The Psychology of Anchoring and Intentional Empathy

Written By Colby Jones

When we think about empathy, we sometimes imagine it as a natural response—something we either have or don’t have in a given moment. However, research in cognitive psychology suggests that our empathic stance is not always as free as we assume it to be. Anchoring—the tendency to rely heavily on initial information when making judgments—shapes how we perceive others and decide whether to extend empathy to them. Recent studies reveal that anchoring operates through multiple mechanisms, including internal biases, textual cues, and emotional framing. By understanding these dynamics, we can develop strategies to override cognitive shortcuts and cultivate intentional empathy.

The Science of Anchoring and Decision-Making

Anchoring, first identified by Tversky and Kahneman (1974), is a cognitive bias in which initial information disproportionately influences subsequent judgments. For example:

  • In healthcare, physicians who are anchored to an initial diagnosis may overlook alternative explanations without making a deliberate effort to reassess.

  • Consumers exposed to high price anchors perceive subsequent prices as more reasonable, even when the anchor is arbitrary.

  • When estimating the number of countries in Africa, participants gave higher estimates if they were first exposed to a high random number.

  • Criminal sentencing: Judges anchored to high prosecutor demands gave longer sentences, even when aware that the anchor was arbitrary

Types of Anchors

Anchoring extends beyond numbers or stereotypes. Recent research identifies three key categories:

  1. Internal Anchors: Personal experiences or beliefs that skew interpretations. For instance, past trauma might amplify perceived hostility in neutral interactions.

  2. Textual Anchors: Words or phrases in communication (e.g., headlines like "chaotic protest" vs. "passionate demonstration") prime emotional responses and group-based judgments.

  3. Social Anchors: Labels such as "difficult" or "outsider" activate neural patterns that reduce empathy for out-groups.

Anchoring’s Impact on Empathy

1. Distorted Perspective-Taking

Anchoring doesn’t just bias judgments—it alters perceptual sensitivity. A 2023 study found that negative stereotypes dull our ability to detect subtle emotional cues, while positive anchors enhance emotional attunement. For example, clinicians trained to recognize anchoring biases improved diagnostic accuracy by 22% through empathy-driven communication.

2. Emotional Framing in Crisis Responses

How information is framed determines empathy levels:

  • Statistics-first framing (e.g., "1 million refugees") triggers analytical thinking, reducing concern.

  • Story-first framing activates emotional empathy, increasing willingness to help.

3. Group Identity and Neural Empathy

When groups are framed as oppositional, brain regions associated with empathy (e.g., the anterior cingulate cortex) exhibit reduced activity. This explains why political polarization entrenches distrust.

Overcoming Anchoring to Foster Intentional Empathy

1. Reframe Emotional Anchors

  • Replace negative textual anchors (e.g., "lazy") with neutral descriptors (e.g., "methodical"). A 2019 study found neutral framing reduced biased judgments by 34%. Ask: “What influenced my first impression?” If it’s a label like "difficult," consciously reframe it to a neutral term (e.g., "reserved").

If your instinctive response to a person or situation is dismissive, judgmental, or overly certain, consider whether you have been primed by an anchor (e.g., prior assumptions, labels, or limited exposure).

  • Use Other-focus techniques: Asking "How does this person feel?" instead of "How would I feel?" minimizes self-referential bias. Studies show this reduces anchoring effects by 30%. If you feel biased by an initial anchor, actively ask: What would this situation look like from another person's perspective? Role-switching exercises—where individuals imagine themselves as the other party—have been shown to increase accuracy in social judgments. Mindfulness practices (e.g., journaling about others’ feelings) have also been found to reduce self-centered bias.

2. Delay and Diversify Inputs

  • Slow decisions to allow reflective reasoning. High cognitive reflection scores are correlated with a 40% lower susceptibility to anchoring. Anchoring thrives on quick decision-making. Slowing down the thought process allows for more reflective reasoning, and research suggests that prompting individuals to think critically about their initial judgment weakens anchoring effects.

  • Seek contradictory evidence. Exposure to opposing views recalibrates biases. If an initial impression or belief feels strong but unexamined, actively look for opposing perspectives. Exposure to counter-evidence (e.g., travel, books, or conversations with dissimilar people) helps recalibrate biases and encourages a more balanced empathetic stance.

3. Leverage Individual Differences

  • Openness to experience: Individuals high in openness adjust judgments more effectively from arbitrary anchors. 

  • Verbal reasoning: Strong analytical skills weaken anchoring effects by promoting deliberate adjustment.

Individual Differences Matter

Not everyone is equally vulnerable to anchoring:

  • High cognitive reflection: People who habitually question their assumptions adjust judgments 40% more effectively.

  • High openness: Emotionally curious individuals adapt anchored beliefs 25% faster.

  • High narcissism: Self-focused individuals cling to anchors 30% more stubbornly.

Further Reading

Colby Jones
Next

When Leaders’ Emotions Go Viral – The Power and Risk of Emotional Contagion