| Course | PS 303 Social Psychology |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 1 |
| Paper type | Social cognition paper |
| Length | About 1,030 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PS 303 Unit 1
Forty-Eight Thousand Dollars Spoken First: Anchoring and Insufficient Adjustment in One Composite Salary Conversation, With the Research's Current Standing and What the Process Leaves Unexplained
Student Name
Psychology, Herzing University
PS 303: Social Psychology
Instructor Name
May 12, 2026
Forty-Eight Thousand Dollars Spoken First: Anchoring and Insufficient Adjustment in One Composite Salary Conversation, With the Research's Current Standing and What the Process Leaves Unexplained
The Process
This paper applies one social cognitive process, anchoring, to one situation. Tversky and Kahneman (1974) described anchoring as part of their account of judgment under uncertainty: when people estimate a quantity, they often start from an initial value, the anchor, and adjust from it, but the adjustment is typically insufficient, so final estimates stay biased toward the starting point. In one of their demonstrations, participants watched a wheel of fortune produce a number and were then asked to estimate the percentage of African countries in the United Nations; those who saw a higher number gave higher estimates, even though the number was obviously random.
The point that makes anchoring a social process, rather than only a quirk of estimation, is that in many situations another person chooses the anchor.
Its Current Standing
Many famous effects in social psychology have weakened when tested again, so the standing of this one matters. Klein et al. (2014) ran a large replication project, testing thirteen classic effects in the same way across dozens of samples in several countries. Anchoring effects replicated robustly and were among the largest effects in the project. In negotiation specifically, Galinsky and Mussweiler (2001) found that whichever party made the first offer tended to obtain a better outcome, because the first offer anchored the final agreement, and that the effect weakened when the other party focused on information inconsistent with the anchor, such as their own alternatives. The process is therefore well supported, both in general and in the setting examined here.
The Situation
The situation is a composite, constructed for this paper. A twenty-four-year-old completing a bachelor's degree has interviewed for a first full-time role as a research coordinator at a regional health system. Before the interview, she looked up published salary ranges for similar roles in her city and concluded that $52,000 to $56,000 was typical. At the end of the final interview, the hiring manager says the budgeted salary is $48,000 and asks whether that works for her. She hesitates, says she was hoping for a little more, and suggests $50,000. They agree on $50,000.
Working the Situation Through the Process
The anchor
The hiring manager's figure, spoken first, is the anchor. It came from the party with more information about the budget and more power to end the conversation.
The adjustment
Her counter of $50,000 moved upward from the anchor, but only part of the way toward the range she had researched. Her own estimate of a fair salary was $52,000 to $56,000, yet she adjusted from $48,000 rather than from her research. This matches the pattern Tversky and Kahneman (1974) described: a starting point, followed by adjustment that stops short.
Why her research did not protect her
Galinsky and Mussweiler (2001) found that the anchoring power of a first offer was reduced when negotiators focused on information that pointed away from it, such as their own best alternative or the other side's limits. She had such information, the published ranges, but in the moment her attention went to the number just spoken. The process predicts that knowing a better figure is not enough; the better figure has to be the one in mind when the response is formed.
What the process predicts would have changed the outcome
On this account, two changes would likely have moved the agreement upward: naming her own figure first, so that her number became the anchor, or explicitly returning to her researched range before responding. Galinsky and Mussweiler's findings support both, though a single negotiation cannot show what would actually have happened.
An Alternative Reading, and How to Tell Them Apart
Anchoring is not the only way to read her counter. She may have chosen $50,000 strategically, asking for a modest increase to signal flexibility and keep the conversation friendly, fully aware that the market was higher. On that reading her judgment of the salary was not pulled toward $48,000 at all; she simply chose not to press. The two readings make different predictions. If anchoring operated, then asked a week later what the role was worth, she would give a figure closer to $48,000 than her original research suggested, because the anchor would have shifted her own estimate. If the counter was strategic, her estimate of the role's worth would remain at $52,000 to $56,000, and she would describe the outcome as a deliberate trade. A single composite conversation cannot settle which happened, but stating the predictions makes clear what evidence would. That is part of applying a process honestly: the analysis says not only that the process fits, but what would show that it did not.
What the Process Does Not Explain
Anchoring explains why her counter clustered near $48,000. It does not explain several other features of the situation. It does not explain why she hesitated to ask for more at all, which may reflect norms about negotiating a first job offer, concern about seeming ungrateful, or gendered expectations about negotiation that are a separate research literature. It does not explain the power difference between a manager with a budget and a graduate without another offer, which shaped how much risk a higher counter carried. And it does not say whether $50,000 was a poor outcome; with no competing offer and a role she wanted, accepting a lower salary may have been a reasonable choice for reasons the anchoring account cannot weigh. The process accounts for the number; it does not account for the decision as a whole.
Why Applying One Process Is More Useful Than Listing Many
A catalog of biases would note that anchoring, loss aversion, social norms and power all appear in this conversation. Working through one process in detail shows something a catalog cannot: exactly which moment the process governs, here the few seconds between hearing $48,000 and responding, and exactly what it predicts would have changed the result. The other influences are real, and naming them as outside this process is part of the analysis rather than a gap in it.
