When relevance matters: Anchoring effects can be larger for relevant than for irrelevant anchors

Social Psychology

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 4-12

  Glöckner, Andreas ^a,b   Englich, Birte ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON COLLECTIVE GOODS   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Anchoring effects; Biases; Judgment; Legal decision making; Probabilistic inferences

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922681412     PISSN: 18649335     EISSN: 21512590     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000214     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Asendorpf, J. B., Conner, M., De Fruyt, F., De Houwer, J., Denissen, J. J. A., Fiedler, K., . . . Wicherts, J. M. (2013). Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27, 108-119.
2. Betsch, T., & Glöckner, A. (2010). Intuition in judgment and decision making: Extensive thinking without effort. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 279-294.
3. Blankenship, K. L., Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B., & Macy, C. L. (2008). Elaboration and consequences of anchored estimates: An attitudinal perspective on numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1465-1476. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.005
4. Bröder, A. (2000). Assessing the empirical validity of the "Take-the-best" heuristic as a model of human probabilistic inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, 1332-1346.
5. Bröder, A. (2003). Decision making with the "adaptive toolbox": Influence of environmental structure, intelligence, and working memory load. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29, 611-625.
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. Critcher, C. R., & Gilovich, T. (2008). Incidental environmental anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 241-251. doi: 10.1002/Bdm.586
8. Doherty, M. E., & Kurz, E. M. (1996). Social Judgment Theory. Thinking & Reasoning, 2, 109-140.
9. Englich, B. (2005). "Give him five years!" - Influences of partisan hecklers on judges' sentencing decisions. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 36, 215-225. doi: 10.1024/0044-3514.36.4.215
10. Englich, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1535-1551.
11. Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2005). The last word in court - a hidden disadvantage for the defense. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 705-722. doi: 10.1007/s10979-005-8380-7
12. 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, 188-200.
13. 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. doi: 10.1002/bdm.495
14. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G∗Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
15. Francis, G. (2012). Publication bias and the failure of replication in experimental psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 975-991. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0322-y
16. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25-42.
17. Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N. (2011).A dynamic interactive theory of person construal. Psychological Review, 118, 247-279.
18. Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 35-42. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2010.10.008
19. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
20. Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2008a). Modeling option and strategy choices with connectionist networks: Towards an integrative model of automatic and deliberate decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 215-228.
21. Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2008b). Multiple-reason decision making based on automatic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 34, 1055-1075.
22. Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2012). Decisions beyond boundaries: When more information is processed faster than less. Acta Psychologica, 139, 532-542.
23. Glöckner, A., & Witteman, C. L. M. (2010). Beyond dual-process models: A categorization of processes underlying intuitive judgment and decision making. Thinking & Reasoning, 16, 1-25.
24. Greiner, B. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In K. Kremer & V. Macho (Eds.), Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003. GWDG Bericht 63 (pp. 79-93). Göttingen, Germany: Ges. für Wiss. Datenverarbeitung.
25. Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2000). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777-830.
26. Hammond, K. R., Hamm, R. M., Grassia, J., & Pearson, T. (1987). Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytical cognition in expert judgment. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man & Cybernetics, 17, 753-770.
27. Hastie, R., Schkade, D. A., & Payne, J. W. (1999). Juror judgments in civil cases: Effects of plaintiff's requests and plaintiff's identity on punitive damage awards. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 445-470.
28. Hilbig, B. E., Heydasch, T., & Zettler, I. (2014). To boast or not to boast: Testing the humility aspect of the Honesty-Humility factor. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 12-16.
29. Hilbig, B. E., & Pohl, R. F. (2009). Ignorance- versus evidence-based decision making: A decision time analysis of the recognition heuristic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 35, 1296-1305.
30. Holyoak, K. J., & Simon, D. (1999). Bidirectional reasoning in decision making by constraint satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 3-31.
31. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
32. Mussweiler, T., & Englich, B. (2005). Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 133-143. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.12.002
33. 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.
34. 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. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1038
35. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2001). Considering the impossible: Explaining the effects of implausible anchors. Social Cognition, 19, 145-160. doi: 10.1521/soco.19.2.145.20705
36. 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.
37. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
38. Read, S. J., & Miller, L. C. (1998). On the dynamic construction of meaning: An interactive activation and competition model of social perception. In S. J. Read & L. C. Miller (Eds.), Connectionist models of social reasoning and social behavior (pp. 27-68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Russo, J. E. (2010). Understanding the effect of a numerical anchor. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 25-27. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2009.12.006
40. Simon, D., Snow, C. J., & Read, S. J. (2004). The redux of cognitive consistency theories: Evidence judgments by constraint satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 814-837.
41. Smith, A. R., Windschitl, P. D., & Bruchmann, K. (2013). Knowledge matters: Anchoring effects are moderated by knowledge level. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 97-108. doi: 10.1002/Ejsp.1921
42. Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437-446. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.437
43. Sugden, R., Zheng, J., & Zizzo, D. J. (2013). Not all anchors are created equal. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 21-31. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2013.06.008
44. Thagard, P., & Kunda, Z. (1998). Making sense of people: Coherence mechanisms. In S. J. Read & L. C. Miller (Eds.), Connectionist models of social reasoning and social behavior (pp. 3-26). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
45. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
46. Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Blankenship, K. L., & Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2010a). Elaboration and numerical anchoring: Breadth, depth, and the role of (non-)thoughtful processes in anchoring theories. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 28-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2009.12.007
47. Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Blankenship, K. L., & Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2010b). Elaboration and numerical anchoring: Implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 5-16. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2009.12.003
48. Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B. T., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (2001). Implications of attitude change theories for numerical anchoring: Anchor plausibility and the limits of anchor effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 62-69. doi: 10.1006/jesp.2000.1431
49. 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. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.125.4.387