Editing Anchoring effect (section)

===Difficulty of avoiding===
Various studies have shown that anchoring is very difficult to avoid. For example, in one study students were given anchors that were wrong. They were asked whether [[Mahatma Gandhi]] died before or after age 9, or before or after age 140. Clearly neither of these anchors can be correct, but when the two groups were asked to suggest when they thought he had died, they guessed significantly differently (average age of 50 vs. average age of 67).<ref name="StrackMussweiler1997">{{cite journal|last1=Strack|first1=Fritz|last2=Mussweiler|first2=Thomas|s2cid=1095326|title=Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility.|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=73|issue=3|year=1997|pages=437–446|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.437}}</ref>

Other studies have tried to eliminate anchoring much more directly. In a study exploring the causes and properties of anchoring, participants were exposed to an anchor and asked to guess how many physicians were listed in the local phone book. In addition, they were explicitly informed that anchoring would "contaminate" their responses, and that they should do their best to correct for that. A control group received no anchor and no explanation. Regardless of how they were informed and whether they were informed correctly, all of the experimental groups reported higher estimates than the control group. Thus, despite being expressly aware of the anchoring effect, most participants were still unable to avoid it.<ref name="WilsonHouston1996">{{cite journal|last1=Wilson|first1=Timothy D.|last2=Houston|first2=Christopher E.|last3=Etling|first3=Kathryn M.|last4=Brekke|first4=Nancy|title=A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents.|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology: General|volume=125|issue=4|year=1996|pages=387–402|doi=10.1037/0096-3445.125.4.387|pmid=8945789}}</ref> A later study found that even when offered monetary incentives, most people are unable to effectively adjust from an anchor.<ref name="SimmonsLeBoeuf2010">{{cite journal|last1=Simmons|first1=Joseph P.|last2=LeBoeuf|first2=Robyn A.|last3=Nelson|first3=Leif D.|title=The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: Do people adjust from provided anchors?|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=99|issue=6|year=2010|pages=917–932|doi=10.1037/a0021540|pmid=21114351|url=https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1375&context=marketing_papers}}</ref>

Although it has been found through many research and experiments that attempt to mitigate the decision heuristic of anchoring bias is either marginally significant or not successful at all, it can be found that the consider-the-opposite (COS strategy) has been the most reliable in mitigating the anchoring bias (Adame, 2016). In short, the COS strategy is proposed to an individual by asking them to consider the possibilities the opposite of their perceptions and beliefs. Therefore, depriving the individual of their preexisting attitudes and limiting the decision bias. <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Adame |first1=Bradley |title=Training in the mitigation of anchoring bias: A test of the consider-the-opposite strategy |url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2015.11.002 |journal=Learning & Motivation|date=2016 |volume=53 |pages=36–48 |doi=10.1016/j.lmot.2015.11.002 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>