Literature DB >> 8078969

Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations.

T D Wilson1, N Brekke.   

Abstract

We define mental contamination as the process whereby a person has an unwanted response because of mental processing that is unconscious or uncontrollable. This type of bias is distinguishable from the failure to know or apply normative rules of inference and can be further divided into the unwanted consequences of automatic processing and source confusion, which is the confusion of 2 or more causes of a response. Mental contamination is difficult to avoid because it results from both fundamental properties of human cognition (e.g., a lack of awareness of mental processes) and faulty lay beliefs about the mind (e.g., incorrect theories about mental biases). People's lay beliefs determine the steps they take (or fail to take) to correct their judgments and thus are an important but neglected source of biased responses. Strategies for avoiding contamination, such as controlling one's exposure to biasing information, are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8078969     DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.117

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Bull        ISSN: 0033-2909            Impact factor:   17.737


  64 in total

Review 1.  Broadening behavioral decision research: multiple levels of cognitive processing.

Authors:  D L Medin; M H Bazerman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1999-12

2.  Intended and unintended effects of explicit warnings on eyewitness suggestibility: evidence from source identification tests.

Authors:  K L Chambers; M S Zaragoza
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2001-12

3.  Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual-process theories of the mind.

Authors:  Lisa Feldman Barrett; Michele M Tugade; Randall W Engle
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 17.737

4.  Negative stereotype activation alters interaction between neural correlates of arousal, inhibition and cognitive control.

Authors:  Chad E Forbes; Christine L Cox; Toni Schmader; Lee Ryan
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2011-09-27       Impact factor: 3.436

5.  Bias versus bias: harnessing hindsight to reveal paranormal belief change beyond demand characteristics.

Authors:  Michael J Kane; Tammy J Core; R Reed Hunt
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2010-04

6.  Self-forgiveness in psychology and psychotherapy: a critique.

Authors:  Paul C Vitz; Jennifer M Meade
Journal:  J Relig Health       Date:  2011-06

7.  Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation.

Authors:  Ullrich K H Ecker; Stephan Lewandowsky; David T W Tang
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2010-12

8.  The Nonverbal Transmission of Intergroup Bias: A Model of Bias Contagion with Implications for Social Policy.

Authors:  Max Weisbuch; Kristin Pauker
Journal:  Soc Issues Policy Rev       Date:  2011-12-01

9.  Dilution and confirmation of probability judgments based on nondiagnostic evidence.

Authors:  Carla LaBella; Derek J Koehler
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2004-10

10.  When and why is ease of retrieval informative?

Authors:  Priya Raghubir; Geeta Menon
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2005-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.