller, H., Sarstedt, M., & Vogt, B. (2016). How durable are compromise effects? Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4056–4064. ・Klein, R. A., et al. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A "Many Labs" replication project. Social Psychology, 45(3), 142–152. ・Bahník, Š., Englich, B., & Strack, F. (2017). Anchoring effect. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions (2nd ed.). Routledge. ・Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). "Coherent arbitrariness": Stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73–106. ・Fudenberg, D., Levine, D. K., & Maniadis, Z. (2012). On the robustness of anchoring effects in WTP and WTA experiments. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4(2), 131–145. ・Maniadis, Z., Tufano, F., & List, J. A. (2014). One swallow doesn't make a summer: New evidence on anchoring effects. American Economic Review, 104(1), 277–290. 本頻道分享心理學研究與人際互動的知識故事,不構成醫療或心理諮商建議;如有身心困擾,請尋求專業協助。 #數羊心理學 #心理學 #人性