Publikationen von Thomas Mussweiler 1997-2005 Auszug aus PSYNDEX Mussweiler, Thomas (1997). A selective accessibility model of anchoring. Linking the anchoring heuristic to hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming. Lengerich: Pabst, 1997 (Vom Fachbereich I - Psychologie der Universität Trier 1997 als Dissertation angenommen) Bei der großen Anzahl täglich zu fällender komplexer Urteile und Entscheidungen unter Unsicherheit werden häufig vereinfachende Faustregeln - sogenannte Urteilsheuristiken - benutzt. Ein klassischer Vertreter dieser Urteilsheuristiken ist die Ankerheuristik. Sie kann numerische Urteile vereinfachen, indem ein Vergleichstandard oder Anker als Ausgangspunkt für die Generierung des Urteils verwendet wird. Die Verwendung der Ankerheuristik ist in den unterschiedlichsten Urteilsbereichen nachgewiesen worden. Trotz der außergewöhnlichen Breite potentieller Anwendungen sind die zugrundeliegenden Mechanismen jedoch weitgehend unklar. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird ein Modell zur Erklärung der Ankerheuristik vorgeschlagen. Im einzelnen wird dabei angenommen, daß Ankereffekte auf der selektiv erhöhten Zugänglichkeit ankerkonsistenter Information beruhen. Es wird davon ausgegangen, daß die Beschäftigung mit dem Ankerwert selektiv Information zugänglich macht, die konsistent ist mit der Annahme, daß das einzuschätzende Objekt die Ausprägung des Ankers besitzt. Diese Information beeinflußt dann die anschließende Einschätzung des Objektes. Zu dieser Annahme wurden vier Experimente durchgeführt. Die Experimente 1 (63 Versuchspersonen), 2 (19 Versuchspersonen) und 3 (42 Versuchspersonen) zeigten dabei, daß numerische Urteile durch eine intensive Beschäftigung mit dem vorgegebenen Anker beschleunigt werden konnten. Dies legt nahe, daß zur Generierung des Urteils Information verwendet wird, die bei der Beschäftigung mit dem Anker voraktiviert wurde. Experiment 4 (28 Versuchspersonen) zeigte, daß die verwendete Information ankerkonsistent war. Die Implikationen des Modells für Urteile in juristischen und ökonomischen Kontexten werden diskutiert.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Strack, Fritz; Mussweiler, Thomas (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1997, 73 (3), 437-446 Investigated whether selectively increased accessibility of anchor-consistent information is influenced by the applicability and representativeness of the information and which cognitive mechanisms apply for plausible and implausible anchor values in three studies with a total of 133 college students. In Study 1, using the logic of priming research, it was shown that the strength of the anchor effect depends on the applicability of activated information. Study 2 revealed a contrast effect when the activated information was not representative for the absolute judgment and the targets of the two judgment tasks were sufficiently different. Study 3 demonstrated that generating absolute jugdments requires more time when comparative judgments include an implausible anchor and can therefore be made without relevant target information that would otherwise be accessible.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Förster, Jens; Strack, Fritz (1997). Der Ankereffekt in Abhängigkeit von der Anwendbarkeit ankerkonsistenter Information: Ein Modell selektiver Zugänglichkeit. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 1997, 44 (4), 589-615 Es wird informiert über drei Experimente, die Aufschluß über die Mechanismen liefern sollen, die Ankereffekten bzw. der Assimilation quantitativer Schätzungen an einen vorgegebenen Vergleichsstandard zugrundeliegen. Dabei wurden die Implikationen von vier Erklärungsmo- Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation ZPID x Universität Trier x Universitätsring 15 x 54296 Trier Fon: +49-(0)651-201-28 77 x Fax: +49-(0)651-201-20 71 x E-Mail: [email protected] x Internet: www.zpid.de Publikationen von Thomas Mussweiler 1997-2005 – Auszug aus PSYNDEX 2 Download unter der URL: ftp://ftp.zpid.de/pub/info/zpid_news_mussweiler-publikationen.pdf dellen, die Ankereffekte auf konversationale Schlußfolgerungen, unzureichende Adjustierung, numerisches Priming oder selektiv erhöhte Zugänglichkeit ankerkonsistenter Information zurückführen, überprüft. Daten wurden an Stichproben von insgesamt 168 studentischen Versuchspersonen erhoben. Experiment I zeigte, daß Ankereffekte auch bei der Vorgabe unplausibler Ankerwerte auftreten. Dies widerspricht der konversationalen Erklärung. Die Experimente II und III zeigten, daß die Aktivierung des Ankerwertes allein nicht ausreicht, um Ankereffekte zu bewirken. Vielmehr hängt das Auftreten des Effektes von der Art der mit dem Anker durchgeführten Komparation ab. Dies widerspricht einer Erklärung durch unzureichende Adjustierung oder numerisches Priming. Die berichteten Ergebnisse stehen im Einklang mit der Annahme, daß Ankereffekte auf der selektiv erhöhten Zugänglichkeit ankerkonsistenter Information beruhen. Die Stärke des Ankereffektes hängt von der Anwendbarkeit dieser Information ab.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Strack, Fritz (1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1999, 35 (2), 136-164 Investigated the mechanisms of the anchoring effect. Following an overview of the selective accessibility model proposed to account for anchoring phenomena, 4 studies are described with a total of 211 college students. Participants completed general knowledge questionnaires containing pairs of comparative and absolute questions, first comparing a value, e.g. the length of a river, with an anchor value, and then estimating the absolute value. In Studies 1-3, the effects of high vs low and plausible vs implausible anchor values, of the hypothesis suggested by the comparison question, and of time pressure were investigated. Absolute estimates were found to depend on the hypothesis implied in the comparative task. Limiting the amount of knowledge generated for the comparative task through time pressure retarded the answer to the absolute question. Study 4 combined the anchoring paradigm with a thought-listing procedure to investigate the effect of self-generation of knowledge, which was found to enhance the robustness of the anchoring effect. Findings from the 4 studies support the notion that anchoring effects are mediated by mechanisms of hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Strack, F.; Mussweiler, T. (1999). Erklären und Vergleichen als ungewollte Urteilseinflüsse: Urteilsperseveranz durch selektive Zugänglichkeit von Informationen. In: Hacker, Winfried; Rinck, Mike (Ed.), Bericht über den 41. Kongreß der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie in Dresden 1998. Schwerpunktthema ʺZukunft gestaltenʺ (S. 534-544). Lengerich: Pabst, 1999 Auf der Grundlage verschiedener experimenteller Studien wird gezeigt, dass durch die kognitiven Aktivitäten des Erklärens und des Vergleichens nachfolgende Urteile assimilativ verzerrt werden. Zur Erklärung dieses Sachverhalts wird ein Modell vorgeschlagen, in dem die selektive Zugänglichkeit von Informationen als Ursache identifiziert wird.