Individual Differences in Correspondence Bias: Measurement, Consequences, and Correction of Biased Interpersonal Attributions

References

• Abramson LY, Seligman ME, Teasdale JD (1978) Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. J. Abnormal Psych. 87(1):49–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aiken LS, West SG (1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions (Sage, Newbury Park, CA).Google Scholar
• Amir O, Rand DG, Gal YK (2012) Economic games on the Internet: The effect of $1 stakes. PLoS ONE 7(2):e31461.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bauman CW, Skitka LJ (2010) Making attributions for behaviors: The prevalence of correspondence bias in the general population. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 32(3):269–277.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baron J, Ritov I (2004) Omission bias, individual differences, and normality. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 94(2):74–85.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berinsky AJ, Huber GA, Lenz GS (2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Anal. 20(3):351–368.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bierbrauer G (1979) Why did he do it? Attribution of obedience and the phenomenon of dispositional bias. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 9(1):67–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blais AR, Thompson MM, Baranski JV (2005) Individual differences in decision processing and confidence judgments in comparative judgment tasks: The role of cognitive styles. Personality Individual Differences 38(7):1701–1713.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blumberg SJ, Silvera DH (1998) Attributional complexity and cognitive development: A look at the motivational and cognitive requirements for attribution. Soc. Cognition 16(2):253–266.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bollen K, Lennox R (1991) Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psych. Bull. 110(2):305–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bornstein BH, Zickafoose DJ (1999) “I know I know it, I know I saw it”: The stability of the confidence–accuracy relationship across domains. J. Experiment. Psych.: Appl. 5(1):76–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brodnick RJ, Ree MJ (1995) A structural model of academic performance, socio-economic status, and Spearman’s g. Educational Psych. Measurement 55(4):583–594.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bruine de Bruin W, Parker A, Fischhoff B (2007) Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 92(5):938–956.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burger JM, Cooper HM (1979) The desirability of control. Motivation Emotion 3(4):381–393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cacioppo JT, Petty RE (1982) The need for cognition. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 42(1):116–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Kao CE (1984) The efficient assessment of need for cognition. J. Personality Assessment 48(3):306–307.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen CC, Meindl JR (1991) The construction of leadership images in the popular press: The case of Donald Burr and People Express. Admin. Sci. Quart. 36(4):521–551.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choi I, Nisbett RE (1998) Situational salience and cultural differences in the correspondence bias and actor-observer bias. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 24(9):949–960.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choi I, Nisbett RE, Norenzayan A (1999) Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psych. Bull. 125(1):47–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chugh D, Banaji M, Bazerman M (2005) Bounded ethicality as a psychological barrier to recognizing conflicts of interest. In Moore D, Cain D, Loewenstein G, Bazerman M, eds. Conflicts of Interest: Challenges and Solutions in Business, Law, Medicine, and Public Policy (Cambridge University Press, New York), 74–95.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE (1955) Construct validity in psychological tests. Psych. Bull. 52(4):281–302.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cronley ML, Kardes FR, Goddard P, Houghton DC (1999) Endorsing products for the money: The role of correspondence bias in celebrity advertising. Adv. Consumer Res. 26(1):627–631.Google Scholar
• D’Agostino PR, Fincher-Kiefer R (1992) Need for cognition and the correspondence bias. Soc. Cognition 10(2):151–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edwards JR, Bagozzi RP (2000) On the nature and direction of the relationship between constructs and measures. Psych. Methods 5(2):155–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Folkes VS (1984) Consumer reactions to product failure: An attributional approach. J. Consumer Res. 10(4):398–409.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Folkes VS, Koletsky S, Graham JL (1987) A field study of causal inferences and consumer reaction: The view from the airport. J. Consumer Res. 13(4):534–539.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frederick S (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econom. Perspect. 19(4)25–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frey MC, Detterman DK (2004) Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the scholastic assessment test and general cognitive ability. Psych. Sci. 15(6):373–378.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Funder DC (1987) Errors and mistakes: Evaluating the accuracy of social judgment. Psych. Bull. 101(1):75–90.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Funder DC (1995) On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psych. Rev. 102(4):652–670.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Funder DC (2012) Accurate personality judgment. Current Directions Psych. Sci. 21(3):177–182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gawronski B (2004) Theory-based bias correction in dispositional inference: The fundamental attribution error is dead, long live the correspondence bias. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psych. 15(1):183–217.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilbert DT (1998) Ordinary personology. Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, eds. The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed. (McGraw Hill, New York), 89–150.Google Scholar
