Elaboration and numerical anchoring: Breadth, depth, and the role of (non-)thoughtful processes in anchoring theories

Noted Judgment and Decision Making (JDM) researchers differ in their opinions of whether and how an attitudes and persuasion (A&P) view of anchoring might add to the existing anchoring literature. Epley and Gilovich (2010) and Russo (2010) supported the breadth of variables that an attitudinal view of brings to bear on anchoring phenomena and the potential operation of different psychological processes across different contexts. They also suggest extensions to other types of anchors (along with Frederick et al. 2010), to alternative paradigms, and to other classes of moderators, such as goals. Authors of all three commentaries wondered if the evidence we presented speaks to traditional issues related to processes underlying anchoring. Frederick et al. (2010) also took a different approach in suggesting that anchoring is always due to non-thoughtful processes despite the fact that thoughtful processes can also influence judgments. This approach diverges from prominent reviews of the anchoring literature and implies that the presence of any simple, associative mechanism makes the overall process that involves that mechanism “non-thoughtful.” We discuss how this approach differs from our own, and we discuss the implications of the other observations in each commentary.