Anchoring Effects on Prospective and Retrospective Metacomprehension Judgments as a Function of Peer Performance Information

Two experiments were conducted to investigate anchoring effects on metacomprehension judgments as a function of fictitious information participants received about past peer performance. In  Experiment 1  participants were randomly assigned to one of the three anchor groups that, in some cases, provided past peer performance averages in terms of a percentage: a high anchor (85%) a low anchor (55%), and no anchor. Results showed that relative to the no anchor group, the low anchor group made significantly lower  prospective  judgments whereas the high anchor group did not make significantly higher prospective judgments. With a high anchor of greater magnitude (95%),  Experiment 2  demonstrated more pronounced anchoring effects on prospective judgments: Relative to the no anchor group, the low anchor group made significantly lower judgments and the high anchor group made significantly higher judgments. In addition,  Experiment 2  showed that anchoring effects occurred even on  retrospective  judgments. Overall, the results showed that peer performance information can serve as an anchoring point for metacomprehension judgments and the anchoring effects are tenacious given that they can even affect retrospective judgments of performance.