Precision of the anchor influences the amount of adjustment: Research article

Psychological Science

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 121-127

  Janiszewski, Chris ^a,b   Uy, Dan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; MATHEMATICS;

HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MATHEMATICS;

EID: 38949152311     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02057.x     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Birnbaum, M. (1999). How to show that 9 > 221: Collect judgments in a between-subjects design. Psychological Methods, 4, 243 249.
2. Brun, W. Teigen, K.H. (1988). Verbal probabilities: Ambiguous, context-dependent, or both? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 390 404.
3. Einhorn, H.J. Hogarth, R.M. (1985). Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference. Psychological Review, 92, 433 461.
4. 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.
5. Epley, N. Gilovich, T. (2005). When effortful thinking influences judgmental anchoring: Differential effects of forewarning and incentives on self-generated and externally provided anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 199 212.
6. Epley, N. Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17, 311 318.
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. Gilbert, D.T. (2002). Inferential correction. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 167 184). New York : Cambridge University Press.
9. Klayman, J., Soll, J.B., González-Vallejo, C. Barlas, S. (1999). Overconfidence: It depends on how, what, and whom you ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 216 247.
10. Michie, S., Lester, K., Pinto, J. Marteau, T.M. (2005). Communicating risk information in genetic counseling: An observational study. Health Education & Behavior, 32, 589 598.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Soll, J.B. Klayman, J. (2004). Overconfidence in interval estimates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 299 314.
14. 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.
15. Tversky, A. Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124 1131.
16. Wegener, D.T. Petty, R.E. (1995). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: The role of naïve theories in corrections for perceived bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 36 51.
17. Wright, W.F. Anderson, U. (1989). Effects of situation familiarity and financial incentives on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic for probability assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 68 82.