Are Moderators Moderate?: Testing the ‘Anchoring and Adjustment’ Hypothesis in the Context of Marking Politics Exams

John Garry; M. Alan McCool Jr; Shane O'Neill

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9256.2005.00243.x

Are Moderators Moderate? Testing the ‘Anchoring and Adjustment’ Hypothesis in the Context of Marking Politics Exams

John Garry, M. Alan McCool Jr, Shane O'Neill

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

On the basis of an experiment we confirm the hypothesis – derived from the ‘anchoring and adjustment’ heuristic – that the difference that a moderator makes to the grade awarded by a first marker is less than the difference between the grades awarded by two independent (or ‘double-blind’) markers. We suggest that double-blind marking is therefore more objective and reliable than moderator-based marking, although the former clearly has significantly higher administrative costs than the latter.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	191-200
Number of pages	10
Journal	Politics
Volume	25
Issue number	3
Early online date	20 Sept 2005
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.2005.00243.x
Publication status	Published - Sept 2005

Access to Document

10.1111/j.1467-9256.2005.00243.x

Cite this

@article{5c52e547661640fc8e0273fe33caf2aa,

title = "Are Moderators Moderate?: Testing the {\textquoteleft}Anchoring and Adjustment{\textquoteright} Hypothesis in the Context of Marking Politics Exams",

abstract = "On the basis of an experiment we confirm the hypothesis – derived from the {\textquoteleft}anchoring and adjustment{\textquoteright} heuristic – that the difference that a moderator makes to the grade awarded by a first marker is less than the difference between the grades awarded by two independent (or {\textquoteleft}double-blind{\textquoteright}) markers. We suggest that double-blind marking is therefore more objective and reliable than moderator-based marking, although the former clearly has significantly higher administrative costs than the latter.",

author = "John Garry and \{McCool Jr\}, \{M. Alan\} and Shane O'Neill",

year = "2005",

month = sep,

doi = "10.1111/j.1467-9256.2005.00243.x",

language = "English",

volume = "25",

pages = "191--200",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are Moderators Moderate?

T2 - Testing the ‘Anchoring and Adjustment’ Hypothesis in the Context of Marking Politics Exams

AU - Garry, John

AU - McCool Jr, M. Alan

AU - O'Neill, Shane

PY - 2005/9

Y1 - 2005/9

N2 - On the basis of an experiment we confirm the hypothesis – derived from the ‘anchoring and adjustment’ heuristic – that the difference that a moderator makes to the grade awarded by a first marker is less than the difference between the grades awarded by two independent (or ‘double-blind’) markers. We suggest that double-blind marking is therefore more objective and reliable than moderator-based marking, although the former clearly has significantly higher administrative costs than the latter.

AB - On the basis of an experiment we confirm the hypothesis – derived from the ‘anchoring and adjustment’ heuristic – that the difference that a moderator makes to the grade awarded by a first marker is less than the difference between the grades awarded by two independent (or ‘double-blind’) markers. We suggest that double-blind marking is therefore more objective and reliable than moderator-based marking, although the former clearly has significantly higher administrative costs than the latter.

U2 - 10.1111/j.1467-9256.2005.00243.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1467-9256.2005.00243.x

M3 - Article

SN - 0263-3957

VL - 25

SP - 191

EP - 200

JO - Politics

JF - Politics

IS - 3

ER -

Are Moderators Moderate? Testing the ‘Anchoring and Adjustment’ Hypothesis in the Context of Marking Politics Exams

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this