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Neumann, Roland (2000). Sources of mental contamination: Comparing the effects of self-generated versus externally provided primes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2000, 36 (2), 194-206 Investigated the effects of internally generated versus externally provided primes on judgment. A model is proposed, according to which internally generated rather than externally provided knowledge is less likely to cause mental contamination of judgment. Two experiments were conducted, involving the application of 2 different self-generation paradigms: the generation of Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation ZPID x Universität Trier x Universitätsring 15 x 54296 Trier Fon: +49-(0)651-201-28 77 x Fax: +49-(0)651-201-20 71 x E-Mail: [email protected] x Internet: www.zpid.de Publikationen von Thomas Mussweiler 1997-2005 – Auszug aus PSYNDEX 3 Download unter der URL: ftp://ftp.zpid.de/pub/info/zpid_news_mussweiler-publikationen.pdf antonyms and the solving of anagrams. A total of 113 nonpsychology college students participated as subjects. Together, the results of the experiments demonstrate that judgments are more likely to be consistent with the implications of internally generated rather than externally provided knowledge. The data suggest that subjects attempt to correct for the influence of externally provided primes, but not for the influence of self-generated primes (the latter tending to induce assimilation effects). The consistency of the findings with related research on knowledge-accessibility effects, source monitoring, and judgmental correction is discussed.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Strack, Fritz (2000). The use of category and exemplar knowledge in the solution of anchoring tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2000, 78 (6), 1038-1052 Five studies examined the role that category and exemplar knowledge play in the mediation of anchoring effects - the assimilation of an absolute estimate to a previously considered standard. Studies 1 through 3 (with 114 German college students) demonstrate that comparing the target object with a plausible anchor (i.e., a standard that constitutes a possible value for the target) leads to a selective increase in the accessibility of anchor-consistent exemplar knowledge about the target. This easily accessible knowledge is then used to generate the absolute estimate, which leads to its assimilation to the standard. Studies 4 and 5 (with 166 undergraduates from the United States) demonstrate that comparing the target with an implausible anchor, however, involves the activation of knowledge about the general category of the target, rather than exemplar knowledge about the target itself.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Strack, Fritz (2000). Numeric judgments under uncertainty: The role of knowledge in anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2000, 36 (5), 495-518 Examined the role of knowledge in the mediation of anchoring effects (assimilation of a judgment to a previously considered standard). A conceptual framework is developed that links judgesʹ knowledge about a target to the processes underlying judgmental anchoring and distinguishes between processes associated with plausible and implausible standards. Three studies are reported, with a total of 19 college students, who answered a comparative and then an absolute numeric question about a fictitious target in the context of similar questions about targets from a specific category (e.g. mountains, animals) or mixed categories. For comparative questions, both plausible and implausible standards were used. Study 1 showed that anchor plausibility, which depends on judgesʹ knowledge base, determines how an anchor is processed. Studies 2 and 3 demonstrated that the less judges know about the target the more pronounced are the anchoring effects. These effects, which are modified by anchor plausibility, were found even if the selection of anchor values was arbitrary and apparently under participantsʹ control.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Strack, Fritz (2000). The ʺrelative selfʺ: Informational and judgmental consequences of comparative self-evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2000, 79 (1), 23-38 Investigated the hypothesis that self-evaluative comparison with a social or an objective standard both increases the accessibility of standard-consistent self-knowledge, producing assimilation in self-evaluative judgments, and also provides an evaluative reference point, yielding contrast in self-evaluative judgments. Five studies were conducted with a total of 296 college students. Study 1 used a lexical decision task to demonstrate that a social comparison selectively increases the accessibility of standard-consistent self-knowledge. In Study 2 it was Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation ZPID x Universität Trier x Universitätsring 15 x 54296 Trier Fon: +49-(0)651-201-28 77 x Fax: +49-(0)651-201-20 71 x E-Mail: [email protected] x Internet: www.zpid.de Publikationen von Thomas Mussweiler 1997-2005 – Auszug aus PSYNDEX 4 Download unter der URL: ftp://ftp.zpid.de/pub/info/zpid_news_mussweiler-publikationen.pdf found that the same effect obtained for comparisons with objective standards. Studies 3 and 4 showed that the judgmental effects of both informational consequences go in opposite directions. Which of these dominates was shown in Study 5 to depend upon the relevance of their informational bases for the respective judgment: the contrast effect was only found if the standard was relevant for the given judgment, whereas assimilation resulted for both relevant and irrelevant standards.