The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparing Is Believing: A Selective Accessibility Model of Judgmental Anchoring
Abstract
Judgmental anchoring constitutes an ubiquitous and robust phenomenon. Nevertheless, its underlying mechanisms remain somewhat mysterious. We discuss four accounts that attempt to explain anchoring effects: insufficient adjustment, conversational inferences and numeric priming seem to be insufficient to understand the phenomenon. As an alternative, we propose a Selective Accessibility model. Drawing on the notions of hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming, the model assumes that anchoring effects are mediated by the selectively increased accessibility of anchor-consistent knowledge. Tests of the model's basic assumptions are reported and its implications are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221
Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing”
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.103.2.263 · Cited by 2,379
Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.2.211 · Cited by 2,094
Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-1031(67)90034-0 · Cited by 1,783
Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations.
Wilson, T. D., & Brekke, N. (1994) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.117 · Cited by 1,157
Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.32.5.880 · Cited by 1,052
Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672002611010 · Cited by 556
Self-citation
Cited by
Reflective and Impulsive Determinants of Social Behavior
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1 · Cited by 3,984
Self-citationRepresentativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.004 · Cited by 3,476
The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior
Madrian, B. C., & Shea, D. F. (2001) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355301753265543 · Cited by 2,727
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.025 · Cited by 2,349
Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making
(2004) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470752937 · Cited by 961
Metadata
- Authors
- Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F.
- Venue
- European Review of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1999-01
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 135-167
- ISSN
- 1046-3283 (ISSN-L)
- 1479-277X
- OpenAlex
- W1983990435
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 13.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparing Is Believing: A Selective Accessibility Model of Judgmental Anchoring. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/14792779943000044
- The paper
- Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Comparing Is Believing: A Selective Accessibility Model of Judgmental Anchoring. European Review of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779943000044
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
