Paul Warren

Anchoring occurs when a quantitative estimate is biased toward an initially presented value (the anchor). Anchoring occurs both in high‐level explicit estimation of numeric quantities and in lower‐level perceptual tasks and persists even when reliable information about the quantity being estimated is directly available at the point of judgment. This suggests anchoring might derive from generic processing underpinning estimation. Such tasks, however, are almost exclusively lab‐based, and the information required to complete the task is rarely available to the participant in a way that reflects how such information is sampled in real‐life. To address this, across two experiments, we immersed participants in a virtual world on a platform that could be placed at any height. After an anchor was presented, participants subsequently estimated their height naturally, by interpreting sensory and cognitive cues from the 3D environment in which they were immersed. We manipulated the amount of information directly available to the participant for making their judgment as well as the offset between the anchor and the actual height. To modulate the extent to which task‐relevant information was acquired naturally from the environment, we also contrasted anchoring effects in and out of VR. Although participants clearly used the available perceptual and cognitive information to make height estimates, anchoring effects were evident, displayed similar properties to those reported in previous lab‐based studies, and were consistent both in and out of VR. Our design also allowed us to recover a novel subjective anchoring measure that facilitated a particularly parsimonious descriptive model of our anchoring data. We conclude that anchoring is a generic feature of all estimation tasks, even when task‐relevant information is acquired naturally, as in real‐life estimation. These results emphasize the potential for this cognitive bias to have a significant impact on performance in any real‐world task requiring quantitative estimation.

Objective: To determine whether the marks in the third year Objective Structured Clinical Examination were affected by the collusion reported by the students themselves on an electronic discussion board.Design: A review of the student discussion, examiners’ feedback and a comparison of the marks obtained on the 2 days of the OSCE.Participants: 255 third year medical students.Setting: An OSCE consisting of 15 stations, administered on three sites over 2 days at a UK medical school.Results: 40 students contributed to the discussion on the electronic discussion board. The main points raised were perceived inequity between students who did, or did not, have prior knowledge of the station content, and the lack of honesty and professionalism of their peers. Most contributors claimed to have received, or knew of others receiving, prior knowledge, but none confessed to passing on information. No significant difference was observed in the overall mark for the OSCE on day 1 ) and day 2 ). On day 2, marks were considerably greater for four stations and markedly lower for three stations. It was not obvious why collusion should affect these station marks. A clear indication of the effects of collusion could only be obtained from a single subsection of an individual station where 82 students on day 2 incorrectly gave the diagnosis from day 1.Conclusion: Marks do not provide a sound inference of student collusion in an OSCE and may mask the aspects of professional development of students

I argue that we can find in Marx two objections to exploitation: an entitlement objection according to which it is wrongful because of the unjust distribution of benefits and burdens it generates; and an expressivist objection according to which it is objectionable because of the kind of social relation it is. The expressivist objection is predicated on a communitarian strand in Marx's thought, whereas the entitlement objection is grounded in a more liberal account of the wrongfulness of capitalist exploitation. I conclude by connecting my analysis to the current debate between proponents and critics of market socialism. While market socialism could be a vehicle for realizing the values associated with the entitlement objection, this is not true for the expressivist objection. Furthermore, because the entitlement objection does not depend on a thick conception of the human good, it is in accord with the liberal ideal of political neutrality whereas the expressivist objection is not.