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Gabriel, Shira; Bodenhausen, Galen V. (2000). Shifting social identities as a strategy for deflecting threatening social comparisons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2000, 79 (3), 398-409 Investigated the extent to which individuals high (HSE) vs low (LSE) in self-esteem deflect threatening social comparisons by focusing on social identities not shared with an upward standard. In three studies with a total of 159 college students, participants completed the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and a bogus social-perception task. In Study 1, European American women ʺaccidentallyʺ informed about an Asian American womanʹs task performance then answered questions from the Identity subscale of the Collective Self-Esteem Scale (CSES) and the Centrality subscale of the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity, to assess their focus on their ethnicity vs gender. In Studies 2 and 3, participants assigned to minimal groups on the basis of dot and area estimation tasks similarly received false feedback about the performance of a standard sharing one group membership with them and completed questions assessing group membership focus. In Study 3 participants also rated the affective consequences of upward comparison using the Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist, and completed the State Self-Esteem Scale (SSES) performance subscale. Findings confirmed that HSE individuals are more likely than LSE individuals to use a shift in social-identity focus as a protective strategy.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Strack, Fritz; Pfeiffer, Tim (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2000, 26 (9), 1142-1150 Anchoring effects - the assimilation of a numeric estimate to a previously considered standard have proved to be remarkably robust. Results of two studies, however, demonstrate that anchoring can be reduced by applying a consider-the-opposite strategy. Based on the selective accessiblity model, which assumes that anchoring is mediated by the selectively increased accessibility of anchor-consistent knowledge, the authors hypothesized that increasing the accessibility of anchor-inconsistent knowledge mitigates the effect. Considering the opposite (i.e., generating reasons why an anchor is inappropriate) fulfills this objective and consequently proves to be a successful corrective strategy. In a real-world setting using experts as participants, Study 1 with 60 male car experts demonstrates that listing arguments that speak against a provided anchor value reduces the effect. Study 2 with 31 nonpsychology students further revealed that the effects of anchoring and considering the opposite are additive.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Förster, Jens (2000). The sex->aggression link: A perception-behavior dissociation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2000, 79 (4), 507-520 Investigated the extent to which the concepts of sex and aggression are semantically linked for both men and women but with divergent perceptual and behavioral consequences for the two genders. A total of 280 college students participated in four studies. In Study 1, a sequential Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation ZPID x Universität Trier x Universitätsring 15 x 54296 Trier Fon: +49-(0)651-201-28 77 x Fax: +49-(0)651-201-20 71 x E-Mail: [email protected] x Internet: www.zpid.de Publikationen von Thomas Mussweiler 1997-2005 – Auszug aus PSYNDEX 5 Download unter der URL: ftp://ftp.zpid.de/pub/info/zpid_news_mussweiler-publikationen.pdf priming paradigm demonstrated that sex-related primes facilitated recognition of aggressionrelated target words (but not vice versa) in both males and females. In Studies 2 and 3, sex priming (using a wordsearch puzzle containing sex-related words) was found to facilitate aggressive behavior (throwing darts at pictures of faces, or selecting unpleasant photographs for a target person) in men toward a female target, but not in women. In Study 4, following sex priming women judged an ambiguously aggressive fictional male, but not female, character, described in a short text, to be more aggressive than did controls. The findings confirm differentiated directional responses to sex priming in males and females which are consistent with the typical experiences of males and females with sex and aggression.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Strack, Fritz (2000). Consequences of social comparison. Selective accessibility, assimilation, and contrast. In: Suls, Jerry; Wheeler, Ladd (Ed.), Handbook of social comparison. Theory and research (S. 253-270). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2000 Explains how assimilation and contrast have been investigated in social cognition research for a more complete understanding of the consequences of social comparison. The selective accessibility model, its application in social comparison, simultaneous assimilation and contrast are discussed in terms of the basic assumption that comparing with a social standard involves a selective increase in the accessibility of knowledge about a comparison target. This knowledge then mediates the judgmental, affective, and behavioral consequences of social comparison. Evidence indicating that social comparisons increase the accessibility of standard-consistent knowledge is given, which is then likely to be used for later judgments about the comparison target. From this perspective, the effects of a specific comparison depend on (1) which knowledge about the target is rendered accessible during the comparison process, and (2) how this knowledge is used for subsequent self-evaluations.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas (2001). Focus of comparison as a determinant of assimilation versus contrast in social comparison. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2001, 27 (1), 38-47 Previous research on self-other similarity judgments has demonstrated that perceived similarity between self and other depends on the focus of comparison. Based on the selective accessibility model, which assumes that comparisons with similar others yield assimilation, whereas comparisons with dissimilar others yield contrast, the author hypothesized that the focus of a social comparison would influence its consequences. Specifically, comparing the standard to the self (focus of comparison other-self) should increase perceived similarity so that self-evaluations are assimilated to the standard. Comparing the self to the standard (focus of comparison selfother), however, should reduce perceived similarity so that contrast ensues. This pattern was obtained in 2 studies with a total of 84 participants. Moreover, Study 2 demonstrates that the occurrence of assimilation versus contrast as a consequence of manipulating the focus of comparison is mediated by the perceived similarity to the standard.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Strack, Fritz; Mussweiler, Thomas (2001). Resisting influence. Judgmental correction and its goals. In: Forgas, Joseph P.; Williams, Kipling D. (Ed.), Social influence. Direct and indirect processes (S. 199-212). Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 2001 Conducted three experiments investigating the effects of social stereotypes on corrections of person-related judgments. In all 3 studies, subjects were asked to form an impression of a fictitious target individual while avoiding stereotypic influences. The results of Experiment 1 indicated that subjectsʹ familiarity with a stereotype does affect the adjustment of their Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation ZPID x Universität Trier x Universitätsring 15 x 54296 Trier Fon: +49-(0)651-201-28 77 x Fax: +49-(0)651-201-20 71 x E-Mail: [email protected] x Internet: www.zpid.de Publikationen von Thomas Mussweiler 1997-2005 – Auszug aus PSYNDEX 6 Download unter der URL: ftp://ftp.zpid.de/pub/info/zpid_news_mussweiler-publikationen.pdf judgments in the opposite direction. In Experiment 2, the findings indicate that subjects can choose between adjusting their judgments in the opposite direction and recomputing them, the latter of which involves disregarding contaminated information in favor of presumably uncontaminated information. Experiment 3 demonstrated that different correctional goals can be induced to identify individual preferences for judgment adjustment versus judgment recomputation. Overall, the findings indicate that while individuals may be able to strategically counteract the impact of unwanted information on their judgments, many influence attempts operate on an automatic level and can therefore not be counteracted.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Strack, Fritz (2001). Considering the impossible: Explaining the effects of implausible anchors. Social Cognition, 2001, 19 (2), 145-160 Research on judgmental anchoring - the assimilation of a numeric estimate towards a previously considered standard - has demonstrated that implausible anchors produce large effects. The authors propose an insufficient adjustment plus selective accessibility account for these effects. Specifically, judges may adjust from an implausible anchor until a plausible value for the target is reached and may then test the hypothesis that the targetʹs extension is similar to this value. If this is indeed the case, then differentially extreme implausible anchors should produce similar absolute estimates, because adjustment from any implausible anchor should terminate at the same value. Results of 2 studies (63 and 109 participants, respectively) are consistent with this prediction. They show that implausible anchors that differ extremely produce similar absolute estimates. The implications of these findings for alternative models of anchoring are discussed.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Strack, Fritz (2001). The semantics of anchoring. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2001, 86 (2), 234-255 Conducted 3 studies investigating the effects of semantic knowledge and numeric anchor values on numerical judgments. Each study required subjects to assimilate numeric estimations to previously considered standards. A total 224 subjects participated in 1 of the 3 studies. Overall, the results showed that semantic anchoring influences are more powerful than pure numeric influences. Furthermore, numeric effects manifest themselves only when available semantic knowledge has no relevance for the critical judgment to be made. The findings suggest that pure numeric effects are limited to the anchor selection stage, whereas semantic processes play a more central role during the actual comparison of the anchor to the target. The results are explained in terms of an integrative 2-stage model of anchoring.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Galinsky, Adam D.; Mussweiler, Thomas (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspectivetaking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2001, 81 (4), 657-669 Studied the role of first offers, perspective-taking, and negotiator self-focus in determining distributive negotiation outcomes in 3 experiments with business administration students. In Experiment 1, 38 pairs negotiated purchasing a pharmaceutical plant in a scenario manipulating whether the buyer or seller made the first offer, and whether the other partner considered the opponentʹs best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). Results showed that first-offer makers attained better outcome, but this effect was negated under the BATNA condition. In Experiment 2, 35 pairs negotiated a salary. First offer and focusing on the opponentʹs reservation price were varied. Results revealed the same first-offer effect; this time, negated by the reservation price. In Experiment 3, 40 pairs worked on a scenario that varied focusing on oneʹs own BATNA and focusing on oneʹs own target price. Results showed that the latter Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation ZPID x Universität Trier x Universitätsring 15 x 54296 Trier Fon: +49-(0)651-201-28 77 x Fax: +49-(0)651-201-20 71 x E-Mail: [email protected] x Internet: www.zpid.de Publikationen von Thomas Mussweiler 1997-2005 – Auszug aus PSYNDEX 7 Download unter der URL: ftp://ftp.zpid.de/pub/info/zpid_news_mussweiler-publikationen.pdf negated the first-offer effect. Implications for negotiations and perspective-taking are discussed.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Englich, Birte; Mussweiler, Thomas (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2001, 31 (7), 1535-1551 Building on research on judgmental anchoring (A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, 1974), it is examined whether a sentencing demand has a direct influence on a given sentence. In Study 1 with 19 criminal trial judges as participants, it is demonstrated that such a direct influence does, in fact, exist. Sentencing decisions were assimilated to the sentence demanded by the prosecutor. Study 2 with 44 law students further revealed that this influence is independent of the perceived relevance of the sentencing demand. Study 3 with 16 trial judges demonstrates that this influence is also independent of judgesʹ experience.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas (2001). ʺSeek and ye shall findʺ: antecedents of assimilation and contrast in social comparison. