@article{Schierbaum2021,
  author    = {Schierbaum, Sonja},
  title     = {Crusius {\"u}ber die Vern{\"u}nftigkeit des Wollens und die Rolle des Urteilens},
  series = {Deutsche Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Philosophie},
  volume    = {69},
  journal   = {Deutsche Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Philosophie},
  number    = {4},
  issn      = {2192-1482},
  doi       = {10.1515/dzph-2021-0051},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-245582},
  pages     = {607 -- 618},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {In this paper, I consider the relevance of judgment for practical considerations by discussing Christian August Crusius's conception of rational desire. According to my interpretation of Crusius's distinction between rational and non-rational desire, we are responsible at least for our rational desires insofar as we can control them. And we can control our rational desires by judging whether what we want complies with our human nature. It should become clear that Crusius's conception of rational desire is normative in that we necessarily desire things that are compatible with our nature, such as our own perfection. Therefore, a desire is rational if the desired object is apt to satisfy the desires compatible with our nature. From a contemporary perspective, such a normative conception of rational desire might not appear very attractive; it is apt, however, to stimulate a debate on the normative criteria and the role of judgment for rational desire, which is the ultimate aim of this paper.},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{BahnikStrack2016,
  author    = {Bahn{\´i}k, Štěp{\´a}n and Strack, Fritz},
  title     = {Overlap of accessible information undermines the anchoring effect},
  series = {Judgment and Decision Making},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Judgment and Decision Making},
  number    = {1},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-169287},
  pages     = {92-98},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {According to the Selective Accessibility Model of anchoring, the comparison question in the standard anchoring paradigm activates information that is congruent with an anchor. As a consequence, this information will be more likely to become the basis for the absolute judgment which will therefore be assimilated toward the anchor. However, if the activated information overlaps with information that is elicited by the absolute judgment itself, the preceding comparative judgment should not exert an incremental effect and should fail to result in an anchoring effect. The present studies find this result when the comparative judgment refers to a general category and the absolute judgment refers to a subset of the general category that was activated by the anchor value. For example, participants comparing the average annual temperature in New York City to a high 102 °F judged the average winter, but not summer temperature to be higher than participants making no comparison. On the other hand, participants comparing the annual temperature to a low -4 °F judged the average summer, but not winter temperature to be lower than control participants. This pattern of results was shown also in another content domain. It is consistent with the Selective Accessibility Model but difficult to reconcile with other main explanations of the anchoring effect.},
  language  = {en}
}