The malleability of anchoring effects

Experimental Psychology

Volumn 49, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 67-72

  Mussweiler, Thomas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Anchoring; Judgemental heuristics; Selective accessibilty

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; PROBLEM SOLVING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RECALL;

ADULT; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MENTAL RECALL; PROBABILITY LEARNING; PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 0036365410     PISSN: 16183169     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027//1618-3169.49.1.67     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Cervone, D., & Peake, P. K. (1986). Anchoring, efficacy, and action: The influence of judgmental heuristics on self-efficacy judgment and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 492-501.
2. 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.
3. Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 115-153.
4. Clark, H. H., & Schober, M. F. (1992). Asking questions and influencing answers. In J.M. Tanur (Ed.), Questions about questions. Inquiries into the cognitive bases of surveys (pp. 15-47). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
5. Davies, M. F. (1997). Belief persistence after evidential discrediting: The impact of generated versus provided explanations on the likelihood of discredited outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 561-578.
6. Englich, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the court-room. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1535-1551.
7. Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 657-669.
8. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45-56.
9. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
10. Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161-1166.
11. Joyce, E. J., & Biddle, G. C. (1981). Anchoring and adjustment in probabilistic inferences in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research, 19, 120-145.
12. Markman, A. D., & Gentner, D. (1996). Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons. Memory & Cognition, 24, 235-249.
13. Mussweiler, T. (1997): A selective accessibility model of anchoring: Linking the anchoring heuristic to hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst.
14. Mussweiler, T. (2001 a). The durability of anchoring effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 431-442.
15. Mussweiler, T. (2001 b). "Seek and ye shall find": Antecedents of assimilation and contrast in social comparison. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 499-509.
16. Mussweiler, T., Förster, J., & Strack, F. (1997). Der Ankereffekt in Abhängigkeit ankerkonsistenter Information: Ein Modell selektiver Zugänglichkeit. [Anchoring effects and the applicability of anchor-consistent information: A selective accessibility model]. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 44, 589-615.
17. Mussweiler, T., & Neumann, R. (2000). Sources of mental contamination: Comparing the effects of self-generated versus externally-provided primes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 194-206.
18. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999a). Comparing is believing: A selective accessibility model of judgmental anchoring. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 10). Chichester, England: Wiley.
19. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999b). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 136-164.
20. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000a). The use of category and exemplar knowledge in the solution of anchoring tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 6, 1038-1052.
21. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000b). Numeric judgments under uncertainty: The role of knowledge in anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 495-518.
22. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (in press). The semantics of anchoring. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
23. 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.
24. Neale, M. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (1991). Cognition and rationality in negotiation. New York: The Free Press.
25. 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.
26. Plous, S. (1989). Thinking the unthinkable: The effects of anchoring on likelihood estimates of nuclear war. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 67-91.
27. Ritov, I. (1996). Anchoring in simulated competitive market negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67 (1), 16-25.
28. Schwarz, N. (1994). Judgment in social context: Biases, shortcomings, and the logic of conversation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (pp. 125-162). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
29. Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 592-604.
30. Smith, E. R. (1994). Procedural knowledge and processing strategies in social cognition. In R.S. Wyer & T.K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 99-152). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. (1978). Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1202-1212.
32. Strack, F., & Martin, L. L. (1987). Thinking, judging, and communicating: A process account of context effects in attitude surveys. In H. J. Hippler, N. Schwarz, & S. Sudman (Eds.), Social information processing and survey methodology (pp. 123-148). New York: Springer.
33. Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437-446.
34. Switzer, F. S., & Sniezek, J. A. (1991). Judgment processes in motivation: Anchoring and adjustment effects on judgment and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49, 208-229.
35. Trope, Y., & Liberman, A. (1996). Social hypothesis testing: Cognitive and motivational factors. In E.T. Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 239-270). New York: Guilford.
36. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1130.
37. Wilson, T. D., Houston, C., Etling, K. M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 4, 387-402.
38. Wong, K. F. E., & Kwong, J. Y. Y. (2000). Is 7300 m equal to 7.3 km? Same semantics but different anchoring effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making, 82, 314-333.
39. Wright, W. F., & Anderson, U. (1989). Effects of situation familiarity and financial incentives on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristics for probability assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 68-82.