The fragile basic anchoring effect

By N. Brewer, Gretchen Chapman. 2002

111 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e0827b55237171c0ea3e9a55df039ca5d251cc03

How researchers see this paper

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

In Economics and Econometrics

1. B. Englich
2. Kirsten Soder
3. Thomas Gilovich
4. Thomas Mussweiler
5. Clayton R. Critcher

In General Decision Sciences

1. B. Englich
2. Thomas Gilovich
3. Clayton R. Critcher
4. Thomas Mussweiler
5. Kirsten Soder

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. Thomas Mussweiler
2. B. Englich
3. Thomas Gilovich
4. Clayton R. Critcher

Citations in the corpus

• Incidental environmental anchors (2008, background): “This result diverges from previous research on basic anchoring that has found that such anchoring effects require careful attention to the anchor (Brewer & Chapman, 2002;Wilson et al., 1996).”
• Moody experts — How mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring (2009, background): “judgment ( Bhattacharjee & Moreno, 2002; Ottati & Isbell, 1996) but they also appear to be less likely to engage in the information processing strategy that is typically associated with their mood.”
• Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms (2005, background): “Finally, judges may anchor their estimate of the number of fellow students who will get cancer on a high range of numbers because this range has been put on the top of their minds by extensive prior use (Wilson et al., 1996; but see Brewer & Chapman, 2002).”