The long and short of it: Physical anchoring effects

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 393-406

  LeBoeuf, Robyn A ^a   Shafir, Eldar ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Adjustment; Anchoring; Judgment and decision making; Magnitude estimation; Psychophysics

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750173777     PISSN: 08943257     EISSN: 10990771     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bdm.535     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Babcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of self-serving biases. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11, 109-126.
2. Behar, I., & Bevan, W. (1961). The perceived duration of auditory and visual intervals: Cross-modal comparison and interaction. American Journal of Psychology, 74, 17-26.
3. Black, R. W., & Bevan, W. (1960). The effect of subliminal shock upon the judged intensity of weak shock. American Journal of Psychology, 73, 262-267.
4. Boardman, W. K., & Goldstone, S. (1962). Effects of subliminal anchors upon judgments of size. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 14, 475-482.
5. Campbell, D. T., Lewis, N. A., & Hunt, W. A. (1958). Context effects with judgmental language that is absolute, extensive, and extra-experimentally anchored. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 220-228.
6. Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 115-153.
7. Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (2002). Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 120-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Cohen, N. E. (1937). The relativity of absolute judgments. American Journal of Psychology, 49, 93-100.
9. Day, R. H., & Dickinson, R. G. (1976). The components of the Poggendorff illusion. British Journal of Psychology, 67, 537-552.
10. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12, 391-396.
11. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Are adjustments insufficient? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 447-460.
12. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., Medvec, V. H. (1998). The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of others' ability to read one's emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 332-346.
14. Goldstone, S., Boardman, W. K., & Lhamon, W. T. (1959). Intersensory comparisons of temporal judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 243-248.
15. Goldstone, S., Lhamon, W. T., & Boardman, W. K. (1957). The time sense: Anchor effects and apparent duration. Journal of Psychology, 44, 145-153.
16. Harvey, O. J., & Campbell, D. T. (1963). Judgments of weight as affected by adaptation range, adaptation duration, magnitude of unlabeled anchor, and judgmental language. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 12-21.
17. Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper & Row.
18. Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (1994). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
19. Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161-1166.
20. Jordan, K., & Randall, J. (1987). The effects of framing ratio and oblique length on Ponzo illusion magnitude. Perception and Psychophysics, 41, 435-439.
21. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1995). Conflict resolution: A cognitive perspective. In K. Arrow, R. H. Mnookin, L. Ross, A. Tversky, & R. Wilson (Eds.), Barriers to conflict resolution. New York: W.W. Norton.
22. Kruger, J. (1999). Lake Wobegon be gone! The "below-average effect" and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 221-232.
23. LeBoeuf, R. A., & Shafir, E. (2006). Estimating from the "Here" and "Now": Anchoring in time and distance judgements. Unpublished manuscript.
24. Loewenstein, G., & Angner, E. (2003). Predicting and indulging changing preferences. In G. Loewenstein, D. Read, & R. Baumeister (Eds.), Time and decision (pp. 351-391). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
25. Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26. Luo, C. R., & Wang, S. (1997). Effects of figure context on the apparent length of a line. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 551-558.
27. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 136-164.
28. 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.
29. Parducci, A., & Marshall, L. M. (1962). Assimilation vs. contrast in the anchoring of perceptual judgments of weight. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 426-437.
30. Parducci, A., Perrett, D. S., & Marsh, H. W. (1969). Assimilation and contrast as range-frequency effects of anchors. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 281-288.
31. Postman, L. (1946). The time-error in auditory perception. American Journal of Psychology, 59, 193-219.
32. Pratt, C. C. (1933). The time-error in psychophysical judgments. American Journal of Psychology, 45, 292-297.
33. Predebon, J. (1996). The role of the angle components in the wings-in and wings-out forms of the Müller-Lyer illusion. Perception, 25, 773-781.
34. Redding, G. M., & Hawley, E. (1993). Length illusion in fractional Müller-Lyer stimuli: An object-perception approach. Perception, 22, 819-828.
35. Ross, M., & Sicoly, F. (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 322-336.
36. Schiffman, H. R., & Griest-Bousquet, S. (1993). Common factors versus uncommon variability in comparisons of the Poggendorff and Mul̈ler-Lyer illusions. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 586-588.
37. Sherif, M., Taub, D., & Hovland, C. I. (1958). Assimilation and contrast effects of anchoring stimuli on judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 150-155.
38. Stevens, S. S., & Guirao, M. (1963). Subjective scaling of length and area and the matching of length to loudness and brightness. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 177-186.
39. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
40. Volkmann, J. (1951). Scales of judgment and their implications for social psychology. In J. H. Rohrer, & M. Sherif (Eds.), Social psychology at the crossroads: The University of Oklahoma lectures in social psychology (pp. 273-298). New York: Harper & Row.
41. Warren, R. M., & Bashford, J. A. (1977). Müller-Lyer illusions: Their origin in processes facilitating object recognition. Perception, 6, 615-626.
42. Wilson, T. D., Houston, C. E., Etling, K. M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 387-402.
43. Wong, K. F. E., & Kwong, J. Y. Y. (2000). Is 7300m equal to 7.3km? Same semantics but different anchoring effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 314-333.