Overlap of accessible information undermines the anchoring effect

Judgment and Decision Making

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 92-98

  Bahník, Štěpán ^a   Strack, Fritz ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Anchoring; Heuristics and biases; Judgment; Selective accessibility

Indexed keywords

EID: 84956888265     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19302975     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Algina, J., Keselman, H.J., & Penfield, R. D. (2005). An alternative to Cohen's standardized mean difference effect size: A robust parameter and confidence interval in the two independent groups case. Psychological Methods, 10, 317-328.
2. Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). "Coherent arbitrariness": Stable demand curves without stable preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 73-106.
3. Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2006). Tom Sawyer and the construction of value. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60, 1-10.
4. Bahník, Š., Englich, B., & Strack, F. (in press). Anchoring effect. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.). Cognitive illusions: Intriguing phenomena in thinking, judgment, and memory (2nd ed.). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
5. Bennett, M. W. (2014). Confronting cognitive "anchoring effect" and "blind spot" biases in dederal sentencing: A modest solution for reforming a fundamental flaw. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 104, 489-534.
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.
8. Englich, B. (2006). Blind or biased? Justitia's susceptibility to anchoring effects in the courtroom based on given numerical representations. Law & Policy, 28, 497-514.
9. 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.
10. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic. Psychological Science, 12, 391-396.
11. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-andadjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17, 311-318.
12. Frederick, S., & Mochon, D. (2012). A scale distortion theory of anchoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 124-133.
13. Frederick, S., Mochon, D., & Danilowitz, J. (2013). Anchoring as inference. Yale University working paper.
14. 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.
15. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.). Syntax and semantics. Vol.3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
16. Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211-228.
17. Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B., Jr., Bahník, Š., Bernstein, M. J., & Nosek, B. A. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A "Many labs" replication project. Social Psychology, 45, 142-152.
18. Kruschke, J. K. (2013). Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 573-603.
19. Mochon, D., & Frederick, S. (2013). Anchoring in sequential judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122, 69-79.
20. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999a). Comparing is believing: A selective accessibility model of judgmental anchoring. European Review of Social Psychology, 10, 135-167.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Robbennolt, J. K., & Studebaker, C. A. (1999). Anchoring in the courtroom: The effects of caps on punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 353-373.
24. Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulleting and Review, 16, 225-237.
25. Simmons, J. P., LeBoeuf, R. A., & Nelson, L. D. (2010). The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: do people adjust from provided anchors?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 917-932.
26. Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437-446.
27. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 4157, 1124-1131.
28. Wilcox, R. R. (1992). Why can methods for comparing means have relatively low power, and what can you do to correct the problem? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 101-105.
29. 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.