Heuristics and Biases in Audience Decision Making 24329 Whyte, G., & Sebenius, J. K. (1997). The effect of multiple anchors on anchoring in individual and group
judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 69 (1), 75–85.
30 Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., Luthgens, C., & Moscovici, S. (2000). Biased information search in group deci-
sion making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78 (4), 655–669.
31 Tindale, R. S., Heath, L., Edwards, J., Posavac, E. J., Bryant, F. B., Suarez-Balcazar, Y.,... Myers, J. (1998).
Theory and research on small groups. New York: Plenum Press.
32 Harvey, J. B. (1974). The Abilene paradox and other meditations on management. Organizational Dynam-
ics , 3 (1), 63–80.
33 Westphal, J. D., & Bednar, M. K. (2005). Pluralistic ignorance in corporate boards and firms’ strategic
persistence in response to low firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly , 50 (2), 262–298.
34 Bazerman, M. H. (1994). Judgment in managerial decision making (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons
Ltd.
35 Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Oxford,
UK: Houghton Mifflin.
36 Fischhoff, B., & Johnson, S. (1997). The possibility of distributed decision making. In Z. Shapira (Ed.),
Organizational decision making (pp. 217–237). New York: Cambridge University Press.
37 Benjamin, A. S., & Bjork, R. A. (1996). Retrieval fluency as a metacognitive index. In L. Reder (Ed.),
Metacognition and implicit memory (pp. 309–338). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johnston, W. A., & Hawley, K. J. (1994). Perceptual inhibition of expected inputs: The key that opens
closed minds. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review , 1 , 56–72.
Whittlesea, B. W., & Williams, L. D. (2001). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: II. expectation,
uncertainty, surprise and feelings of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition , 27 (1), 14–33.
38 Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within
and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–
252). New York: Guilford Press.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude
change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
39 Kruglanski, A. W., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2007). The principles of social judgment. In A. W. Kruglanski &
E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 116–137). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., Erb, H. P., Spiegel, S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2005). Informational length and order
of presentation as determinants of persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 41 (5), 458–469.
Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2004). Relevance override: On the
reduced impact of “cues” under high motivation conditions of persuasion studies. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology , 86 (2), 251–264.
40 LeBoeuf, R. A., & Shafir, E. (2003). Deep thoughts and shallow frames: On the susceptibility to framing
effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , 16 (2), 77–92.
41 Dijksterhuis, A. P. (2010). Automaticity and the unconscious. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology ( 5 th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 228–267). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
42 Igou, E. R., & Bless, H. (2007). On undesirable consequences of thinking: Framing effects as a function
of substantive processing. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , 20 (2), 125–142.
43 Pelham, B. W., & Neter, E. (1995). The effect of motivation of judgment depends on the difficulty of the
judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 68 (4), 581–594.
44 Jacoby, L. L., Kelley, C. M., & Dywan, J. (1989a). Memory attributions. In H. L. Roediger & F. I. M. Craik
(Eds.), Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honour of Endel Tulving (pp. 391–422). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45 Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Reber, R., & Fazendeiro, T. A. (2003b). Cognitive and affective conse-
quences of visual fluency: When seeing is easy on the mind. In L. M. Scott & R. Batra (Eds.), Persuasive
imagery: A consumer response perspective (pp. 75–89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46 Halberstadt, J., & Rhodes, G. (2000). The attractiveness of nonface averages: Implications for an evolu-
tionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychological Science , 11 (4), 285–289.
Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science , 1 (2),
115–121.
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in
the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review , 8 (4), 364–382.
47 See n4, Ramachandran & Hirstein (1999).