• Gilbert DT, Malone PS (1995) The correspondence bias. Psych. Bull. 117(1):21–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilbert DT, Pelham BW, Krull DS (1988) On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meets persons perceived. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 54(5):733–740.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glorfeld LW (1995) An improvement on Horn’s parallel analysis methodology for selecting the correct number of factors to retain. Educational Psych. Measurement 55(3):377–393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hagá S, Garcia-Marques L, Olson KR (2014) Too young to correct: A developmental test of the three-stage model of social inference. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 107(6):994–1012.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hayward ML, Rindova VP, Pollock TG (2004) Believing one’s own press: The causes and consequences of CEO celebrity. Strategic Management J. 25(7):637–653.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heider F (1958) The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Horn JL (1965) A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 32(2):179–185.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Horton JJ, Rand DG, Zeckhauser RJ (2011) The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experiment. Econom. 14(3):399–425.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Inbar Y, Pizarro DA, Knobe J, Bloom P (2009) Disgust sensitivity predicts intuitive disapproval of gays. Emotion 9(3):435–439.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ito T, Cacioppo J (2005) Variations on a human universal: Individual differences in positivity offset and negativity bias. Cognition Emotion 19(1):1–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jarvis WBG, Petty RE (1996) The need to evaluate. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 70(1):172–194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• John OP, Srivastava S (1999) The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement and theoretical perspectives. Pervin LA, John OP, eds. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (Guilford, New York), 102–138.Google Scholar
• Jones EE (1979) The rocky road from acts to dispositions. Amer. Psychologist 34(2):107–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones EE (1990) Interpersonal Perception (WH Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt Co., New York).Google Scholar
• Jones A, Fitness J (2008) Moral hypervigilance: The influence of disgust sensitivity in the moral domain. Emotion 8(5):613–627.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones EE, Harris VA (1967) The attribution of attitudes. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 3(1):1–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kassin SM (1997) The psychology of confession evidence. Amer. Psychologist 5(2):221–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kassin SM (2014) False confessions causes, consequences, and implications for reform. Policy Insights Behavioral Brain Sci. 1(1):112–121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kassin SM, Neumann K (1997) On the power of confession evidence. Law Human Behav. 21(5):469–484.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kassin SM, Sukel H (1997) Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Law Human Behav. 21(1):27–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kassin SM, Wrightsman LS (1980) Prior confessions and mock juror verdicts. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. 10(2):133–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keeling KB (2000) A regression equation for determining the dimensionality of data. Multivariate Behav. Res. 35:457–468.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klayman J, Soll JB, Gonzalez-Vallejo C, Barlas S (1999) Overconfidence: It depends on how, what, and whom you ask. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 79(3):216–247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kruger J, Dunning D (1999) Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 77(6):1121–1134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kruglanski AW (1989) The psychology of being “right”: The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psych. Bull. 106(3):395–409.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krull DS (1993) Does the grist change the mill? The effect of the perceiver’s inference goal on the process of social influence. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 19(3):340–348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krull DS, Erickson DJ (1995) Judging situations: On the effortful process of taking dispositional information into account. Soc. Cognition 13(4):417–438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krull DS, Loy MHM, Lin J, Wang CF, Chen S, Zhao X (1999) The fundamental attribution error: Correspondence bias in individualist and collectivist cultures. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 25(10):1208–1219.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levin IP, Gaeth GJ, Schreiber J, Lauriola M (2002) A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 88(1):411–429.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lieberman MD, Jarcho JM, Obayashi J (2005) Attributional inference across cultures: Similar automatic attributions and different controlled corrections. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 31(7):889–901.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lieberman MD, Gaunt R, Gilbert DT, Trope Y (2002) Reflexion and reflection: A social cognitive neuroscience approach to attributional inference. Adv. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 34:199–249.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lord CG, Scott KO, Pugh MA, Desforges DM (1997) Leakage beliefs and the correspondence bias. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 23(8):824–836.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Masuda T, Kitayama S (1996) Culture-specificity of correspondence bias: Dispositional inference in Japan. Paper presented at the 13th Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Montréal.Google Scholar
• Meindl JR, Ehrlich SB, Dukerich JM (1985) The romance of leadership. Admin. Sci. Quart. 30(1):78–102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Milgram S (1963) Behavioral study of obedience. J. Abnormal Soc. Psych. 67(4):371–378.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller JG (1984) Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 46(5):961–978.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller AG, Rorer LG (1982) Toward an understanding of the fundamental attribution error: Essay diagonsiticity in the attitude attribution paradigm. J. Res. Personality 16(1):41–59.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller AG, Gillen B, Schenker C, Radlove S (1974) The prediction and perception of obedience to authority. J. Personality 42(1):23–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Milkman KL, Chugh D, Bazerman MH (2009) How can decision making be improved? Perspect. Psych. Sci. 4(4):379–383.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miyamoto Y, Kitayama S (2002) Cultural variation in correspondence bias: The critical role of attitude diagnosticity of socially constrained behavior. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 83(5):1239–1248.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moore DA, Swift SA, Sharek ZS, Gino F (2010) Correspondence bias in performance evaluation: Why grade inflation works. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 36(6):843–852.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morewedge CK, Yoon H, Scopelliti I, Symborski CW, Korris JH, Kassam KS (2015) Debiasing decisions: Improved decision making with a single training intervention. Policy Insights Behavioral Brain Sci. 2(1):129–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morris MW, Larrick RP, Su SK (1999) Misperceiving negotiation counterparts: When situationally determined bargaining behaviors are attributed to personality traits. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 77(1):52–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newman LS (1993) How individualists interpret behavior: Idiocentrism and spontaneous trait inference. Soc. Cognition 11(2):243–269.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nisbett RE, Fong GT, Lehman DR, Cheng PW (1987) Teaching reasoning. Science 238(4827):625–631.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Norenzayan A, Choi I, Nisbett RE (2002) Cultural similarities and differences in social inference: Evidence from behavioral predictions and lay theories of behavior. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 28(1):109–120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York).Google Scholar