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2001, 31, 499-509 Conducted 2 experiments investigating the effects of antecedent hypotheses about similarities and dissimilarities to a target individual on self-evaluation. The selective accessibility model provided the theoretical framework for the studies. In Experiment 1, 30 university students were asked to compare their personal adjustment to college with that of a well-adjusted target person after being primed to either focus on similarities or dissimilarities. The results showed that those subjects primed to focus on similarities listed more similarities to the target than subjects primed to focus on differences. In Experiment 2, subjects were asked to compare their adjustment to college with that of both a well-adjusted and a less well-adjusted target individual. The findings corroborated those of Experiment 1. Overall, the results suggest that the selective accessibility model provides an integrative understanding of the conditions that produce assimilation versus contrast in social comparisons.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Buunk, Bram P.; Mussweiler, Thomas (2001). New directions in social comparison research. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2001, 31, 467-475 Reviews the historical roots and modern development of social comparison research. Beginning before L. Festingerʹs classical theory, the formulation of theory and research on social comparison is described. Over the decades these theories have been expanded and applied to various research problems. More recently, an integrative effort has been made to connect social comparison processes with more general underlining principles of psychological functioning. In addition, 4 modern trends are discussed including (1) a main focus on social cognition within social comparison research, (2) a heightened biological interest, particularly in the evolution theory, (3) a main focus on the importance of individual differences during social comparison orientation, and (4) a heightened interest in the particular social context in which social comparisons take place. In conclusion, the rapidly changing situation of social comparison research and the important attention it has been receiving in the past few years are viewed as positive for furthering the understanding of origins, motives, and consequences of social comparison.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas (2001). The durability of anchoring effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2001, 31, 431-442 Conducted 3 experiments investigating the effects of knowledge about judgmental targets on the durability of judgmental anchoring. The selective accessibility model provided the Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation ZPID x Universität Trier x Universitätsring 15 x 54296 Trier Fon: +49-(0)651-201-28 77 x Fax: +49-(0)651-201-20 71 x E-Mail: [email protected] x Internet: www.zpid.de Publikationen von Thomas Mussweiler 1997-2005 – Auszug aus PSYNDEX 8 Download unter der URL: ftp://ftp.zpid.de/pub/info/zpid_news_mussweiler-publikationen.pdf theoretical framework for the studies. A total of 133 university students participated in 1 of the 3 experiments. Experiment 1 examined the durability of anchoring effects in judgments concerning a fictitious target. Experiment 2 involved actually existing targets and Experiment 3 used a target quantity for which the subjects were likely to encounter relevant information on a daily basis (i.e., temperatures in Germany). Absolute estimates of the targets represented the dependent variable in all 3 studies. Overall, the combined data indicated that judgmental anchors reliably affected judgments even if the anchors were presented 1 week before making the critical judgment. Furthermore, the degree of anchoring remained stable over the 1-week period. It is concluded that judgmental anchoring represents a special case of knowledge accessibility.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas (2002). The malleability of anchoring effects. Experimental Psychology, 2002, 49 (1), 67-72 Anchoring effects - the assimilation of a numeric estimate to a previously considered standard are typically described as very robust and persistent. Based on the assumption that judgmental anchoring involves a hypothesis-testing process in which judges seek and generate judgmentrelevant target knowledge, it was assumed that anchoring effects might at the same time be fairly malleable. Specifically, subtle influences that change the nature of the tested hypothesis are likely to effect the magnitude of anchoring. Using a procedural priming task, 35 student judges were induced to focus on similarities versus differences during a series of anchoring tasks. The results demonstrate that the magnitude of the obtained effect critically depended on this manipulation. In particular, a more pronounced anchoring assimilation effect resulted for judges with a similarity rather than a difference focus. Implications of these findings for models of anchoring as well as for the nature of the anchoring phenomenon are discussed.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Bodenhausen, Galen V. (2002). I know you are, but what am I? Selfevaluative consequences of judging in-group and out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002, 82 (1), 19-32 Conducted six studies investigating the effects of spontaneous social comparisons when judging ingroup versus outgroup members. A total of 214 university students participated as subjects. In each study, subjects were required to make judgments about fictitious individualsʹ along various dimensions (i.e., gender identity, orderliness, manual skill, interest in football, etc.). Subjects were also asked to evaluate themselves along the same dimensions. The findings show that spontaneous comparisons with ingroup (same gender) members increased the amount of individuating knowledge of oneself. Knowledge that the self is similar to the target person became particularly accessible, and subsequent self-evaluations were assimilated toward ingroup members. In contrast, comparisons with outgroup targets increased more general category knowledge about the self. As knowledge about judgesʹ membership in a group different from that of the target became more accessible, consequent self-evaluations diverged more and more away from outgroup targets.