Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:23:18 BST CiteULike: stefanherzog anchoring http://www.citeulike.org/user/stefanherzog/tag/anchoring CiteULike.org en-gb Copyright © 2004-2008 citeulike.org http://www.citeulike.org/user/stefanherzog/article/771072 <i>Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. In Press, Corrected Proof</i><br /><br />Research in the cognitive dissonance tradition has shown that choosing between two equally attractive alternatives leads to more favorable evaluations of chosen as compared to rejected alternatives (spreading-of-alternatives effect). The present research tested associative self-anchoring as an alternative mechanism for post-decisional changes of implicit evaluations. Specifically, we argue that choosing an object results in the creation of an association between the chosen object and the self. By virtue of this association, implicit evaluations of the self tend to transfer to the chosen object, such that implicit evaluations of the chosen object depend on implicit evaluations of the self. Importantly, this mechanism can lead to ownership-related changes in implicit evaluations even in the absence of cognitive dissonance. Results from four experiments provide converging evidence for these assumptions. Implications for a variety of phenomena are discussed, including cognitive dissonance, the mere ownership effect, the endowment effect, and ingroup favoritism. I like it, because I like myself: Associative self-anchoring and post-decisional change of implicit evaluations Bertram Gawronski Galen Bodenhausen Andrew Becker doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.04.001 Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. In Press, Corrected Proof 2006-07-24T11:53:07-00:00 Journal of Experimental Social Psychology In Press, Corrected Proof anchoring association cognitive-dissonance endownment-effect evaluation http://www.citeulike.org/user/stefanherzog/article/559678 <i>Psychological Science, Vol. 17, No. 4. (April 2006), pp. 311-318.</i> The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic: Why the Adjustments Are Insufficient Nicholas Epley Thomas Gilovich doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01704.x Psychological Science, Vol. 17, No. 4. (April 2006), pp. 311-318. 2006-03-22T05:32:00-00:00 2006 Psychological Science 0956-7976 17 4 311 318 Blackwell Publishing adjustment anchoring heuristics http://www.citeulike.org/user/stefanherzog/article/366728 <i>Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 98, No. 2. (November 2005), pp. 133-143.</i><br /><br />Judgmental anchoring--the assimilation of a numeric estimate towards a previously considered standard--is an exceptionally ubiquitous effect that influences human judgment in a variety of domains and paradigms. Three studies examined whether anchoring effects even occur, if anchor values are presented subliminally, outside of judges' awareness. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate such subliminal anchoring effects: judges assimilated target estimates towards the subliminally presented anchor values. Study 3 further demonstrates that subliminal anchors produced a selective increase in the accessibility of anchor-consistent target knowledge. The implications of these findings for the ubiquity of judgmental anchoring, its different underlying mechanisms, and comparative information processing are discussed. Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms Thomas Mussweiler Birte Englich doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.12.002 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 98, No. 2. (November 2005), pp. 133-143. 2005-10-27T13:08:10-00:00 2005 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 98 2 133 143 anchoring judgment subliminal http://www.citeulike.org/user/stefanherzog/article/271455 <i>Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. In Press, Corrected Proof</i><br /><br />Previous research demonstrated that if attention is paid to a supraliminally presented number, a subsequent quantitative estimate assimilates towards this number (the anchor effect). One explanation states that this effect is merely caused by the heightened accessibility level of the anchor value itself. Based on this numeric priming account and generalizing from subliminal priming studies, we expected a short-lived subliminal anchor effect. We presented participants subliminally with a low or high anchor value (10 or 90) and next they had to estimate the probability of an epidemic. Half of them were pressed to do this quickly. Only under time pressure, a significant anchor effect emerged. Subliminal anchoring: The effects of subliminally presented numbers on probability estimates Reitsma-Van Daamen doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.05.001 Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. In Press, Corrected Proof 2005-08-02T09:06:19-00:00 Journal of Experimental Social Psychology In Press, Corrected Proof anchoring judgment probablity subliminal