ArticleMemory & cognition2025
Estimation of factorial expressions and its improvement through calibration: A replication and extension of Tversky and Kahneman (1973).
Article in Memory & cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fifty years ago, Tversky and Kahneman (Cognitive Psychology, 5[2], 207-232, 1973) reported that people's speeded estimations of 8 × 7 × 6 × 5 × 4 × 3 × 2 × 1 were notably higher than their estimations for the equivalent expression in the opposite order, 1 × 2 × 3 × 4 × 5 × 6 × 7 × 8 (Median = 2,250 vs. 512, respectively). On top of this order effect, both groups grossly underestimated the correct value (40,320). The differential effect of the two orders on estimation has become famous as an early demonstration of the anchoring effect, where people's judgments under uncertainty are unduly influenced by an initial reference point (or "anchor"). Despite this fame, to the best of our knowledge, this effect has never been replicated. In a sample of 253 U.S. adults, the current study provides the first replication of this foundational example of anchoring. It extends this effect for the first time to a within-participants design, revealing its relative robustness even among participants who see the descending order first. Drawing on procedures from the mathematical cognition literature, it shows how the anchoring effect can be mitigated: calibrating to the correct value of 6! reduces this effect, and calibrating to 10! eliminates it altogether. An individual differences analysis measures the arithmetic fluency of participants and their accuracy on a new estimation assessment, and finds that higher estimation ability may be a "protective factor" against some anchoring effects. These findings affirm the anchoring effect of Tversky and Kahneman (1973, Study 6) while suggesting that calibration may be an effective strategy for helping to improve people's estimation of superlinear functions that are important in real-life contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39825174What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.