↓ Skip to main content

Anchoring in Numeric Judgments of Visual Stimuli

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Anchoring in Numeric Judgments of Visual Stimuli
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00225
Pubmed ID
Authors

Linda Langeborg, Mårten Eriksson

Abstract

This article investigates effects of anchoring in age estimation and estimation of quantities, two tasks which to different extents are based on visual stimuli. The results are compared to anchoring in answers to classic general knowledge questions that rely on semantic knowledge. Cognitive load was manipulated to explore possible differences between domains. Effects of source credibility, manipulated by differing instructions regarding the selection of anchor values (no information regarding anchor selection, information that the anchors are randomly generated or information that the anchors are answers from an expert) on anchoring were also investigated. Effects of anchoring were large for all types of judgments but were not affected by cognitive load or by source credibility in either one of the researched domains. A main effect of cognitive load on quantity estimations and main effects of source credibility in the two visually based domains indicate that the manipulations were efficient. Implications for theoretical explanations of anchoring are discussed. In particular, because anchoring did not interact with cognitive load, the results imply that the process behind anchoring in visual tasks is predominantly automatic and unconscious.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 22 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 22%
Other 3 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 13%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 5 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 39%
Computer Science 2 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 6 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2016.
All research outputs
#18,830,858
of 23,337,345 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,955
of 31,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,504
of 299,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#400
of 477 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,337,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 477 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.