Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model.

Results of four studies support the notion that anchoring effects are mediated by mechanisms of hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming. According to the suggested Selective Accessibility Model, judges use a hypothesis-consistent test strategy to solve a comparative anchoring task. Applying this strategy selectively increases the accessibility of anchor-consistent knowledge which is then used to generate the subsequent absolute judgment. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that absolute estimates depend on the hypothesis implied in the comparative task, suggesting that a hypothesis-testing strategy is used to solve this task. Study 3 shows that limiting the amount of knowledge generated for the comparative task retards absolute judgments. This suggests that knowledge rendered easily accessible in the comparative judgment is used for the subsequent absolute judgment. Finally, Study 4 suggests that self-generation of knowledge contributes to the robustness of the effect, thus resolving the seeming inconsistency that anchoring effects are at the same time remarkably robust and mediated by typically fragile semantic priming mechanisms.

[1]  Thomas Mussweiler,et al.  Comparing Is Believing: A Selective Accessibility Model of Judgmental Anchoring , 1999 .

[2]  Steven L. Neuberg,et al.  A Continuum of Impression Formation, from Category-Based to Individuating Processes: Influences of Information and Motivation on Attention and Interpretation , 1990 .

[3]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Flexible correction processes in social judgment: the role of naive theories in corrections for perceived bias. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[4]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Effects of introspecting about reasons: inferring attitudes from accessible thoughts. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[6]  E. Tory Higgins,et al.  Knowledge accessibility and activation: Subjectivity and suffering from unconscious sources. , 1989 .

[7]  T. K. Srull,et al.  The Role of Category Accessibility in the Interpretation of Information About Persons: Some Determinants and Implications , 1979 .

[8]  V. Yzerbyt,et al.  The role of applicability in the emergence of the overattribution bias , 1996 .

[9]  T. K. Srull,et al.  Memory and Cognition in Its Social Context , 1989 .

[10]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. , 1975 .

[11]  Amos Tversky,et al.  Studies of similarity , 1978 .

[12]  William F. Wright,et al.  Effects of situation familiarity and financial incentives on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic for probability assessment , 1989 .

[13]  Edward J. Joyce,et al.  Anchoring and Adjustment In Probabilistic Inference in Auditing , 1981 .

[14]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  The Flexible Correction Model: The Role of Naive Theories of Bias in Bias Correction , 1997 .

[15]  A. Tversky.  Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[16]  L. Cohen.  Can human irrationality be experimentally demonstrated? , 1981, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[17]  F. Strack,et al.  The use of category and exemplar knowledge in the solution of anchoring tasks. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  J. Klayman,et al.  Confirmation, Disconfirmation, and Informa-tion in Hypothesis Testing , 1987 .

[19]  Michael A. Becker.  Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles , 1998 .

[20]  R. Hogarth,et al.  BEHAVIORAL DECISION THEORY: PROCESSES OF JUDGMENT AND CHOICE , 1981 .

[21]  S. Plous,et al.  Thinking the Unthinkable : The Effects of Anchoring on Likelihood Estimates of Nuclear Warl , 1989 .

[22]  D. Cervone,et al.  Anchoring, Efficacy and Action: The Influence of Judgmental Heuristics on Self-Efficacy Judgments a , 1986 .

[23]  G. Gigerenzer.  On Narrow Norms and Vague Heuristics: A Reply to Kahneman and Tversky (1996) , 1996 .

[24]  Dale T. Miller,et al.  Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives , 1986 .

[25]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The limits of anchoring. , 1994 .

[26]  R. Hastie,et al.  Hindsight: Biased judgments of past events after the outcomes are known. , 1990 .

[27]  S. Alexander Haslam,et al.  The message of social psychology: Perspectives on mind in society. , 1997 .

[28]  W. Swann,et al.  Hypothesis-Testing Processes in Social Interaction , 1978 .

[29]  G. Northcraft,et al.  Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions , 1987 .

[30]  Robert S. Wyer,et al.  Category ratings as "subjective expected values": Implications for attitude formation and change. , 1973 .

