This is exactly the sort of popular-psychology thing that fails to replicate, isn't it? I'm pattern-matching it against "ego depletion" and the hungry-judge theory, both of which failed to replicate.
No this is well studied, although you're right this is a "popular-psychology thing" since ctrl+f "anchoring" returns nothing in the discussed study paper.
>A number of studies have shown the robustness of the anchoring effect. Anchors can influence judgment even after weeks or months (Reference MussweilerMussweiler, 2001; Reference Yoon, Fong and DimokaYoon & Fong, 2019). The anchoring effect is present even in experts in the judgmental domain (Reference Englich and MussweilerEnglich & Mussweiler, 2001; Reference Englich, Mussweiler and StrackEnglich et al., 2006). An anchor can influence subsequent judgment even if it is clearly implausible (Reference Strack and MussweilerStrack & Mussweiler, 1997) or when it is compared to a different object (Reference Frederick and MochonFrederick & Mochon, 2012; Reference Mochon and FrederickMochon & Frederick, 2013).
I too take an absolutely defensive attitude towards results like these which don't get replicated half the time and are trivial to fake. I'm full on "assume it's fake or bunk until proven otherwise" when it comes to behavioural psychology because the field has such systemic integrity and reproducibility problems. There's no real systemic replication or anti-fraud efforts so why should I trust anything coming from this field?
I'm not trusting any result like this unless it comes from a meta-analysis really. I have heard of this general idea before, that the first and last to interview are more likely to get a job, but the plausibility of the finding doesn't make it any less suspect.
