Literature DB >> 6527215

Considering the opposite: a corrective strategy for social judgment.

C G Lord, M R Lepper, E Preston.   

Abstract

It is proposed that several biases in social judgment result from a failure--first noted by Francis Bacon--to consider possibilities at odds with beliefs and perceptions of the moment. Individuals who are induced to consider the opposite, therefore, should display less bias in social judgment. In two separate but conceptually parallel experiments, this reasoning was applied to two domains--biased assimilation of new evidence on social issues and biased hypothesis testing of personality impressions. Subjects were induced to consider the opposite in two ways: through explicit instructions to do so and through stimulus materials that made opposite possibilities more salient. In both experiments the induction of a consider-the-opposite strategy had greater corrective effect than more demand-laden alternative instructions to be as fair and unbiased as possible. The results are viewed as consistent with previous research on perseverance, hindsight, and logical problem solving, and are thought to suggest an effective method of retraining social judgment.

Mesh:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6527215     DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.47.6.1231

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol        ISSN: 0022-3514


  21 in total

1.  Blind analysis: Hide results to seek the truth.

Authors:  Robert MacCoun; Saul Perlmutter
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-10-08       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Bias in the research literature and conflict of interest: an issue for publishers, editors, reviewers and authors, and it is not just about the money.

Authors:  Simon N Young
Journal:  J Psychiatry Neurosci       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 6.186

3.  The environmental malleability of base-rate neglect.

Authors:  Martin Harry Turpin; Ethan A Meyers; Alexander C Walker; Michał Białek; Jennifer A Stolz; Jonathan A Fugelsang
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2020-04

4.  The illusion of argument justification.

Authors:  Matthew Fisher; Frank C Keil
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2013-03-18

5.  Induction with uncertain categories: When do people consider the category alternatives?

Authors:  Brett K Hayes; Ben R Newell
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2009-09

6.  Cognitive debiasing 2: impediments to and strategies for change.

Authors:  Pat Croskerry; Geeta Singhal; Sílvia Mamede
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 7.035

7.  Can taking the perspective of an expert debias human decisions? The case of risky and delayed gains.

Authors:  Michał Białek; Przemysław Sawicki
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-09-04

8.  Article retracted, but the message lives on.

Authors:  Tobias Greitemeyer
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-04

9.  I am right, you are wrong: how biased assimilation increases the perceived gap between believers and skeptics of violent video game effects.

Authors:  Tobias Greitemeyer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-04-10       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Pitfalls of counterfactual thinking in medical practice: preventing errors by using more functional reference points.

Authors:  John V Petrocelli
Journal:  J Public Health Res       Date:  2013-12-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.