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