Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T19:26:10.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Correction, uncertainty, and anchoring effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2023

Chang-Yuan Lee Open the ORCID record for Chang-Yuan Lee [Opens in a new window]  and
Carey K. Morewedge Open the ORCID record for Carey K. Morewedge [Opens in a new window]
Chang-Yuan Lee
Affiliation:
Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada changyuan.lee@utoronto.ca
Carey K. Morewedge
Affiliation:
Questrom School of Business, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA morewedg@bu.edu https://www.bu.edu/questrom/profile/carey-morewedge/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We compare the predictions of two important proposals made by De Neys to findings in the anchoring effect literature. Evidence for an anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic supports his proposal that system 1 and system 2 are non-exclusive. The relationship between psychophysical noise and anchoring effects, however, challenges his proposal that epistemic uncertainty determines the involvement of system 2 corrective processes in judgment.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e129
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12(5), 391–396.10.1111/1467-9280.00372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17(4), 311–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 307–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), 1161–1166.10.1177/01461672952111004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C. Y., & Morewedge, C. K. (2022). Noise increases anchoring effects. Psychological Science, 33(1), 60–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quattrone, G. A., Lawrence, C. P., Finkel, S. E., & Andrus, D. C. (1984). Explorations in anchoring: The effects of prior range, anchor extremity, and suggestive hints (unpublished manuscript). Stanford University.Google Scholar
Simmons, J. P., LeBoeuf, R. A., & Nelson, L. D. (2010). The effect of accuracy motivation on anchoring and adjustment: Do people adjust from provided anchors?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(6), 917–932.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, A. R., Windschitl, P. D., & Bruchmann, K. (2013). Knowledge matters: Anchoring effects are moderated by knowledge level. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(1), 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, T. D., Houston, C. E., Etling, K. M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125(4), 387–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar