The Effect of Accuracy Motivation on Anchoring and Adjustment: Do People Adjust From Provided Anchors?

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Volumn 99, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 917-932

  Simmons, Joseph P ^a   LeBoeuf, Robyn A ^b   Nelson, Leif D ^c  

^a YALE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Debiasing; Dual process theories; Incentives; Inferential correction; Intuitive judgment

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; INTUITION; MOTIVATION; MULTICENTER STUDY; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REFERENCE VALUE; UNCERTAINTY; UNITED STATES;

HUMANS; INTUITION; JUDGMENT; MOTIVATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; REFERENCE VALUES; UNCERTAINTY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 78649960962     PISSN: 00223514     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0021540     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Carlson B.W. Anchoring and adjustment in judgments under risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1990, 16:665-676. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.16.4.665.
2. Chapman G.B., Bornstein B.H. The more you ask for, the more you get: Anchoring in personal injury verdicts. Applied Cognitive Psychology 1996, 10:519-540. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199612)10:6<519::AID-ACP417>3.0.CO;2-5.
3. Chapman G.B., Johnson E.J. Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgment of belief and value. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment 2002, 120-138. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, D. Kahneman (Eds.).
4. Englich B., Mussweiler T., Strack F. Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2006, 32:188-200. doi: 10.1177/0146167205282152.
5. Epley N. A tale of tuned decks? Anchoring as accessibility and anchoring as adjustment. Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making 2004, 240-257. Blackwell, Malden, MA, doi: 10.1002/9780470752937.ch12. D.J. Koehler, N. Harvey (Eds.).
6. Epley N., Gilovich T. Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and provided anchors. Psychological Science 2001, 12:391-396. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00372.
7. Epley N., Gilovich T. Are adjustments insufficient?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2004, 30:447-460. doi: 10.1177/0146167203261889.
8. Epley N., Gilovich T. When effortful thinking influences judgmental anchoring: Differential effects of forewarning and incentives on self-generated and externally-provided anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2005, 18:199-212. doi: 10.1002/bdm.495.
9. Epley N., Gilovich T. The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science 2006, 17:311-318. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01704.x.
10. Epley N., Keysar B., Van Boven L., Gilovich T. Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2004, 87:327-339. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.327.
11. Galinsky A.D., Mussweiler T. First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2001, 81:657-669. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.657.
12. Gilbert D.T. Inferential correction. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment 2002, 167-184. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, D. Kahneman (Eds.).
13. Green D., Jacowitz K.E., Kahneman D., McFadden D. Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods. Resource and Energy Economics 1998, 20:85-116. doi: 10.1016/S0928-7655(97)00031-6.
14. Grice H.P. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics: Speech acts 1975, 41-58. Academic Press, New York, NY. P. Cole, J.L. Morgan (Eds.).
15. Jacowitz K.E., Kahneman D. Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin 1995, 21:1161-1166. doi: 10.1177/01461672952111004.
16. Janiszewski C., Uy D. Precision of the anchor influences the amount of adjustment. Psychological Science 2008, 19:121-127. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02057.x.
17. Klayman J., Ha Y.W. Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypotheses testing. Psychological Review 1987, 94:211-228. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.211.
18. Mussweiler T., Englich B. Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2005, 98:133-143. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.12.002.
19. Mussweiler T., Strack F. Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1999, 35:136-164. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1998.1364.
20. Mussweiler T., Strack F. The use of category and exemplar knowledge in the solution of anchoring tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2000, 78:1038-1052. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1038.
21. Northcraft G.B., Neale M.A. Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1987, 39:84-97. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(87)90046-X.
22. Quattrone G.A. Overattribution and unit formation: When behavior engulfs the person. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1982, 42:593-607. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.42.4.593.
23. Schwarz N. Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods, and the logic of conversation 1996, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
24. Simmons J.P., Nelson L.D. Intuitive confidence: Choosing between intuitive and nonintuitive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2006, 135:409-428. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.135.3.409.
25. Simonson I., Drolet A. Anchoring effects on consumers' willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. Journal of Consumer Research 2004, 31:681-690. doi: 10.1086/425103.
26. Stewart N. The cost of anchoring on credit-card minimum repayments. Psychological Science 2009, 20:39-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02255.x.
27. Strack F., Mussweiler T. Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1997, 73:437-446. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.437.
28. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 1974, 185:1124-1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.
29. Wansink B., Kent R.J., Hoch S.J. An anchoring and adjustment model of purchase quantity decisions. Journal of Marketing Research 1998, 35:71-81. doi: 10.2307/3151931.
30. Wason P.C. On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1960, 12:129-140. doi: 10.1080/17470216008416717.
31. Wegener D.T., Petty R.E. Flexible correction processes in social judgment: The role of naïve theories in corrections for perceived bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1995, 68:36-51. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.36.
32. Wright W.F., Anderson U. Effects of situation familiarity and financial incentives on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic for probability assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1989, 44:68-82. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(89)90035-6.