Anchoring bias or focalism is:
a cognitive bias where an individual depends too heavily on an initial piece of information offered (considered to be the "anchor") to make subsequent judgments during decision making. Once the value of this anchor is set, all future negotiations, arguments, estimates, etc. are discussed in relation to the anchor. Information that aligns with the anchor tends to be assimilated toward it, while information that is more dissonant or less related tends to be displaced. This bias occurs when interpreting future information using this anchor to gauge.
The example initially given in the Wikipedia article uses an initial price for a car set as a starting point for negotiations. However, experience can come into play as anchor points for evaluation of situations and employment negotiations etc.
Early research found that experts (those with high knowledge, experience, or expertise in some field) were more resistant to the anchoring effect (Wilson, et al. 1996). Since then, however, numerous studies have demonstrated that while experience can sometimes reduce the effect, even experts are susceptible to anchoring.
In a study concerning the effects of anchoring on judicial decisions, researchers found that even experienced legal professionals were affected by anchoring. This remained true even when the anchors provided were arbitrary and unrelated to the case in question (Englich, et al. 2006).
Also, this relates to goal setting, where more experienced individuals will set goals based on their past experiences which consequently affects end results in negotiations (Harvard Law, 2019).
An anchoring bias can also lead to a backfire effect, a name for the finding that given evidence against their beliefs, people can reject the evidence and believe even more strongly. The phrase was first coined by Nyhan & Reifler (2010).
Anchoring biases can be formed as a result of illusory correlations, which are phenomena within Psychology where people have been known to perceive a relationship between variables (typically people, events, or behaviors) even when no such relationship exists. A false association may be formed because rare or novel occurrences are more salient and therefore tend to capture one's attention (Pelham & Blanton, 2013). This phenomenon is one way stereotypes form and endure (Mullen & Johnson, 1990).
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 (2): 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282152
Harvard Law (2019). The Anchoring Effect and How it Can Impact Your Negotiation. PON - Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/the-drawbacks-of-goals/
Mullen, B., & Johnson, C. (1990). Distinctiveness-based illusory correlations and stereotyping: A meta-analytic integration. British Journal of Social Psychology. 29(1): 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00883.x.
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
Pelham, B. W. Blanton, H. (2012). Conducting Research in Psychology: measuring the weight of smoke (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. pp. 11–12.
Wilson, Timothy D.; Houston, Christopher E.; Etling, Kathryn M.; Brekke, Nancy (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 125(4): 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-34220.127.116.117