Implications of Attitude Change Theories for Numerical Anchoring: Anchor Plausibility and the Limits of Anchor Effectiveness

By Duane T. Wegener, R. E. Petty, B. Detweiler-Bedell, W. Jarvis. 2001

144 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/740c691dcbd6ae32a6a39649ec2b96a2099828e0

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

Cognitive perspectives on opinion dynamics: the role of knowledge in consensus formation, opinion divergence, and group polarization (2017, background): “To be sure, these may be highly context dependent, as moderate anchors have sometimes been found to produce larger effects (see [45]).”
Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms (2005, background): “Moreover, anchoring remains uninXuenced by the extremity of the anchor (e.g., Chapman & Johnson, 1994; Strack & Mussweiler, 1997; but see Wegener et al., 2001 ) so that even implausibly extreme values yield an eVect.”
Elaboration and numerical anchoring: Implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making (2010, background): “In many ways, these processes parallel the cognitive processes at work when people attempt to arrive at correct attitudes (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Petty & Wegener, 1998, 1999; Wegener & Carlston, 2005; Wegener et al., 2001).”
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).”
Elaboration and consequences of anchored estimates: An attitudinal perspective on numerical anchoring (2008, methodology): “…rather than discarding these extreme values, we ‘‘fenced” them, such that values falling below the lower fence and falling above the upper fence were changed to the value equivalent to the nearest fence (for similar procedures, see Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998; Wegener et al., 2001).”