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Galinsky, Adam D. (2002). Strategien der Verhandlungsführung: Der Einfluss des ersten Gebotes. Wirtschaftspsychologie (Pabst Science Publishers), 2002, 4 (2), 21-27 Verhandlungen spielen eine entscheidende Rolle in jenen Lebensbereichen, die durch Interessenkonflikte gegenzeichnet sind. In Verhandlungssituationen sind relevante Informationen häufig in unzureichendem Maße vorhanden, so dass Verhandlungen meist unter Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation ZPID x Universität Trier x Universitätsring 15 x 54296 Trier Fon: +49-(0)651-201-28 77 x Fax: +49-(0)651-201-20 71 x E-Mail: [email protected] x Internet: www.zpid.de Publikationen von Thomas Mussweiler 1997-2005 – Auszug aus PSYNDEX 9 Download unter der URL: ftp://ftp.zpid.de/pub/info/zpid_news_mussweiler-publikationen.pdf Unsicherheit geführt werden. Folglich sollten Prozesse der Verhandlungsführung von denjenigen psychologischen Mechanismen bestimmt sein, die menschliches Urteilen und Entscheiden unter Unsicherheit charakterisieren. Ein wesentlicher Mechanismus ist hierbei die Beeinflussung menschlicher Urteile durch die Vorgabe von Ankerwerten bzw. numerischen Vergleichsstandards, die als Urteilsgrundlage verwendet werden. Ein Überblick über neuere experimentelle Befunde belegt, dass Verhandlungsergebnisse in wesentlicher Weise durch Ankervorgaben beeinflusst werden. So bestimmt die Höhe des ersten Gebotes entscheidend das Verhandlungsergebnis.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Galinsky, Adam D.; Mussweiler, Thomas; Medvec, Victoria Husted (2002). Disconnecting outcomes and evaluations: The role of negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002, 83 (5), 1131-1140 Studied the impact of negotiator focus on outcomes and the satisfaction with outcomes in three experiments. A total of 192 business administration students engaged in ficticious price negotiations in dyads, in which target prices were either provided or self-generated. Negotiators focused either on the intended target price or on a minimally acceptable amount; the negotiation outcome was noted, and negotiators evaluated their satisfaction with it. Furthermore, after reaching an agreement some negotiators were asked to recall the amount they could have reached in an alternative negotiation scenario (in the sense of a downward comparison). Results showed a disconnection between outcomes and satisfaction: negotiators focusing on their target price achieved better outcomes but were less satisfied with these outcomes than negotiators focusing on their lower bound. For negotiators who first focused on a target price, and later evaluated the outcome in terms of their lower bounds, outcome and satisfaction became reconnected. It is concluded that both increased performance and decreased satisfaction result from setting high goals, and that changing the focal point after negotiations can result in high outcomes as well as high satisfaction.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Englich, Birte (2003). Adapting to the Euro: Evidence from bias reduction. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2003, 24, 285-292 Studied the effects of the introduction of the Euro in Germany on consumer price anchoring biases. In Winter 2001 just before the introduction of the Euro, and again in Summer 2002 after its introduction, 138 university students completed a questionnaire that implemented a standard anchoring paradigm. The questionnaire required respondents to make comparative and absolute price estimates for consumer articles using both the old currency (Mark) and the new Euro. The data indicated a stronger anchoring bias in Winter 2001, with participants assimilating their Euro price estimates more pronouncedly towards anchor values. In Summer 2002, Euro estimates wee less biased towards anchor values, suggesting a relatively expedient adaptation to the new currency. The increased public susceptibility to biasing influences upon introduction of the new currency has implications for other important social domains such as monetary negotiations.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 2003, 110 (3), 472-489 Proposes the assumption that the informational perspective (activated target knowledge) influences comparison consequences in social judgment. Two fundamental social comparison processes -similarity testing and dissimilarity testing- are introduced which selectively make knowledge about target-standard similarity or dissimilarity available. Subsequent target Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation ZPID x Universität Trier x Universitätsring 15 x 54296 Trier Fon: +49-(0)651-201-28 77 x Fax: +49-(0)651-201-20 71 x E-Mail: [email protected] x Internet: www.zpid.de Publikationen von Thomas Mussweiler 1997-2005 – Auszug aus PSYNDEX 10 Download unter der URL: ftp://ftp.zpid.de/pub/info/zpid_news_mussweiler-publikationen.pdf evaluations are made on the basis of the activated subsets of target knowledge. Empirical support for this selective accessibility mechanism is presented. The model is concluded to provide an integrative perspective on comparison consequences in social judgment.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas (2003). When egocentrism breeds distinctness - Comparison processes in social prediction: Comment on Karniol (2003). Psychological Review, 2003, 110 (3), 581-584 Comments on R. Karniolʹs (same issue) presentation of a protocentric model of social prediction and proposes an alternative, egocentric comparison model. After a target-self comparison process, individuals are assumed to relate self-knowledge to the target in order to make predictions about the targetʹs experiences and reactions. Two alternative comparison processes are distinguished: similarity testing and dissimilarity testing, which yield target judgments either consistent or inconsistent with the self, respectively. Because self-knowledge is used as its primary representational basis, social prediction is considered egocentric. However, it is assumed that egocentric predictions can be made without seeing or judging the self as similar to the target. The egocentric comparison model is therefore considered to conceptualize social predictions as social comparisons.