Learning and Motivation 53 (2016) 49–51 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Learning and Motivation j o ur nal ho me pag e: www.elsevier.com/locate/l&m Semantic versus numeric priming and the consider-the-opposite strategy: Comment on Adame (2016) Nathan N. Cheek Wellesley College, 106 Central Street, Wellesley, MA 02482, USA a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 16 January 2016 Accepted 3 March 2016 Keywords: Anchoring Selective Accessibility Model Semantic priming Numeric priming a b s t r a c t In a recent study, Adame (2016) demonstrated that training people to use the consider- the-opposite strategy can successfully reduce anchoring effects. In this commentary, I reconsider the implications of Adame’s results and argue that although they do not provide additional evidence for the Selective Accessibility Model, they do reveal the effectiveness of the consider-the-opposite strategy for reducing anchoring effects that result from both semantic and numeric priming. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Since Tversky and Kahneman’s (1974) initial introduction of the standard anchoring paradigm, anchoring—the tendency for people’s numerical judgments to assimilate to previously considered values—has been the subject of substantial empir- ical attention (for a review, see Furnham & Boo, 2011). In a recent article, Adame (2016) demonstrated that training people through a computer task to use the consider-the-opposite strategy can successfully reduce anchoring effects. In this commen- tary, I reconsider the implications of Adame’s results and argue that although they do not provide additional evidence for the Selective Accessibility Model (e.g., Strack & Mussweiler, 1997), they do reveal the effectiveness of the consider-the-opposite strategy for reducing anchoring effects that result from both semantic and numeric priming. 2. Semantic priming and the consider-the-opposite strategy The standard anchoring paradigm consists of two sequential questions: an initial, comparative question containing the anchor value (e.g., “Is the Mississippi River longer or shorter than 200 miles?”) followed by a question asking participants to make an estimate of a target value (e.g., “How long is the Mississippi River?”). Several theoretical accounts have been proposed to explain anchoring effects (e.g., Dowd, Petrocelli, & Wood, 2014; Frederick & Mochon, 2012; Simmons, LeBoeuf, & Nelson, 2010; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974; Wong & Kwong, 2000), including the Selective Accessibility Model (SAM; Chapman & Johnson, 1999; Mussweiler & Strack, 1999, 2000; Strack & Mussweiler, 1997). According to the SAM, anchoring occurs because in order to answer the comparative question, participants test the hypothesis that the anchor value is correct (Mussweiler & Strack, 1999; Strack & Mussweiler, 1997). Because people test hypotheses by seeking information to confirm them (e.g., Wason, 1960), the process of answering the comparative question through a hypothesis test activates anchor-consistent information, which then becomes more accessible to participants (e.g., Mussweiler & Strack, 2000). When participants subsequently make an absolute estimate, they are more likely to consider the semantically primed, anchor-consistent E-mail address: nathan.n.cheek@gmail.com http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2016.03.001 0023-9690/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.