In psychology, anchors have two main definitions—one rooted in behaviorism and NLP, and the other in the concept of intuition and unconscious judgment (as described in the research of Daniel Kahneman).

Both types of anchors are widely used in all kinds of manipulation.

Anchors in Behaviorism and NLP

Behaviorism and NLP define anchors as an established link between a stimulus and a reaction—when a specific reaction is conditioned by a specific stimulus. The classic example is the experiment with the dog that begins to salivate when it hears a bell, because it associates that signal with the imminent arrival of food (popularly known as Pavlov’s dog). In essence, this is a conditioned reflex: a stimulus of any kind leads to a specific reaction.

Human beings constantly create anchors (or have them created for them). Some fade over time, while others can remain active throughout an entire lifetime.

Because humans think and feel associatively, one thought or feeling becomes linked to others and/or to certain memories and attitudes. If we felt good—say, during a romantic encounter or while relaxing on an exotic beach—and at that time we heard a particular song or smelled a particular scent, then later, hearing that same song or sensing that same scent is very likely to make us feel good again. The positive feeling is reactivated through association. The same mechanism applies to negative sensations and experiences: they too can be “awakened” in the same way.

As you can imagine, these characteristics of human consciousness can be used for various purposes—some of them far from benevolent. There are specialists in psychological programming who, using this technique, could even make you hate your favorite songs by repeatedly associating them with something unpleasant. In that way, they could turn you into Pavlov’s dog—or into their dog. One might also mention the so-called Chinese water torture: a seemingly harmless stimulus, when repeatedly paired with something unpleasant, gradually provokes increasingly strong negative emotions and psychological states.

This type of anchoring is widely used as a manipulative technique or as part of a broader manipulative strategy. Linking attitudes, memories, and sensations to a specific stimulus (a word, phrase, concept, smell, touch, sound, melody, image, color, etc.) can make it possible to manage an individual’s emotions, attitudes, and mood, as well as to influence psychological processes over the long term.

This linking—or anchoring—is achieved, just as in Pavlov’s experiment, by introducing the stimulus when the individual is experiencing, or is induced to experience, the desired emotion or state. Usually, to achieve any effect, this procedure must be repeated several times. Once the connection between stimulus and desired state is established, simply presenting the stimulus later will trigger that state in the individual to some degree.

Applications of this technique can be observed in communication, advertising, politics, marketing, media (especially online), and internet forums. There, through the use of words and phrases (emphasis, capitalization, specific spelling, etc.) or through emotionally charged images, an emotional response is sought in the target audience.

For example, a repeatedly used insult written in capital letters against a forum participant can, over time, cause increasing emotional discomfort and irritation, eventually driving that person to withdraw from the forum altogether. If that insult is internalized as a personal characteristic, the effect becomes even stronger.

Anchors in Intuition and Unconscious Judgment (after Daniel Kahneman)

This concept of anchoring is connected to intuition and unconscious intelligence. Here, anchors are subconscious impressions and attitudes (often related to numerical values) that influence human judgments, perceptions, and decisions about topics that are otherwise unrelated to those attitudes.

For example, imagine a driver with limited geographical knowledge is first asked an anchoring question: What is the maximum speed limit on a highway? (Let’s say it is 120 km/h.) Being a driver, they answer correctly. They are then asked: How many countries are there in Africa? Their estimate will tend to be higher than if the anchoring question had been: What is the speed limit in a residential area? (Let’s say 40 km/h.) The numerical values that surface in the person’s mind influence their judgment about a topic on which they lack precise information and have only a vague sense.

Two psychological mechanisms are at work here.
The first is subconscious adjustment to the anchor, which serves as an unconscious reference point for forming a judgment, thereby influencing the final estimate.

The second mechanism involves the activation of associations linked to the given value, which also affect judgment. In the driver example, mentioning the maximum highway speed tunes the brain toward high values, while mentioning urban speed limits evokes notions of lower values and restrictions. These factors influence the guess about the number of African countries. In Kahneman’s book Thinking, Fast and Slow, this process is referred to as priming.

Both processes are unconscious and occur quickly and intuitively, which makes this type of anchoring highly effective. Its applications are everywhere, because we are dealing with a fundamental feature of human thinking—how the brain operates intuitively.

In markets, for instance, you may bargain over the price of a desired item, but the negotiation always starts from the initially stated or requested price. That price is the reference point—the anchor. In shops, we often see price tags where an original price is crossed out and a lower price is displayed beneath it. We automatically take the crossed-out price as the anchor and are more inclined to buy the item at the current price, believing it to be lower than the “normal” one and therefore a good deal. This is not guaranteed to be true—but the seller will certainly benefit from the purchase.

In a similar way, unpopular measures can be introduced into the public sphere by first presenting even more negative alternatives, or by citing examples of countries where those harsher options have already been adopted.

In political terms, ordinary left-wing demands in countries like the United States (not always and not only there) are often labeled as extreme by the political establishment and business interests—even though, in the EU for example, they would not be considered left-wing at all, but rather normal.

By labeling them “extreme,” these demands are anchored at the far end of the political spectrum, effectively shifting the perceived center to the right. And since “extreme” demands are rarely accepted, any changes that do occur remain far removed from what people originally wanted.