Erratum to “Influences on the Marking of Examinations” [Psychology 5 (2014) 91-98]

Christina Bermeitinger¹, Benjamin Unger²

¹Institute for Psychology, University of Hildesheim, Hildesheim, Germany.
²Law Firm Benjamin Unger, Hildesheim, Germany.

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2022.131004                

Abstract

The original online version of this article (Bermeitinger, C., & Unger, B. (2014). Influences on the Marking of Examinations. Psychology, 5, 91-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.52014) unfortunately contains a mistake in Experiment 3. The data of one person were considered twice for the analysis. The authors wish to correct the errors.

Keywords

Anchoring Effect; Marking; Feedback; Mood; Written Tests; Performance Judgments

- Participants: The sample consisted of 78 undergraduate students (67 female, 11 male).

- Results [the resulting pattern is exactly the same as before, essentially, decimal places have changed slightly]:

o There was a significant main effect of anchor, F(2, 69) = 17.04, p < .001, ${\eta }_p^2$ = .32. The main effect of feedback and the interaction of anchor and feedback were not significant, both Fs ≤ 1, ps > .37.

o On average, participants who were confronted with the higher anchor (i.e., 4,3) gave higher marks than those who were confronted with the lower anchor (i.e., 2,7), t(49, 42.43) = 5.97, p < .001 (t-test for unequal variances), M_{high anchor} = 4.03, SD = 0.45, M_{low anchor} = 3.08, SD = 0.65. Additionally, participants who were confronted with the higher anchor (i.e., 4,3) gave higher marks than those who were confronted with no anchor, t(51, 43.75) = 4.78, p < .001 (t-test for unequal variances), M_{no anchor} = 3.24, SD = 0.73.

o As before, in the high anchor condition (4,3, i.e., “fail”) there was no significant difference (p = .86) between the number of participants who evaluated the assignment as failed (n = 12) and the number of participants who evaluated the assignment as passed (n = 14).

Figure 3:

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

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 multidi-mensional 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