Share This Article:

Influences on the Marking of Examinations

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:193KB) PP. 91-98
DOI: 10.4236/psych.2014.52014    5,383 Downloads   6,644 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

In the present work, we examined a phenomenon highly relevant in the educational field for assessing or judging performance, that is, the question how the second examiner’s marking is influenced by the evaluation of the first examiner. This phenomenon is known as anchoring in cognitive psychology. In general, in anchoring effects numeric information (i.e., the anchor) pulls estimations or judgments towards the anchor. One domain which is highly important in real life has been investigated only occasionally, that is, the marking of examinations. In three experiments, participants were asked to evaluate a written assignment. The mark (either good or bad) of a ficticious first examiner was used as the anchor. We found clear anchoring effects that were unaffected by feedback in a preceding task (positive, neutral, negative) or the expert status of the presumed first examiner. We discussed the problems related to this effect.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Bermeitinger, C. & Unger, B. (2014). Influences on the Marking of Examinations. Psychology, 5, 91-98. doi: 10.4236/psych.2014.52014.

References

[1] Blankenship, K. L., Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B., & Macy, C. L. (2008). Elaboration and consequences of anchored estimates: An attitudinal perspective on numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1465-1476.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.005
[2] Bodenhausen, G. V., Gabriel, S., & Lineberger, M. (2000). Sadness and susceptibility to judgmental bias: The case of anchoring. Psychological Science, 11, 320-323.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00263
[3] Brehm, R. (2003). The human is unique also as examiner. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 56, 2808-2810.
[4] BVerwG [Federal Administrative court of Germany] (2003). Urteil vom 10.10.2002-6 C 7/02. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 56, 1063-1064.
[5] Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1994). The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 223-242.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960070402
[6] Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 19, 115-153.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2841
[7] Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (2002). Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 120-138). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098.008
[8] Clore, G. L., Wyer, R. S., Dienes, B., Gasper, K., Gohm, C., & Isbell, L. (2001). Affective feelings as feedback: Some cognitive consequences. In L. L. Martin, & G. L. Clore (Eds.), Theories of mood and cognition: A user’s guidebook. Mahwa, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[9] Critcher, C. R., & Gilovich, T. (2008). Incidental environmental anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 241-251.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.586
[10] Dünnebier, K., Grasel, C., & Krolak-Schwerdt, S. (2009). Biases in teachers’ assessments of student performance: An experimental study of anchoring effects. Zeitschrift für Padagogische Psychologie, 23, 187-195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.23.34.187
[11] Englich, B. (2008). When knowledge matters: Differential effects of available knowledge in standard and basic anchoring tasks. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 896-904.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.479
[12] Englich, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the court-room. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1535-1551.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02687.x
[13] Englich, B., & Soder, K. (2009). Moody experts: How mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 41-50.
[14] 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282152
[15] Epley, N. (2004). A tale of tuned decks? Anchoring as accessibility and anchoring as adjustment. In D. J. Koehler, & N. Harvey (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 240-256). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470752937.ch12
[16] 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00372
[17] Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 35-42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2010.10.008
[18] Huntsinger, J. R., Clore, G. L., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2010). Mood and global-local focus: Priming a local focus reverses the link between mood and global-local processing. Emotion, 20, 722-726.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019356
[19] Klauer, K. C. & Musch, J. (2003). Affective priming: Findings and theories. In J. Musch, & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[20] Kudryavtsev, A., & Cohen, G. (2010). Illusion of relevance: Anchoring in economic and financial knowledge. International Journal of Economic Research, 1, 86-101.
[21] Mussweiler, T. (2002). The malleability of anchoring effects. Experimental Psychology, 49, 67-72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1027//1618-3169.49.1.67
[22] Mussweiler, T., & Englich, B. (2005). Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 133-143.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.12.002
[23] Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Comparing is believing: A selective accessibility model of judgmental anchoring. European Review of Social Psychology, 10, 135-167.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14792779943000044
[24] Mussweiler, T., Englich, B., & Strack, F. (2004). Anchoring effect. In R. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: A handbook of fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement, and memory (pp. 183-200). London, UK: Psychology Press.
[25] Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1142-1150.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01461672002611010
[26] Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264-336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[27] 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, 84-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90046-X
[28] Schwarz, N. (2001). Feelings as information: Implications for affective influences on information processing. In L. L. Martin, & G. L. Clore (Eds.), Theories of mood and cognition: A user’s guidebook (pp. 159-176). Mahwa, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[29] Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2003). Mood as information: 20 years later. Psychology Inquiry, 14, 296-303.
[30] Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. C. (2003). Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[31] Steyer, R., Schwenkmezger, P., Notz, P., & Eid, M. (1997). The multidimensional mental state questionnaire: Manual. Gottingen: Hogrefe.
[32] Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1130.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
[33] Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Blankenship, K. L., & Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2010). Elaboration and numerical anchoring: Implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 5-16.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.12.003
[34] Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (2001). Implications of attitude change theories for numerical anchoring: Anchor plausibility and the limits of anchor effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 62-69.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2000.1431
[35] 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, 387-402.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.125.4.387

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.