Incorporating the Irrelevant: Anchors in Judgments of Belief and Value

By Gretchen Chapman, Eric J. Johnson. 2002

435 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, General Decision Sciences, Philosophy

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f1963da09d20b867ea31e55988f1ca0ff34e9a75

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In General Decision Sciences

In Philosophy

Citations in the corpus

Global Catastrophic Risks (2008, background): “Such generalized phenomena became known as contamination effects, since it turned out that almost any information could work its way into a cognitive judgement (Chapman and Johnson, 2002).”
Psychology Models of Management Accounting (2010, background): “Chenhall and Morris (1991) 21.”
Moody experts — How mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring (2009, background): “In a review of the anchoring literature, Chapman and Johnson (2002) conclude that the “effect occurs even for extreme anchors and even when respondents are unaware of the effect, have been warned to avoid the effect or are motivated to be accurate” (p. 126).”
The Rational Side of Egocentrism in Social Comparisons (2008, background): “This ‘‘focalism’’ explanation follows from (among other things) Tversky’s (1972, 1977) work on judgments of similarity, the anchoring and adjustment heuristic ( Chapman & Johnson, 2002; Epley & Gilovich, 2001; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974), and the more general finding that focal hypotheses tend to rec”
Anchoring and Adjusting in Questionnaire Responses (2012, background): “First, the anchor needs to be compatible by appearing similar in some way to the guess that is requested or the decision that is to be made (Chapman & Johnson, 2002).”
Heuristics, learning and the business angel investment decision-making process (2015, background): “…heuristic piggybacks on memory retrieval processes, the representativeness heuristic piggybacks on automatic pattern-matching processes, and the anchoring and adjustment heuristic relies on the establishment of a salient value to work from (Chapman and Johnson 2002; Epley and Gilovich 2002).”
Visual Representation: Implications for Decision Making (2007, background): “For example, a visual display of sales from highest to lowest may lead to higher overall sales estimates than a display from lowest to highest because of the tendency to place greater weight on initial information (Chapman and Johnson 2002; Tversky and Kahneman 1974).”
Effect of outdoor temperature, heat primes and anchoring on belief in global warming (2010, methodology): “The anchoring and adjustment heuristic has been applied to a variety of judgments, including the risk of nuclear war (Plous, 1989) and the expected longevity of a common resource (Joireman, Posey, Truelove, & Parks, 2009) (for reviews, see Chapman & Johnson, 2002; Gilovich & Griffin, 2002).”
Elaboration and numerical anchoring: Implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making (2010, background): “…anchoring, more recent work of the past 10–15 years suggests that adjustment per se (i.e., starting with an anchor value and moving toward the range of plausible values) is relatively infrequent in the traditional anchoring paradigm (e.g., Epley & Gilovich, 2001, 2005; see Chapman & Johnson, 2002).”
Effects of Amount of Information on Judgment Accuracy and Confidence (2008, background): “If so, this opens the door to processes that bias judgments toward prior hypotheses, such as anchoring and insufficient adjustment (Chapman & Johnson, 2002; Epley & Gilovich, 2002; Mussweiler & Strack, 2000; Tversky & Kahnneman, 1974) and confirmatory distortion of information.”