We overestimate our rationality, and nowhere is this more obvious than in the art world.
When we walk into a gallery, we like to believe we would be able to rationally assess the artwork and gauge its price based on its condition, materials, and iconographic and art-historical quality. Ideally, we also evaluate the piece how it resonates with us, what it means, and what it’s worth in that particular moment.
But that’s far from the case. On the contrary, much of how we discern the value of a piece is influenced by a psychological phenomenon known as anchoring.
Anchoring occurs when an initial piece of information—typically a price tag, though not necessarily—becomes the reference point from which we judge everything that follows.
Imagine looking at two artworks. One is priced at $10,000, and the other at $5,000. Logically, you should consider the artworks on their own merits, perhaps even factoring in their provenance and innovativeness; then, you should determine what each piece is worth and what you would be willing to spend. To an extent, the lack of price tags in galleries is supposedly there to encourage you to do just that.
But that’s not how it works, is it?
You follow the label’s instruction to “inquire,” and the gallerist(a) gives you the price. The moment you hear $10,000, your mind locks onto that sum. You might think, “$10,000? That’s too much. Perhaps I can offer $8,000 or $8,500.” Then, you look at the $5,000 piece and think, “$5,000 seems like a steal—perhaps this is worth $6,000, or at least $5,500.”
Here’s where it gets interesting: you’re no longer evaluating the art on its own. You see its value relative to the suggested price. That’s anchoring at play. The initial number shapes your perception, anchoring you to a range that’s too close to the original. Whether you realize it or not, that initial price influences both your decision-making and your willingness to pay.
So, the next time you stop by a gallery, remember: more often than not, the price we pay for art is influenced less by the piece itself; it’s about how firmly we’ve become anchored to a number.
Irrationally yours,
Dan Ariely