[31]  T. Holtgraves,et al.  Cognitive Biases in Playing the Lottery: Estimating the Odds and Choosing the Numbers , 1992 .

[32]  Lola L. Lopes.  The Rhetoric of Irrationality , 1991 .

[33]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness , 1985 .

[34]  Russell H. Fazio,et al.  A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. , 1990 .

[35]  D T Gilbert,et al.  When comparisons arise. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[36]  J. Tanur.  Questions About Questions , 1992 .

[37]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Measures of Anchoring in Estimation Tasks , 1995 .

[38]  Leonard L. Martin,et al.  Beyond accessibility: The role of processing objectives in judgment , 1992 .

[39]  H. Helson.  Adaptation-level theory : an experimental and systematic approach to behavior , 1964 .

[40]  Y. Trope,et al.  Confirmatory and diagnosing strategies in social information gathering. , 1982 .

[41]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[42]  George A. Quattrone.  Overattribution and unit formation: When behavior engulfs the person. , 1982 .

[43]  F. Strack,et al.  Thinking, Judging, and Communicating: A Process Account of Context Effects in Attitude Surveys , 1987 .

[44]  John J. Skowronski,et al.  The Law of Cognitive Structure Activation , 1991 .

[45]  Eliot R. Smith,et al.  Procedurally mediated social inferences: The case of category accessibility effects , 1987 .

[46]  L. Festinger.  A Theory of Social Comparison Processes , 1954 .

[47]  H. Grice.  Logic and conversation , 1975 .

[48]  N. J. Slamecka,et al.  The Generation Effect: Delineation of a Phenomenon , 1978 .

[49]  Arie W. Kruglanski,et al.  What Makes You So Sure? Effects of Epistemic Motivations on judgmental Confidence , 1987 .

[50]  F. Strack,et al.  Awareness of the influence as a determinant of assimilation versus contrast , 1993 .

[51]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[52]  Leonard L. Martin,et al.  Assimilation and contrast as a function of people's willingness and ability to expend effort in forming an impression. , 1990 .

[53]  F. Strack.  The different routes to social judgments: Experiential versus informational strategies , 1992 .

[54]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Asking questions and influencing answers. , 1992 .

[55]  Eliot R. Smith,et al.  Category accessibility as implicit memory , 1988 .

[56]  P. Wason.  On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses in a Conceptual Task , 1960 .

[57]  M. Brewer.  A dual process model of impression formation. , 1988 .

[58]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

[59]  Norbert Schwarz,et al.  Judgment in a Social Context: Biases, Shortcomings, and the Logic of Conversation , 1994 .

[60]  F. Strack,et al.  Effects of salience and time pressure on ratings of social causality , 1982 .

[61]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Bias in utility assessments: further evidence and explanations , 1989 .

[62]  Martin F. Davies,et al.  Belief Persistence after Evidential Discrediting: The Impact of Generated versus Provided Explanations on the Likelihood of Discredited Outcomes , 1997 .

[63]  Norbert Schwarz,et al.  Constructing reality and its alternatives: an inclusion/ exclusion model of assimilation and contrast effects in social judgment , 1992 .

[64]  P. Herr,et al.  On the consequences of priming: Assimilation and contrast effects , 1983 .

[65]  W. S. Rholes,et al.  Category accessibility and impression formation , 1977 .

[66]  B. Carlson.  Anchoring and adjustment in judgments under risk. , 1990 .

[67]  P. Slovic,et al.  Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. , 1971 .

[68]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Cognitive processes in preference reversals , 1989 .

[69]  G. Clore,et al.  Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles , 1996 .

[70]  F. Strack,et al.  Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. , 1991 .

[71]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  Motivated closing of the mind: "seizing" and "freezing". , 1996, Psychological review.

[72]  Lynn Hasher,et al.  I knew it all along: or, did I? , 1981 .

[73]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and Content , 1972 .

[74]  Janet A. Sniezek,et al.  Judgment processes in motivation: Anchoring and adjustment effects on judgment and behavior. , 1991 .

[75]  F. Strack,et al.  Explaining the Enigmatic Anchoring Effect: Mechanisms of Selective Accessibility , 1997 .