not available

Some literatures have demonstrated how an exposure to a number before making the decision can make the number become an initial answer for that question. Questions arise when this effect is applied in the real marketplace where product price that consumer encountered become the representation of this number. Will the same effect appear in the condition where there are different products in one place? Moreover, from the consumers’ side, they cannot be requested to focus their attention on a number and they are likely to have price information about the product or similar product beforehand. Drawing from the previous theory of anchoring, this research shows how an unrelated product prices can affect consumer willingness to pay for another product and this effect is not eliminated by the previous price knowledge in consumer minds because the price of unrelated product was saved in short-term memory so that it is easier to be retrieved when consumers were facing the next numerical judgment. The results bring new insight in marketing strategy, for retailer, online vendors, and even for big companies.

Adaval, R., & Monroe, K.B. (2002). Automatic Construction and Use of Contextual Information for Product and Price Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (March), 572–88.

Adaval, R., & Wyer, R.S. (2011). Conscious and nonconscious comparisons with price anchors: Effects on willingness to pay for related and unrelated products. Journal of Marketing Research 48 (April), 355-365.

Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). Coherent arbitrariness: stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 73−105.

Brewer, N. T., & Chapman, G. B. (2002). The fragile basic anchoring effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 65–77Critcher, C. R., & Gilovich, T. (2008). Incidental environmental anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 241−251.

Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 115–153.

Critcher, C. R., & Gilovich, T. (2008). Incidental environmental anchors. Journal of Behavioral. Decision Making, 21, 241-251.

Englich, B. (2008). When knowledge matters—Differential effects of available knowledge in standard and basic anchoring. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 896–904.

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, 188–200.

Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12, 391-396.

Frederick, S., & Mochon, D. (2011). A scale distortion theory of anchoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 124–133.

Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), 1161−1166.

Krishna, A., Yoon, C., Wagner, M., & Adaval R. (2006). Effects of Extreme-Priced Products on Consumer Reservation Prices. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16 (2), 179–93.

Mochon, D., & Frederick S. (2013). Anchoring in sequential judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122, 69-79.

Mussweiler, T., & Englich, B. (2005). Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 133–143.

Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999a). Comparing is believing: A selective accessibility model of judgmental anchoring. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 135–167). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999b). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(2), 136–164.

Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). The use of category and exemplar knowledge in the solution of anchoring tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1038–1052.

Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2001). The semantics of anchoring. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 234−255.

Nunes, J. C., & Boatwright, P. (2004). Incidental prices and their effect on willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing Research., 41, 457-466.

Oppenheimer, D. M., LeBoeuf, R. A., & Brewer, N. T. (2007). Anchors aweigh: A demonstration of cross-modality anchoring and magnitude priming. Cognition,106(1), 13–26.

Reitsma-van Rooijen, M., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2006). Subliminal anchoring: The effects of subliminally presented numbers on probability estimates. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 380−387.

Simonson, I., & Drolet, A. (2004). Anchoring effects on consumers’ willingness to pay and willingness-to-accept. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 681–690.

Smith, A.R., Windschitl, P.D., & Bruchmann, K. (2013). Knowledge matters: Anchoring effects are moderated by knowledge level. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 97-108)

Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437−446.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124−1130.

Wansink, B., Kent, R.J., & Hoch, S.J. (1998). An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of Purchase Quantity Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (February), 71–81.

Wilson, T. D., Houston, C. E., Etling, K. M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125(4), 387−402.

Wong, K. F. E., & Kwong, J. Y. Y. (2000). Is 7300 m equal to 7.3 km? Same semantics but different anchoring effects. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 82, 314−333.