Confusing Context with Character: Correspondence Bias in Economic Interactions

References

• Ambuehl S, Li S (2018) Belief updating and the demand for information. Games Econom. Behav. 109:21–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amore MD, Schwenen S (2020) Hiring lucky CEOs. Working paper, Bocconi University, Italy.Google Scholar
• Barreda-Tarrazona I, Jaramillo-Gutiérrez A, Pavan M, Sabater-Grande G (2017) Individual characteristics vs. experience: An experimental study on cooperation in prisoner’s dilemma. Frontiers Psych. 8:596.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bednar J, Chen Y, Liu TX, Page S (2012) Behavioral spillovers and cognitive load in multiple games: An experimental study. Games Econom. Behav. 74(1):12–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benjamin DJ (2019) Errors in probabilistic reasoning and judgment biases. Douglas Bernheim B, DellaVigna S, Laibson D, eds. Handbook of Behavioral Economics: Applications and Foundations 1, vol. 2 (North Holland, Amsterdam), 69–186.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Mullainathan S (2001) Are CEOs rewarded for luck? The ones without principals are. Quart. J. Econom. 116(3):901–932.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cason TN, Lau SHP, Mui VL (2019) Prior interaction, identity, and cooperation in the inter-group prisoner’s dilemma. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 166:613–629.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Rigotti L, Rustichini A (2016) Social surplus determines cooperation rates in the one-shot prisoner’s dilemma. Games Econom. Behav. 100:113–124.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chetty R, Friedman JN, Saez E, Turner N, Yagan D (2020) Income segregation and intergenerational mobility across colleges in the United States. Quart. J. Econom. 135(3):1567–1633.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
• Cooper R, DeJong DV, Forsythe R, Ross TW (1996) Cooperation without reputation: Experimental evidence from prisoner’s dilemma games. Games Econom. Behav. 12(2):187–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dal Bó E, Dal Bó P, Eyster E (2018) The demand for bad policy when voters underappreciate equilibrium effects. Rev. Econom. Stud. 85(2):964–998.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis LW, Hausman C (2020) Are energy executives rewarded for luck? Energy J. 41(6):157–180.Google Scholar
• Edwards W (1968) Conservatism in human information processing. Kleinmuntz B, ed. Formal Reresentation of Human Judgement (Wiley, New York), 17–52.Google Scholar
• Esponda I, Vespa E (2014) Hypothetical thinking and information extraction in the laboratory. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconomics 6(4):180–202.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Esponda I, Vespa E (2021) Contingent preferences and the sure-thing principle: Revisiting classic anomalies in the laboratory. Working paper, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
• Eyster E, Rabin M (2005) Cursed equilibrium. Econometrica 73(5):1623–1672.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garvey GT, Milbourn TT (2006) Asymmetric benchmarking in compensation: Executives are rewarded for good luck but not penalized for bad. J. Financial Econom. 82(1):197–225.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 (1989) Thinking lightly about others: Automatic components of the social inference process. Uleman JS, Bargh JA, eds. Unintended Thought (The Guilford Press, New York), 189–211.Google Scholar
• Gilbert DT, Malone PS (1995) The correspondence bias. Psych. Bull. 117(1):21–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Graeber T (2022) Inattentive inference. Working paper, Harvard University.Google Scholar
• Haggag K, Pope DG, Bryant-Lees KB, Bos MW (2019) Attribution bias in consumer choice. Rev. Econom. Stud. 86(5):2136–2183.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haggag K, Patterson RW, Pope NG, Feudo A (2021) Attribution bias in major decisions: Evidence from the United States Military Academy. J. Public Econom. 200:104445.Google Scholar
• Hoffman M, Kahn LB, Li D (2018) Discretion in hiring. Quart. J. Econom. 133(2):765–800.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jenter D, Kanaan F (2015) CEO turnover and relative performance evaluation. J. Finance 70(5):2155–2184.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones EE, Harris VA (1967) The attribution of attitudes. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 3(1):1–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahn LB (2010) The long-term labor market consequences of graduating from college in a bad economy. Labour Econom. 17(2):303–316.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1972) Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psych. 3(3):430–454.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1973) On the psychology of prediction. Psych. Rev. 80(4):237–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lowe M (2021) Types of contact: A field experiment on collaborative and adversarial caste integration. Amer. Econom. Rev. 111(6): 1807–1844.Google Scholar
• Martínez-Marquina A, Niederle M, Vespa E (2019) Failures in contingent reasoning: The role of uncertainty. Amer. Econom. Rev. 109(10):3437–3474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mengel F (2018) Risk and temptation: A meta-study on prisoner’s dilemma games. Econom. J. 128(616):3182–3209.Google Scholar
• Möbius MM, Niederle M, Niehaus P, Rosenblat TS (2014) Managing self-confidence. Working paper, Microsoft Research.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 Behav. Brain Sci. 2(1):129–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ngangoué MK, Weizsäcker G (2021) Learning from unrealized vs. realized prices. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconomics 13(2):174–201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oreopoulos P, Von Wachter T, Heisz A (2012) The short-and long-term career effects of graduating in a recession. Amer. Econom. J. Appl. Econom. 4(1):1–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peysakhovich A, Rand DG (2015) Habits of virtue: Creating norms of cooperation and defection in the laboratory. Management Sci. 62(3):631–647.Link, Google Scholar
• Phillips LD, Edwards W (1966) Conservatism in a simple probability inference task. J. Experiment. Psych. 72(3):346–354.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rao G (2019) Familiarity does not breed contempt: Generosity, discrimination, and diversity in Delhi schools. Amer. Econom. Rev. 109(3):774–809.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
• Schmidt FL, Hunter JE (1998) The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psych. Bull. 124(2):262–274.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sherman SJ (1980) On the self-erasing nature of errors of prediction. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 39(2):211–221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonsohn U, Karlsson N, Loewenstein G, Ariely D (2008) The tree of experience in the forest of information: Overweighing experienced relative to observed information. Games Econom. Behav. 62(1):263–286.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
• Walker D, Smith KA, Vul E (2015) The “fundamental attribution error” is rational in an uncertain world. Noelle DC, Dale R, Warlaumont AS, Yoshimi J, Matlock T, Jennings CD, Maglio PP, eds. Proc. 37th Annual Conf. Cognitive Sci. Soc. (Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX), 2547–2552.Google Scholar
• Wolfers J (2007) Are voters rational? Evidence from gubernatorial elections. Working paper, University of Michigan.Google Scholar