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Rüter, Katja (2003). What friends are for! The use of routine standards in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003, 85 (3), 467-481 Investigated the use of routine standards of social comparison in self-evaluation. Experiments 13 studied whether information about subjectsʹ best friends is used as a routine standard and is therefore more accessible immediately after self-evaluative judgments. A lexical-decision task was performed by 36 college students in Experiment 1 after they had evaluated themselves or a well-known celebrity on several dimensions. Lexical decisions for the best friendʹs name (but not the name of a former friend) were facilitated after self-evaluation. Experiment 2 required 33 college students to evaluate a best friend or former friend immediately after self-evaluation on the same dimensions, and showed faster response times for friends compared to former friends. This response advantage resulted even in Experiment 3, where 58 college students rated their best friend on dimensions on which they considered themselves dissimilar. The role of an experimentally created routine standard was studied in Experiment 4: 28 college students received information about two fictitious persons either immediately before self-evaluations (routine standard) or in an isolated format (non-routine standard). Results showed an influence of the routine standard on self-evaluation. It is concluded that in self-evaluation, individuals activate information about persons they routinely compare themselves with. The use of routine standards in social comparison is considered an efficient strategy in self-evaluation. Moreover, implications for social comparison theory, the mechanisms of forming and using routine standards, as well as the limits or routine standard use are outlined.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas (2003). ʺEverything is relativeʺ: Comparison processes in social judgment. The 2002 Jaspars Lecture. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2003, 33, 719-733 Describes two psychological mechanisms underlying comparison processes and their consequences, providing a conceptual framework for social judgment research and supporting it with empirical evidence. The choice of a comparison standard as a reference point for target or self-evaluations is considered a basic feature of judgment processes. However, two selective accessibility mechanisms are introduced that determine whether an assimilation towards or a contrast away from the comparison standard takes place. Similarity testing involves a search for Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation ZPID x Universität Trier x Universitätsring 15 x 54296 Trier Fon: +49-(0)651-201-28 77 x Fax: +49-(0)651-201-20 71 x E-Mail: [email protected] x Internet: www.zpid.de Publikationen von Thomas Mussweiler 1997-2005 – Auszug aus PSYNDEX 11 Download unter der URL: ftp://ftp.zpid.de/pub/info/zpid_news_mussweiler-publikationen.pdf evidence of the targetʹs similarity to the standard, whereas dissimilarity-testing processes search for contrasting evidence. These processes lead to assimilation and contrast, respectively. Empirical results from a study using a procedure that allows the assessment of the specific accessibility of self-related knowledge are reported that support the mechanism of similarity testing. Another study is reported that manipulated subjectsʹ processing style before a social comparison task, which supports the theoretical distinction between the two mechanisms. Furthermore, triggers for similarity and dissimilarity testing such as the targetʹs category membership or motivational concerns are discussed. A study is presented in which comparison with in-group standards led to assimilation, whereas comparison with out-group standards resulted in contrast. Implications of the theoretical considerations and empirical findings for social comparison research and other fields are discussed.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Schneller, Karl; Mussweiler, Thomas (2003). Preise haben kein Gedächtnis! Und Investoren? Zum Einfluss von Höchst- und Tiefstständen im Kursverlauf auf Investitionsentscheidungen von Aktienanlegern. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 2003, 5 (4), 24-30 Aufbauend auf der Annahme, dass vergangene Kurshoch bzw. Kurstief als Vergleichsstandards dienen, werden Voraussagen über unterschiedliches Investitionsverhalten bei Kursverläufen mit einem Hoch und Kursverläufen mit einem Tief getroffen. Dabei wird davon ausgegangen, dass Höchst- und Tiefststände als Anker dienen, an die die Einschätzungen des Kursziels assimiliert werden. Entsprechend wird bei Kursverläufen mit einem Hoch mehr investiert als bei Kursverläufen mit einem Tief. Erste Untersuchungen konnten diese Annahmen bestätigen.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Englich, Birte (2004). Sicherheit im Umgang mit dem Euro - Evidenz für eine schnelle Gewöhnung an die neue Währung. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 2004, 6 (2), 66-70 Im Rahmen einer experimentellen Studie wurde die Urteilssicherheit im Umgang mit dem Euro untersucht. 109 Studierende gaben entweder unmittelbar vor oder ca. ein halbes Jahr nach Einführung der neuen Währung Preisschätzungen in Euro oder Deutscher Mark ab und beurteilten, wie sicher sie sich dieser Schätzungen sind. Die angegebene Sicherheit für EuroSchätzungen stieg in diesem Zeitraum stark an, so dass die Probanden schon im Sommer 2002 im Umgang mit dem Euro ähnlich sicher waren wie zuvor mit der Deutschen Mark. Diese Ergebnisse legen nahe, dass sich die Probanden relativ schnell an die neue Währung gewöhnt haben.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Rüter, Katja; Epstude, Kai (2004). The man who wasnʹt there: Subliminal social comparison standards influence self-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2004, 40, 689-696 Conducted 3 studies investigating the effects of subliminal social comparison standards on selfevaluation. A total of 134 university students were subliminally primed with moderate versus extreme, and high versus low standards while performing self-evaluations regarding their own aggressiveness (Studies 1 and 3) or athletic ability (Study 2). Taken together, the results of the studies indicate that self-evaluations are influenced by subliminally presented standards, whereby individuals assimilate their self-evaluations toward moderate standards, but contrast them away from extreme ones. Interestingly the effects of subliminal standards were only observed when participants self-reflected under standard exposure conditions. The findings demonstrate the ubiquity of social comparison processes, even in the midst of extremely brief exposure to information about standards. The results of the 3 studies are discussed in the Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation ZPID x Universität Trier x Universitätsring 15 x 54296 Trier Fon: +49-(0)651-201-28 77 x Fax: +49-(0)651-201-20 71 x E-Mail: [email protected] x Internet: www.zpid.de Publikationen von Thomas Mussweiler 1997-2005 – Auszug aus PSYNDEX 12 Download unter der URL: ftp://ftp.zpid.de/pub/info/zpid_news_mussweiler-publikationen.pdf context of related research on the spontaneity of social comparisons. Future research will focus on identifying the exact psychological mechanisms that underlie the effects of standard information on self-evaluation.