• Paolacci G, Chandler J, Ipeirotis PG (2010) Running experiments using Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment Decision Making 5(5):411–419.Google Scholar
• Peterson C, Semmel A, von Baeyer C, Abramson LY, Metalsky GI, Seligman ME (1982) The attributional style questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy Res. 6(3):287–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Preacher KJ, Curran PJ, Bauer DJ (2006) Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. J. Educational Behavioral Statist. 31(4):437–448.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ratner RK, Soman D, Zauberman G, Ariely D, Carmon Zet al. (2008) How behavioral decision research can enhance consumer welfare: From freedom of choice to paternalistic intervention. Marketing Lett. 19(3–4):383–397.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ross L (1977) The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Adv. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 10:173–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ross LD, Amabile TM, Steinmetz JL (1977) Social roles, social control, and biases in social-perception processes. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 35(7):485–494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rotter JB (1966) Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psych. Monographs General Appl. 80(1):1–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ruble DN, Newman LS, Rholes WS, Altshuler J (1988) Children’s naive psychology: The use of behavioral and situational information for the prediction of behavior. Cognitive Development 3(1):89–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schmidt FL, Hunter JE (1981) Employment testing: Old theories and new research findings. Amer. Psych. 36(10):1128–1137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schmidt FL, Hunter JE, Pearlman K (1982) Assessing the economic impact of personnel programs on workforce productivity. Personnel Psych. 35(2):333–347.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scopelliti I, Morewedge K, McCormick E, Min L, Lebrecht S, Kassam K (2015) Bias blind spot: Structure, measurement, and consequences. Management Sci. 61(10):2468–2486.Link, Google Scholar
• Silvera DH, Austad B (2004) Factors predicting the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement advertisements. Eur. J. Marketing 38(11/12):1509–1526.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simmons J, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U (2013) Life after p-hacking. Botti S, Labroo A, eds. NA–Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 41 (Association for Consumer Research, Duluth, MN), 775.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Snyder ML, Frankel A (1976) Observer bias: A stringent test of behavior engulfing the field. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 34(5):857–864.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Soll JB, Milkman KL, Payne JW (2015) A user’s guide to debiasing. Keren G, Wu G, eds. Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (John Wiley & Sons, New York), 924–951.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spiller SA, Fitzsimons GJ, Lynch JG Jr, McClelland GH (2013) Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. J. Marketing Res. 50(2):277–288.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stankov L, Crawford JD (1997) Self-confidence and performance on tests of cognitive abilities. Intelligence 25(2):93–109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stanovich KE (1999) Who Is Rational? Studies of Individual Differences in Reasoning (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stanovich KE, West RF (1998) Individual differences in rational thought. J. Experiment. Psych. General 127(2):161–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stanovich KE, West RF (2000) Advancing the rationality debate. Behav. Brain Sci. 23(5):701–717.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Swift SA, Moore DA, Sharek ZS, Gino F (2013) Inflated applicants: Attribution errors in performance evaluation by professionals. PLoS One 8(7):e69258.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tenbrunsel AE, Smith-Crowe K (2008) Ethical decision making: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. Acad. Management Ann. 2(1):545–607.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trope Y (1986) Identification and inferential processes in dispositional attribution. Psych. Rev. 93(3):239–257.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Unsworth N, Engle RW (2007) The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: Active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory. Psych. Rev. 114(1):104–132.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Velicer WF, Eaton CA, Fava JL (2000) Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. Goffin RD, Helmes E, eds. Problems and Solutions in Human Assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at Seventy (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA), 41–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Viswanatian M (1997) Individual differences in need for precision. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 23(7):717–735.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Webster DM (1993) Motivated augmentation and reduction of the overattribution bias. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 65(2):261–271.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Webster DM, Kruglanski AW (1994) Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 67(6):1049–1062.Crossref, Google Scholar
• West RF, Stanovich KE (1997) The domain specificity and generality of overconfidence: Individual differences in performance estimation bias. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 4(3):387–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Young L, Saxe R (2009) An fMRI investigation of spontaneous mental state inference for moral judgment. J. Cognitive Neurosci. 21(7):1396–1405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zwick WR, Velicer WF (1986) Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psych. Bull. 99(3):432–442.Crossref, Google Scholar