The Semantics of Anchoring

By Thomas Mussweiler, F. Strack. 2001

226 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Decision Sciences, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/04fa0d16bee9f2d69c2ab9d8c47d332919946fba

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Decision Sciences

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Reconsidering the expectancy disconfirmation model. Three experimental replications (2017, background): “Also, anchoring has been found to be involved in more associative, less thoughtful cognitive processes (Mussweiler and Strack 2001; Blankenship et al. 2008) particularly when people have little knowledge about a certain topic (Mussweiler and Strack 2000; Wegener et al. 2001, 67).”
Incidental environmental anchors (2008, background): “According to that model, people address the first question by asking themselves whether the anchor value might be the sought-after target value (Englich, Mussweiler, & Strack, 2006; Mussweiler & Strack, 1999, 2000, 2001).”
The price does not include additional taxes, fees, and surcharges: A review of research on partitioned pricing☆ (2016, background): “First, numeric anchors, such as low or high base prices, can make beliefs that are consistent with that anchor, such as that the offering is a good or bad deal, more accessible (Chapman & Johnson, 1999, Mussweiler & Strack, 2001).”
Elaboration and numerical anchoring: Implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making (2010, background): “Thus, it seems quite reasonable for elaboration to occur when thinking about a target after receiving a numerical anchor (cf., Mussweiler & Strack, 2001b).”
Toward a Theory of Behavioral Operations (2008, background): “Since its discovery (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974), this bias has been shown to occur in situations as diverse as general knowledge issues, probability estimates, legal judgment, pricing decisions and negotiation (Mussweiler and Strack, 2001).”
Elaboration and consequences of anchored estimates: An attitudinal perspective on numerical anchoring (2008, background): “In some cases, effects of numerical anchors on judgment may result from relatively thoughtful, high-elaboration processes (cf., Mussweiler & Strack, 2001).”
Content and process priming: A review ☆ (2014, unknown): “A conceptualization by Mussweiler and Strack (Mussweiler, 2002; Mussweiler & Strack, 1999, 2001) assumes that when individuals consider an object's membership in a category, they activate attributes that are associated with members of the category, and these attributes, once activated, are applied…”
Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions (2008, background): “Research on anchoring and adjustment has found that while anchors inﬂuence judgments, the role of anchors declines over time as adjustment information becomes available (Yadav, 1994; Wasnik, Kent, & Hoch, 1998; Mussweiler & Strack, 2001).”
Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms (2005, background): “Keywords: Anchoring; Heuristics; Comparison; Selective accessibility; Assimilation One of the most striking characteristics of human judgment is its comparative nature.”
Moody experts — How mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring (2009, background): “This finding is consistent with previous research (Englich & Mussweiler, 2001).”