Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (36)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mussweiler, T.
Right arrow Articles by Pfeiffer, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Mussweiler, T.
Right arrow Articles by Pfeiffer, T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Overcoming the Inevitable Anchoring Effect: Considering the Opposite Compensates for Selective Accessibility

Thomas Mussweiler

Universität Würzburg, mussweiler{at}psychologie.uni-wuerzburg

Fritz Strack

Universität Würzburg

Tim Pfeiffer

Universität Würzburg

Anchoring effects—the assimilation of a numeric estimate to a previously considered standard—have proved to be remarkably robust. Results of two studies, however, demonstrate that anchoring can be reduced by applying a consider-the-opposite strategy. Based on the Selective Accessibility Model, which assumes that anchoring is mediated by the selectively increased accessibility of anchor-consistent knowledge, the authors hypothesized that increasing the accessibility of anchor-inconsistent knowledge mitigates the effect. Considering the opposite (i.e., generating reasons why an anchor is inappropriate) fulfills this objective and consequently proves to be a successful corrective strategy. In a real-world setting using experts as participants, Study 1 dem-onstrated that listing arguments that speak against a provided anchor value reduces the effect. Study 2 further revealed that the effects of anchoring and considering the opposite are additive.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 26, No. 9, 1142-1150 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/01461672002611010
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
N. T. Brewer, G. B. Chapman, J. A. Schwartz, and G. R. Bergus
The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on the Judgments and Choices of Doctors and Patients
Med Decis Making, March 1, 2007; 27(2): 203 - 211.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
B. Englich, T. Mussweiler, and F. Strack
Playing Dice With Criminal Sentences: The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on Experts' Judicial Decision Making
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, February 1, 2006; 32(2): 188 - 200.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
N. Epley and T. Gilovich
Are Adjustments Insufficient?
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, April 1, 2004; 30(4): 447 - 460.
[Abstract] [PDF]