![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic has been used to account for a wide variety of numerical judgments. Five studies show that adjustment away from a numerical anchor is smaller if the anchor is precise than if it is rounded. Evidence suggests that precise anchors, compared with rounded anchors, are represented on a subjective scale with a finer resolution. If adjustment consists of a series of iterative mental movements along a subjective scale, then an adjustment from a precise anchor should result in a smaller overall correction than an adjustment from a rounded anchor.
REFERENCES
|
Birnbaum, M. (1999). How to show that 9 > 221: Collect judgments in a between-subjects design. Psychological Methods, 4, 243–249. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Brun, W., Teigen, K.H. (1988). Verbal probabilities: Ambiguous, context-dependent, or both? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 390–404. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Einhorn, H.J., Hogarth, R.M. (1985). Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference. Psychological Review, 92, 433–461. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
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. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
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. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Epley, N., Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17, 311–318. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
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. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Gilbert, D.T. (2002). Inferential correction. In Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., Kahneman, D. (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 167–184). New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
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. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
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. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
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. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
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. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Soll, J.B., Klayman, J. (2004). Overconfidence in interval estimates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 299–314. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
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. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
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. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
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. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
