The random number that changed people’s answers by 80% | Nudge Newsletter


The Anchoring Effect

Read online


In the 1970s, Tversky and Kahneman¹ ran a simple experiment.

They asked people:

"What percentage of African countries are in the UN?"

But before answering, participants had to spin a wheel with numbers from 0 to 100.

The wheel was rigged to land on either 10 or 65.

Then came the important question:

"Is the actual percentage higher or lower than that number?"

After that, participants gave their best estimate.

Here’s what happened:

  • People who saw 10 guessed 25% of African countries are in the UN.
  • People who saw 65 guessed 45% of African countries are in the UN.

Same question. Different anchor.

The number from the wheel (which was totally random) pulled their answer in its direction.

This wasn’t just a one-off. Ariely, Loewenstein, and Prelec² tried something similar 30 years later.

This time, they showed students everyday products: a cordless keyboard, a bottle of wine, a box of chocolates.

Before bidding, students had to write the last two digits of their social security number.

Then they were asked:

"Would you pay more or less than that number?"

After that, they gave their actual maximum price.

Students with high social security numbers were willing to pay twice as much as students with low numbers.

We're anchored by the initial price we're exposed to.

Which is why menus in descending price order lead to 4% higher revenue.

And why this ridiculous message boosted Snickers sales:


This is known as anchoring

Inside the Nudge Vaults you'll find 41 more insights specifically about this bias.

The Vaults won't cost you £999 per month.*

In fact, you can preview your first 50 insights for free

Merry Christmas folks, I hope you had a fantastic celebration. — Phill

*Yes, that was a blatant use of anchoring.

P.S. My good friend Louis Grenier has just published an incredible YouTube series where he locks 3 freelancers in a cottage for a weekend to fix their marketing. Watch it here.

¹Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

²Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). “Coherent arbitrariness”: Stable demand curves without stable preferences.Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73–105.

As a behavioural science practitioner, I believe in the peak-end rule.

Tune into Nudge | Advertise with Nudge | Unsubscribe

Nudge Newsletter

I spend 18 hours each week turning marketing psychology into readable newsletters.

Read more from Nudge Newsletter

Money-Back Guarantees Read online I love this ad. "If the soles wear out before 3,000 miles, we'll replace the shoes free." Customers have become so used to false promises and unrealistic claims that a money-back guarantee like this really stands out. But does it work? The Evidence In 2011, a paper published in the Journal of Retailing studied money-back guarantees¹. 200 consumers saw ads for eight different products. Sometimes the product had a money-back guarantee, plus a guarantee logo....

Social Proof Read online Incredible marketing can be incredibly simple. In 2007, two Chinese researchers ran an experiment at 13 Beijing restaurants¹. Some diners were sat on tables with a plaque listing the most popular dishes. Others were sat at tables with no plaque. Did the plaque change what people choose? Diners who saw the most popular dish plaques were 18% more likely to order one of those dishes, even at a higher price. That's not all. Customers who ate a "most popular dish" rated it...

Labour Looks Smarter Read online Last week I shared one of my unhinged theories with you Many of you rightly pointed out that one study from 2011 is hardly enough to draw lofty conclusions. Fair enough, I've gathered some more evidence. Starting with an imaginary story from my barbers. A good barber is a slow barber Imagine you go to your local barbershop. Your normal barber is on holiday, so you're assigned to someone new. Typically your barber spends 45 minutes cutting your hair. He's not...