References
Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 657-669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.657
Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B., Bahník, Š., Bernstein, M. J., Bocian, K., Brandt, M. J., Brooks, B., Brumbaugh, C. C., Cemalcilar, Z., Chandler, J., Cheong, W., Davis, W. E., Devos, T., Eisner, M., Frankowska, N., Furrow, D., Galliani, E. M., ... Nosek, B. A. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A "many labs" replication project. Social Psychology, 45(3), 142-152. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
PS 303 Unit 1 instructions, in plain terms
The first PS 303 unit asks students to apply one social cognitive process to one situation. Expect to name the process, report the research behind it and its current standing, describe a situation, work it through the process part by part, and identify the parts of the situation the process does not explain. A bias is a common choice but not required; attribution, schemas or heuristics also work. When a finding has been questioned in replication, say so and report what the replication showed. The situation can come from ordinary life, but a composite keeps other people's details out of the paper. Most instructors prefer depth on one process over a list of several. A composite situation also lets the analysis state what would have happened otherwise.
Inside the PS 303 Unit 1 example
Tversky and Kahneman's anchoring account opens the paper, with their wheel-of-fortune demonstration and the point that another person often chooses the anchor. A standing section reports the Many Labs replication and the first-offer research by Galinsky and Mussweiler. The composite salary conversation is described plainly. Four run-in sections then map the anchor, the insufficient adjustment, the failure of prior research to protect the applicant and what the process predicts would have changed the outcome. A section offers a strategic alternative reading with distinguishing predictions. The paper closes by naming what the process does not explain and why one process beats a catalog. Each mapping step names the research that supports it.
Where the points sit in the PS 303 Unit 1 rubric
Herzing's rubric for the social cognition paper usually awards points for a clearly named and attributed process, an accurate account of its research and current standing, a situation described before interpretation, a step-by-step application and recognition of what the process does not explain, plus APA writing. Attribution earns credit when the original researchers are named. Standing scores when replication evidence is reported. Application carries the most weight here, and markers want specific moments tied to specific parts of the process. Recognizing limits earns points when other influences are named and set aside. Alternative readings with testable predictions are often credited as advanced work.
Common PS 303 Unit 1 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Social cognition papers lose points when they list five biases and apply none in depth. Another common weakness is citing a famous effect without checking whether it replicated. Students often describe a situation and then attach a bias label without showing how the process produced the outcome. Some claim the process explains everything, including choices driven by power or preference. Others use a personal story full of identifiable details. A quieter error is never stating what evidence would show the process did not operate, which leaves the application untestable. Treating a negotiation outcome as proof of a bias, when strategy could explain it, is a related slip.
Get a PS 303 Unit 1 example written to your instructions
Post us the Unit 1 instructions from your PS 303 classroom together with the rubric and the readings your section assigns. The custom example names one process, reports what supports it, applies it to a composite situation step by step, and states where the account runs out. First one free, 24 to 48 hours.
More PS 303 papers and psychology samples
- PS 303 Unit 2: Attribution analysis
- PS 303 Unit 3: Attitudes and persuasion paper
- PS 303 Unit 4: Conformity and obedience paper
- PS 303 Unit 5: Group processes paper
- PS 303 Unit 6: Prejudice and stereotyping paper
- PS 303 Unit 7: Research ethics analysis
- PS 303 Unit 8: Applied social psychology paper
- PS 101 Unit 1: Discussion post on a course concept
- PS 105 Unit 1: Developmental theory overview
- PS 130 Unit 1: Field overview discussion
- PS 210 Unit 1: Developmental domains overview
PS 303 Unit 1 questions, answered
Does the paper have to cover a bias?
Not necessarily. Social cognition includes how people form impressions, how they use categories to process information quickly and how attention shapes what gets encoded about others, and any of those can carry a paper. Read your instructions for the process they name. Where the choice is open, pick something your readings actually support rather than an effect you met online.
How do I handle a finding that has been questioned?
Report it as contested rather than dropping it or defending it. Name the original study and date, say what it measured, then report what later testing found and where the literature currently sits. Sections in this course often reward that handling explicitly, because a writer who can hold a finding at partial strength is doing what the field now asks of everyone.
Should the situation come from my own life?
A composite is steadier, and it protects the analysis as much as the people in it. An episode you lived through arrives with your own reading already attached, which makes it hard to describe the facts before the concept, and the other people in it never agreed to be examined. Assemble the situation and say it is constructed.
Where can I find a free PS 303 Unit 1 sample paper?
The complete PS 303 Unit 1 social cognition paper on anchoring is on this page free, with the replication evidence, the step-by-step application and margin notes. Working on another process, such as framing or the availability heuristic? Tell us which, and the paper is written for you free.
How do I handle a questioned finding in PS 303 Unit 1?
Report its standing directly. The sample chose anchoring partly because a large replication project found it robust, and it says so before applying it.