Higher Education

, Volume 61, Issue 4, pp 431–444 | Cite as

Anchoring effects in world university rankings: exploring biases in reputation scores



Despite ongoing debates about their uses and validity, university rankings are a popular means to compare institutions within a country and around the world. Anchoring theory suggests that these rankings may influence assessments of institutional reputation, and this effect may be particularly strong when a new rankings system is introduced. We test this possibility by examining data from the first 3 years of the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) world university rankings. Consistent with an anchoring hypothesis, the initial THES rankings influenced peer assessments of reputation in subsequent surveys, but second-year rankings were not related to changes in reputation in the third year. Furthermore, as expected, early peer assessment ratings were not associated with changes in future rankings. These findings provide strong evidence for an anchoring effect on assessments of institutional reputation. We discuss the usefulness of these peer assessments, along with ways in which reputational surveys can be improved.


University rankings Higher education Institutional reputation Anchoring effects Global competition 


  1. Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (2010). The U.S. News and World Report college rankings: Modeling institutional effects on organizational reputation. American Journal of Education, 116, 163–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (in press). College rankings as an interorganizational dependency: Establishing the foundation for strategic and institutional accounts. Research in Higher Education.Google Scholar
  3. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equation models with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Bowden, R. (2000). Fantasy higher education: University and college league tables. Quality in Higher Education, 6(1), 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowman, N. A., & Bastedo, M. N. (2009). Getting on the front page: Organizational reputation, status signals, and the impact of U.S. News and World Report on student decisions. Research in Higher Education, 50, 415–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Chapman, G. B., & Bornstein, B. H. (1996). The more you ask for, the more you get: Anchoring in personal injury verdicts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 519–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crabbe, N. (2009, June 17). On survey, Machen rates UF with Harvard, other Fla. schools low. The Gainesville Sun. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from http://bit.ly/y9AAb.
  10. Cremonini, L., Westerheijden, D., & Enders, J. (2008). Disseminating the right information to the right audience: Cultural determinants in the use (and misuse) of rankings. Higher Education, 55, 373–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, H. L., Hoch, S. J., & Ragsdale, E. K. E. (1986). An anchoring and adjustment model of spousal predictions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross- national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49(4), 495–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehrenberg, R. G. (2003). Reaching for the brass ring: The U.S. News & World Report rankings and competition. Review of Higher Education, 26, 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. (1996). Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 442–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Englich, B. (2006). Blind or biased? Justitia’s susceptibility to anchoring effects in the courtroom based on give numerical representations. Law & Policy, 28, 497–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Englich, B. (2008). When knowledge matters—differential effects of available knowledge in standard and basic anchoring tasks. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 896–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Englich, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the court room. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1535–1551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 188–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gottlieb, B. (1999, September 1). Cooking the school books: How U.S. News cheats in picking its “best American colleges.” Slate. Retrieved November 19, 2009, from http://www.slate.com/id/34027/.
  21. Griffith, A., & Rask, K. (2007). The influence of the U.S. News and World Report collegiate rankings on the matriculation decisions of high-ability students: 1995–2004. Economics of Education Review, 26, 244–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hazelkorn, E. (2007). The impact of league tables and ranking system on higher education decision making. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hazelkorn, E. (2008). Learning to live with league tables and ranking: The experience of institutional leaders. Higher Education Policy, 21, 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP). (2007). College and university ranking systems: Global perspectives and American challenges. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  26. Janiszewski, C., & Uy, D. (2008). Precision of the anchor influences the amount of adjustment. Psychological Science, 19, 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Joyce, E., & Biddle, G. (1981). Anchoring and adjustment in probabilistic inference in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research, 19, 120–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kroth, A., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). International university rankings: A critical review of the methodology. Zeitschrift fur Erziehungswissenschaft, 11, 542–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee, S. (2009, August 19). Reputation without rigor. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/19/rankings.
  31. Marginson, S. (2007). Global university rankings: Implications in general and for Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McDonough, P. M., Antonio, A. L., Walpole, M., & Perez, L. X. (1998). College rankings: Democratized college knowledge for whom? Research in Higher Education, 39, 513–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meredith, M. (2004). Why do universities compete in the rankings game? An empirical analysis of the effects of the U.S. News and World Report college rankings. Research in Higher Education, 45, 443–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Monks, J., & Ehrenberg, R. G. (1999). The impact of U.S. News & World Report college rankings on admissions outcomes and pricing policies at selective private institutions (Working Paper #7227). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  35. Mussweiler, T. (2001). The durability of anchoring effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Comparing is believing: A selective accessibility model of judgmental anchoring. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 135–167). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). The use of category and exemplar knowledge in the solution of anchoring tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1038–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1142–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 84–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (3rd ed.). New York: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  41. Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 829–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Salmi, J., & Saroyan, A. (2007). League tables as policy instruments: Uses and misuses. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sauder, M., & Fine, G. A. (2008). Arbiters, entrepreneurs, and the shaping of business school reputations. Sociological Forum, 23, 699–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The worldwide expansion of higher education in the twentieth century. American Sociological Review, 70, 898–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2003). Academic ranking of world universities2003. Retrieved November 23, 2009, from http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2003.jsp.
  47. Sponsler, B. (2009). The role and relevance of rankings in higher education policymaking. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.Google Scholar
  48. Stake, J. E. (2006). The interplay between law school rankings, reputations, and resource allocations: Ways rankings mislead. Indiana Law Journal, 82, 229–270.Google Scholar
  49. Tight, M. (2000). Do league tables contribute to the development of a quality culture? Football and higher education compared. Higher Education Quarterly, 54(1), 22–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Turner, D. R. (2005). Benchmarking in universities: League tables revisited. Oxford Review of Education, 31(3), 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tversky, A., & Kahnemann, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Usher, A., & Savino, M. (2006). A world of difference: A global survey of university league tables. Toronto, ON: Educational Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  53. Van Dyke, N. (2005). Twenty years of university report cards. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 103–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Volkwein, J. F., & Sweitzer, K. V. (2006). Institutional prestige and reputation among research universities and liberal arts colleges. Research in Higher Education, 47, 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zuckerman, M., Koestner, R., Colella, M. J., & Alton, A. O. (1984). Anchoring in the detection of deception and leakage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Social ConcernsUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA
  2. 2.Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary EducationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations