Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

What’s Accessible Is Expressible

When Advice Seekers Are More Likely to Anchor Their Advisors

Bibliographic Data

ID21209753
AuthorsJessica A Reif (0009-0007-6057-8524, Duke University, corresponding author), Richard P Larrick (0000-0002-0491-426X, Duke University), Jack B Soll (0000-0002-4496-1976, Duke University)
Year2026
Volume17
Issue6
Pages759-767
Publication date2026-08-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueSocial Psychological and Personality Science (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1948-5506 • E-ISSN: 1948-5514
PublisherSAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/19485506251392961
OpenAlexW4416633653
LanguageEN
References cited32

Despite evidence that advice is most beneficial for increasing decision accuracy when advisors form independent judgments, people sometimes undermine this independence by sharing their preliminary conclusions when seeking advice. We propose that following the prescription to think independently before seeking advice paradoxically leads people to make this mistake. Specifically, we argue that deeper engagement with a decision makes one’s own perspective more accessible and likely to be shared during an advice interaction. In two preregistered studies ( N = 2,109), we demonstrate that higher levels of engagement with the decision prior to seeking advice increase the likelihood that the seeker will anchor the advisor. This suggests that advice seekers who follow prescriptions to form a judgment prior to seeking advice may inadvertently introduce bias into advice interactions, undermining the independence of the advice they seek. These findings contribute to the advice-seeking literature by revealing a process by which anchors emerge naturally in information exchange

Decision process · Help-seeking · Information seeking · Seekers · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics · Psychology of Social Influence · Social and Intergroup Psychology

  • Communication and Persuasion

    Open Access•Richard E Petty, John T Cacioppo•Communication and Persuasion•1986

  • The Difference

    Sarah E Page, Scott Page•Difference•2008

  • Advice taking and decision-making

    Open Access•Silvia Bonaccio, Reeshad S Dalal•Organizational Behavior and Human…•2006

  • Cueing and Cognitive Conflict in Judge-Advisor Decision Making

    Open Access•Janet A Sniezek, Timothy Buckley•Organizational Behavior and Human…•1995

  • Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1

    Open Access•Franz Faul, Edgar Erdfelder et al.•Behavior Research Methods•2009

  • Averaging probability judgments

    Open Access•Timothy R Johnson, David V Budescu et al.•Journal of Behavioral Decision…•2001

  • The limits of anchoring

    Open Access•Gretchen B Chapman, E Johnson•Journal of Behavioral Decision…•1994

  • Implications of Attitude Change Theories for Numerical Anchoring

    Open Access•Duane T Wegener, Richard E Petty et al.•Journal of Experimental Social…•2001

  • Hypothesis-Consistent Testing and Semantic Priming in the Anchoring Paradigm

    Open Access•Thomas Mussweiler, Fritz Strack•Journal of Experimental Social…•1999

  • How mental systems believe

    Daniel T Gilbert•American Psychologist•1991

  • First offers as anchors

    Adam D Galinsky, Thomas Mussweiler•Journal of Personality and Social…•2001

  • Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect

    Fritz Strack, Thomas Mussweiler•Journal of Personality and Social…•1997

  • Mental contamination and mental correction

    Timothy D Wilson, Nancy Brekke•Psychological Bulletin•1994

  • Explanation, imagination, and confidence in judgment

    Derek J Koehler•Psychological Bulletin•1991

Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOI
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae