The use of category and exemplar knowledge in the solution of anchoring tasks.

Five studies examine the role that category and exemplar knowledge play in the mediation of anchoring effects--the assimilation of an absolute estimate to a previously considered standard. Studies 1 through 3 demonstrate that comparing the target object with a plausible anchor (i.e., a standard that constitutes a possible value for the target) leads to a selective increase in the accessibility of anchor-consistent exemplar knowledge about the target. This easily accessible knowledge is then used to generate the absolute estimate, which leads to its assimilation to the standard. Studies 4 and 5 demonstrate that comparing the target with an implausible anchor, however, involves the activation of knowledge about the general category of the target, rather than exemplar knowledge about the target itself.

[1]  R. Schvaneveldt,et al.  Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. , 1971, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

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

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

[5]  Mark R. Lepper,et al.  Social explanation and social expectation: Effects of real and hypothetical explanations on subjective likelihood. , 1977 .

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

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

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

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

[10]  L. L. Martin,et al.  Set/reset: use and disuse of concepts in impression formation. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[12]  William J. McGuire,et al.  Content and Process in the Experience of Self , 1988 .

[13]  T. K. Srull,et al.  A Dual process model of impression formation , 1988 .

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

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

[16]  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 .

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

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

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

[20]  Derek J. Koehler,et al.  Explanation, imagination, and confidence in judgment. , 1991, Psychological bulletin.

[21]  J. H. Neely.  Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. , 1991 .

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

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

[24]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structural Alignment during Similarity Comparisons , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

[25]  Romin W. Tafarodi,et al.  You can't not believe everything you read. , 1993, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  Curtis D. Hardin,et al.  Implicit Stereotyping in Person Judgment. , 1993 .

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

[28]  D. Gentner,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article STRUCTURAL ALIGNMENT IN COMPARISON: No Difference Without Similarity , 2022 .

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

[30]  E. Higgins,et al.  Accessibility and Applicability: Some "Activation Rules" Influencing Judgment , 1995 .

[31]  K. Fiedler,et al.  Constructive biases in social judgment: experiments on the self-verification of question contents. , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[32]  D. Gentner,et al.  Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[33]  E. Higgins.  Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. , 1996 .

[34]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. , 1997 .

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

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

[37]  Thomas Mussweiler,et al.  Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. , 1999 .

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

[39]  Thomas Mussweiler,et al.  Overcoming the Inevitable Anchoring Effect: Considering the Opposite Compensates for Selective Accessibility , 2000 .

[40]  Thomas Mussweiler,et al.  Numeric Judgments under Uncertainty: The Role of Knowledge in Anchoring , 2000 .