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Rüter, Katja; Epstude, Kai (2004). The ups and downs of social comparison: Mechanisms of assimilation and contrast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2004, 87 (6), 832-844 Examined under which conditions self-evaluations are assimilated to or contrasted away from a social standard. A series of 5 experiments varied conditions fostering either similarity or dissimilarity testing and assessed which informational focus results social comparison processes are accompanied by. 17 professional athletes and a total of 214 college students completed social comparison tasks, in which the relative position of the standard (extremity on the relevant ability dimension) and the self (false feedback about own ability) was manipulated. In one of the experiments, similarity and dissimilarity testing was induced by a picture comparison task. As expected, self-evaluations were more likely to be assimilated to moderate standards and contrasted away from extreme standards. In addition, general informational foci on similarities and differences were associated with assimilative and contrastive social comparison processes, respectively. The findings are interpreted in terms of the selective accessibility model of social comparison.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Englich, Birte; Strack, Fritz (2004). Anchoring effect. In: Pohl, Rüdiger F. (Ed.), Cognitive illusions. A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory (S. 183-200). Hove: Psychology Press, 2004 Gives an overview of the anchoring effect in human judgment. A first section describes the phenomenon, its pervasiveness and robustness, and its relevance for a wide range of judgmental situations. Moreover, classic experimental paradigms for examining anchoring effects are presented. A second section reviews four different theoretical accounts proposing insufficient adjustment from a starting point, conversational inferences, numerical priming, and selective accessibility of information as sources of anchoring effects. Anchoring is concluded to represent a two-stage process involving the selection of a judgmental standard and the subsequent comparison of that standard to the target. Selective accessibility of semantic target knowledge is assumed to play an important role in this comparison process.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Mussweiler, Thomas; Strack, Fritz (2004). The Euro in the common European market: A single currency increases the comparability of prices. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2004, 25 (5), 557-563 Rüter, Katja; Mussweiler, Thomas (2005). Bonds of friendship: Comparative self-evaluations evoke the use of routine standards. Social Cognition, 2005, 23 (2), 137-160 Recent evidence suggests that people compare themselves with routine standards - such as their best friend - during self-evaluations (Mussweiler & Rüter, 2003). In these past studies, the best friend was more accessible than a former friend subsequent to self-evaluations. It was therefore concluded that the best friend was used as a routine standard. However, spreading activation from the self to the more closely associated best friend would provide an alternative explanation. In the present research, the authors wanted to rule out this possibility and demonstrate that comparison processes are responsible for the best friendʹs increased Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation ZPID x Universität Trier x Universitätsring 15 x 54296 Trier Fon: +49-(0)651-201-28 77 x Fax: +49-(0)651-201-20 71 x E-Mail: [email protected] x Internet: www.zpid.de Publikationen von Thomas Mussweiler 1997-2005 – Auszug aus PSYNDEX 13 Download unter der URL: ftp://ftp.zpid.de/pub/info/zpid_news_mussweiler-publikationen.pdf accessibility. In Study 1 (N=63), comparative self-evaluations were contrasted with absolute ones. In Study 2 (N=36), participants engaged either in comparative self-evaluations or in selfdescriptions. Then the accessibility (Study 1) or the facilitation of judgments (Study 2) of the best friend was assessed. Both studies support the assumption that the best friend was used as a routine standard during comparative self-evaluations.– PSYNDEX/ZPID Galinsky, Adam D.; Leonardelli, Geoffrey J.; Okhuysen, Gerardo A.; Mussweiler, Thomas (2005). Regulatory focus at the bargaining table: Promoting distributive and integrative success. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2005, 31 (8), 1087-1098 Demonstrates that in dyadic negotiations, negotiators with a promotion regulatory focus achieve superior outcomes than negotiators with prevention regulatory focus in two ways. First, a promotion focus leads negotiators to claim more resources at the bargaining table. In the first two studies with 52 and 54 participants, respectively, promotion-focused negotiators paid more attention to their target prices (i.e., their ideal outcomes) and achieved more advantageous distributive outcomes than did prevention-focused negotiators. The second study also reveals an important mediating process: Negotiators with a promotion focus made more extreme opening offers in their favor. Second, a promotion focus leads negotiators to create more resources at the bargaining table that benefit both parties. A third study with 326 participants demonstrated that in a multi-issue negotiation, a promotion focus increased the likelihood that a dyad achieved a jointly optimal or Pareto efficient outcome compared to prevention-focused dyads. The discussion focuses on the role of regulatory focus in social interaction and introduces the notion of interaction fit. Mussweiler, Thomas; Englich, Birte (2005). Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2005, 98 (2), 133-143 Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation ZPID x Universität Trier x Universitätsring 15 x 54296 Trier Fon: +49-(0)651-201-28 77 x Fax: +49-(0)651-201-20 71 x E-Mail: [email protected] x Internet: www.zpid.de
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz