DOCSLIB.ORG

The Self-Serving Attribution Bias and Overestimation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Self-Serving Attribution Bias and Overestimation Joris Amin 10677038 BSc Economie & Bedrijfskunde Universiteit van Amsterdam 29-06-2016 R. van Hemert Statement of Originality This document is written by Student Joris Amin who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents. 1 Abstract Prior research has proven that people are subject to the self-serving attribution bias. This means that people tend to attribute success to internal factors such as skill and effort and failure to external factors such as difficulty and luck. Furthermore, Libby & Rennekamp (2012) argue that this leads people to become overconfident. An experiment was conducted in which participants answered two rounds of trivia questions. Between these rounds, participants indicated their attributions to internal vs. external factors and their confidence in improving in the second round. It was confirmed that people indeed engage in self-serving attribution. Additionally, this study aimed at finding a way of debiasing. Sufficient evidence was found to state that people do not show overconfident behavior regarding an upcoming task when they are able to compare the difficulty of the tasks. 2 Inhoudsopgave Introduction .............................................................................................................................................4 Theorethical Framework .........................................................................................................................5 Bounded rationality ..............................................................................................................................5 The self-serving attribution bias ...........................................................................................................6 Overconfidence ....................................................................................................................................8 The self-serving attribution bias & overestimation ..............................................................................9 Information about task difficulty ..........................................................................................................9 Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Testing H₁ ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Testing H₂........................................................................................................................................... 13 Post-hoc testing ................................................................................................................................. 13 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 14 Descriptive statistics .......................................................................................................................... 14 Support for H₁ .................................................................................................................................... 15 Support for H₂ .................................................................................................................................... 16 Post-hoc analysis ............................................................................................................................... 18 Discussion & Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 18 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 18 Limitations ......................................................................................................................................... 19 Suggestions ........................................................................................................................................ 19 Appendix ............................................................................................................................................... 20 References............................................................................................................................................. 25 3 Introduction Economic science, like science in general, uses a wide variety of models. Models are idealizations that are used to represent reality for specified purposes (Giere, 2004). Some of these models are created to value stocks, others try to identify the perfect style of leadership. In order to function and give a good representation of reality, many models rely on assumptions. A variable in many economic models is human behavior. To account for human behavior in models in economic science, John Stuart Mill proposed the theory of the ‘economic man’ (Persky, 1995). This theory assumes that the economic man’s goal is to maximize his utility. He therefore always acts rational, considers all options in decision-making, is not biased towards certain alternatives and does not satisfice (Simon, 1955). Yet this economic man has endured quite some criticism concerning his rationality. Research has uncovered consistent deviations from the predictions of this theory (Henrich et al., 2016). To enhance this theory and give a more realistic representation of the behavior of economic agents, psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists help improve the characterizations of economic behavior (Thaler, 2016). Due to the notion of bounded rationality, economists have a more realistic view concerning the behavior of economic agents. “The notion of bounded rationality was proposed in the mid- 1950s to connect, rather than to oppose, the rational and the psychological” (Gigerenzer & Selten, 2002, p. 1). In economic terms, bounded rationality refers to the manager’s limits in their ability to process and interpret a large volume of information in their decision-making activities (Simon, 1979). In general, this implies that people have cognitive limitations and other constraints that hinder them from being rational. Since people are subject to these cognitive limitations, it is argued that people are biased. This means that human cognition portrays a version of reality that is systematically distorted compared to some aspects of the objective reality (Haselton, Nettle, & Andrews, 2005). One of the cognitive limitations that people are subject to is the self-serving attribution bias. The self-serving attribution bias is a phenomenon that has received much attention in psychology and economic literature. This bias causes people to attribute their success to their own dispositions and failure to external forces (Miller & Ross, 1975). The implications of the self-serving attribution bias are widespread. It is argued that the bias affects employees in their attributions as to why they did, or did not, get the promotion (Shepperd, Malone, & Sweeny, 2008). Further, Shepperd et al. (2008) argue that athletes are the victim of this bias in their attribution to their performance and drivers are biased in their explanations of accidents. Often, examples can be found of the bias affecting the issuance of management forecasts (Libby & Rennekamp, 2012), organizational planning 4 (Larwood & Whittaker, 1977), relationships (Sedikides, Campbell, Reeder, & Elliot, 1998), self-esteem (Schlenker, Weigold, & Hallam, 1990) and many more cases in human decision making (Evans, 1989). According to Libby & Rennekamp (2012), the self-serving attribution bias is a cause for overconfidence. Research literature defines the manifestation of overconfidence in three ways: overestimation of one’s actual performance, overplacement of one’s performance relative to others and excessive precision in one’s beliefs (Moore & Healy, 2008). The consequences of overconfidence are important considering that the bias causes one to overestimate the extent to which their internal characteristics contribute to a better performance. It is argued that overconfidence affects for example income prospects and business failure (Camerer & Lovallo, 2016), clinical psychologists’ judgement (Oskamp, 1965), investment decisions and corporate investment distortions (Lambert, Bessière, & N’Goala, 2012; Malmendier & Tate, 2005), driving ability (Svenson, 1981). Numerous studies address the causes and consequences of both the self-serving attribution bias and overconfidence. Yet little research has been devoted to successfully reducing the effects of these biases, or debiasing. This research focuses on the relationship between the self-serving attribution bias and overconfidence. Furthermore, it aims to find a way of debiasing. The first part of this research aims to replicate the study conducted by Libby & Rennekamp (2012) to test whether performance is explained through the self-serving attribution bias and whether this indeed leads to overconfidence. The purpose of the second part is to test whether information about the difficulty of a task leads to debiasing. The following section consists of a theoretical
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Attribution of Intentions and Context Processing in Psychometric Schizotypy
    Cognitive Neuropsychiatry ISSN: 1354-6805 (Print) 1464-0619 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pcnp20 Attribution of intentions and context processing in psychometric schizotypy Romina Rinaldi, Laurent Lefebvre, Wivine Blekic, Frank Laroi & Julien Laloyaux To cite this article: Romina Rinaldi, Laurent Lefebvre, Wivine Blekic, Frank Laroi & Julien Laloyaux (2018) Attribution of intentions and context processing in psychometric schizotypy, Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 23:6, 364-376, DOI: 10.1080/13546805.2018.1528972 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13546805.2018.1528972 Published online: 06 Oct 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 33 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pcnp20 COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHIATRY 2018, VOL. 23, NO. 6, 364–376 https://doi.org/10.1080/13546805.2018.1528972 Attribution of intentions and context processing in psychometric schizotypy Romina Rinaldia,b, Laurent Lefebvreb, Wivine Blekicb, Frank Laroic,d,e and Julien Laloyauxc,d,e aGrand Hôpital de Charleroi, Hôpital Notre-Dame, Charleroi, Belgium; bCognitive psychology and Neuropsychology Department, University of Mons, Mons, Belgium; cDepartment of Biological and Medical Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; dNORMENT – Norwegian Center of Excellence for Mental Disorders Research, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; ePsychology and Neuroscience of Cognition Research Unit, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Introduction: Impairment in Theory of mind (TOM) has frequently Received 26 January 2018 been associated with schizophrenia and with schizotypy. Studies Accepted 15 September 2018 have found that a tendency to over-attribute intentions and KEYWORDS special meaning to events and to people is related to positive Psychotic symptoms; theory psychotic symptoms.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Biases in Economic Decisions – Three Essays on the Impact of Debiasing
    TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT MÜNCHEN Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre – Strategie und Organisation Univ.-Prof. Dr. Isabell M. Welpe Cognitive biases in economic decisions – three essays on the impact of debiasing Christoph Martin Gerald Döbrich Abdruck der von der Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften der Technischen Universität München zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Wirtschaftswissenschaften (Dr. rer. pol.) genehmigten Dissertation. Vorsitzender: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Gunther Friedl Prüfer der Dissertation: 1. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Isabell M. Welpe 2. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. Holger Patzelt Die Dissertation wurde am 28.11.2012 bei der Technischen Universität München eingereicht und durch die Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften am 15.12.2012 angenommen. Acknowledgments II Acknowledgments Numerous people have contributed to the development and successful completion of this dissertation. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. Isabell M. Welpe for her continuous support, all the constructive discussions, and her enthusiasm concerning my dissertation project. Her challenging questions and new ideas always helped me to improve my work. My sincere thanks also go to Prof. Dr. Matthias Spörrle for his continuous support of my work and his valuable feedback for the articles building this dissertation. Moreover, I am grateful to Prof. Dr. Dr. Holger Patzelt for acting as the second advisor for this thesis and Professor Dr. Gunther Friedl for leading the examination board. This dissertation would not have been possible without the financial support of the Elite Network of Bavaria. I am very thankful for the financial support over two years which allowed me to pursue my studies in a focused and efficient manner. Many colleagues at the Chair for Strategy and Organization of Technische Universität München have supported me during the completion of this thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Memory, Attention, and Choice
    Memory, Attention, and Choice Pedro Bordalo, Nicola Gennaioli, Andrei Shleifer1 Revised May 7, 2019 (original version 2015) Abstract. Building on the textbook description of associative memory (Kahana 2012), we present a model of choice in which options cue recall of similar past experiences. Recall shapes valuation and choice in two ways. First, recalled experiences form a norm, which serves as an initial anchor for valuation. Second, salient quality and price surprises relative to the norm lead to large adjustments in valuation. The model provides a unified account of many well documented choice puzzles including experience effects, projection and attribution biases, background contrast effects, and context- dependent willingness to pay. The results suggest that well-established psychological processes – memory-based norms and attention to surprising features – are key to understanding decision-making. 1 The authors are from University of Oxford, Universita Bocconi, and Harvard University, respectively. We are grateful to Dan Benjamin, Paulo Costa, Ben Enke, Matt Gentzkow, Sam Gershman, Thomas Graeber, Michael Kahana, Spencer Kwon, George Loewenstein, Sendhil Mullainathan, Josh Schwartzstein, Jesse Shapiro, Jann Spiess, Linh To, and Pierre- Luc Vautrey for valuable comments. Shleifer thanks the Sloan Foundation and the Pershing Square Venture Fund for Research on the Foundations of Human Behavior for financial support. 1 1. Introduction Memory appears to play a central role in even the simplest choices. Consider a thirsty traveler thinking of whether to look for a shop to buy a bottle of water at the airport. He automatically retrieves from memory similar past experiences, including the pleasure of quenching his thirst and the prices he paid before, and decides based on these recollections.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Self-Persuasion Reduce Hostile Attribution Bias in Young Children?
    Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-018-0499-2 Can Self-Persuasion Reduce Hostile Attribution Bias in Young Children? Anouk van Dijk1 & Sander Thomaes1 & Astrid M. G. Poorthuis1 & Bram Orobio de Castro1 # The Author(s) 2018 Abstract Two experiments tested an intervention approach to reduce young children’s hostile attribution bias and aggression: self-persua- sion. Children with high levels of hostile attribution bias recorded a video-message advocating to peers why story characters who caused a negative outcome may have had nonhostile intentions (self-persuasion condition), or they simply described the stories (control condition). Before and after the manipulation, hostile attribution bias was assessed using vignettes of ambiguous provocations. Study 1 (n =83,age4–8) showed that self-persuasion reduced children’s hostile attribution bias. Study 2 (n = 121, age 6–9) replicated this finding, and further showed that self-persuasion was equally effective at reducing hostile attribution bias as was persuasion by others (i.e., listening to an experimenter advocating for nonhostile intentions). Effects on aggressive behavior, however, were small and only significant for one out of four effects tested. This research provides the first evidence that self-persuasion may be an effective approach to reduce hostile attribution bias in young children. Keywords Hostile attribution bias . Self-persuasion . Aggression . Intervention . Experiments Children’s daily social interactions abound with provocations by Dodge 1994). The present research tests an intervention approach peers, such as when they are physically hurt, laughed at, or ex- to reduce hostile attribution bias in young children. cluded from play. The exact reasons behind these provocations, Most interventions that effectively reduce children’s hostile and especially the issue of whether hostile intent was involved, attribution bias rely on attribution retraining techniques (e.g., are often unclear.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Trait Anxiety on the Fundamental Attribution Error" (2013)
    Union College Union | Digital Works Honors Theses Student Work 6-2013 The ffecE t of Trait Anxiety on the Fundamental Attribution Error Eliot Tear Union College - Schenectady, NY Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalworks.union.edu/theses Part of the Psychiatry and Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Tear, Eliot, "The Effect of Trait Anxiety on the Fundamental Attribution Error" (2013). Honors Theses. 744. https://digitalworks.union.edu/theses/744 This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Work at Union | Digital Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Union | Digital Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Running Head: TRAIT ANXIETY AND THE FAE The Effect of Trait Anxiety on the Fundamental Attribution Error By Eliot Tear * * * * * * * * * Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Honors in the Department of Psychology UNION COLLEGE June, 2013 Trait Anxiety and the FAE 2 Abstract Previous research has been conducted that suggests that those who have trait anxiety have lower working memory capacity. Lower working memory capacity has also been shown to increase the likelihood that one commits cognitive heuristics. In the current research, we examined the relationship between one’s level of trait anxiety and their chances of committing the fundamental attribution error (FAE). In the experiment participants were randomly selected into one of four different conditions. Then participants completed the Spielberger trait anxiety scale which was used to separate participants into low and high trait anxiety groups. In each condition participants read an essay about a course policy change and answered questions about the essay and the author to test whether or not they committed the FAE.
    [Show full text]
  • Nawj Psych Terms
    NAWJ Terms List 1 Psychological terms useful in understanding mechanisms allowing unconscious bias Accentuation Effect: Overestimation of similarities among people within a group and dissimilarities between people from different groups Accentuation principle: States that categorization accentuates perceived similarities within and differences between groups on dimensions that people believe are correlated with the category. The effect is amplified where the categorization/dimension has subjective importance, relevance or value Actor-Observer effect: Tendency to attribute our own behaviors externally and others’ behaviors internally Agentic mode: State of mind thought by Milgram to characterize unquestioning obedience, in which people transfer personal responsibility to the person giving orders Anchoring and adjustment : A cognitive short-cut in which inferences are tied to initial standards or schemas Attitude: A relatively enduring organization of beliefs, feelings and behavioral tendencies towards socially significant objects, groups, events or symbols. Attitude change can occur by inducing someone to perform an act that runs counter to an existing attitude. Attribution : The process of assigning a cause to behaviors and events Availability bias: A cognitive shortcut in which the frequency or likelihood of an event is based on how quickly instances or associations come to mind Bias blind spot: tendency to perceive cognitive and motivational biases much more in others than in oneself Cognition: The knowledge, beliefs, thoughts, and ideas
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Biases Executive Briefing
    Na#onal Center for ProfessionalProfessional & R eseaResearchrch & Ethics Ethics Professional Research & Ethics Executive Briefing UNDERSTANDING AND NAVIGATING COGNITIVE BIASES There is all too often a reluctance to learn from the experiences of others; we tend to assume that our own particular challenges are unique. Our surveys and discussions with others using the Academic Unit Diagnostic Tool (AUDiT) emphasize the opposite: troubled units encounter similar difficulties. If you have used this tool to assess your own department and found more cells in the yellow and red columns than you would like, the next step is to consider points of potential intervention and reform… A task easier said than done. Unit members may be reluctant to engage with any process of change if they don't believe there are problems in the first place. One of the major barriers can be an unrecognized one: cognitive biases. What are Cognitive Biases? Cognitive biases are errors in thinking that are Cognitive biases affect people of all races, identity found throughout human interactions. They can positions, and cultures. They affect people with drive us to assume the best in ourselves, and the bad intentions and good ones, and while they are worst in others; to retain information that rein- especially pernicious when people are tired or forces our existing beliefs, and discount or ignore distracted, they come into play even when they information that does not; to judge ourselves by are not. It takes hard work and dedication to our intent, and others only by their actions. Their forming good habits to guard against their effects, effects are so quick, often we do not even realize and if you are committed to overcoming them, anything has happened.
    [Show full text]
  • Gender-Based Microaggressions in STEM Settings
    Gender-Based Microaggressions in STEM Settings Denise Sekaquaptewa ABOUT CURRENTS The National Center for Institutional Diversity (NCID) Currents publication connects scholarship in diversity, equity, and inclusion to practice and public discourse. Currents is a scholarship to practice journal that translates cutting-edge research into concise, accessible discussions to inform researchers, practitioners, leaders, policymakers, and the broader public conversation. All papers undergo a two part review process including a review by content experts and review for public accessibility. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Denise Sekaquaptewa is a professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Michigan. Her research program in experimental social psychology focuses on stereotyping, implicit bias, and the experiences of women and underrepresented minorities in science and engineering. CITATION Sekaquaptewa, D. (2019). Gender-based microaggressions in STEM settings. Currents, 1(1), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/currents.17387731.0001.101 Copyright © 2019 by Regents of the University of Michigan Access to this publication online at www.ncidcurrents.org Introduction Despite efforts to recruit and retain women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, women are still less likely than men to pursue and persist in STEM education and careers (Cheryan, Ziegler, Montoya, & Jiang, 2017; Lord, Layton, & Ohland, 2011). Addressing this issue is important to educators and policy makers striving to make STEM more inclusive in order to strengthen the U.S. STEM workforce. Researchers investigating this gender disparity have documented the role of societal gender stereotypes asserting that men are more suited for STEM than women. Recent social psychological research shows that nowadays these stereotypes and biases tend to be implicit, expressed subtly in the things that people say and do (Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Optimism Bias, Planning Fallacy, Sunk Cost Bias and Groupthink in Project Delivery and Organisational Decision Making
    Behavioural Insights Team A review of optimism bias, planning fallacy, sunk cost bias and groupthink in project delivery and organisational decision making Accompanying An Exploration of Behavioural Biases in Project Delivery at the Department for Transport Client: Department for Transport Date: July 2017 1 © Behavioural Insights Ltd Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3 How we make decisions and judgements ........................................................................................ 3 Optimism bias and the planning fallacy .............................................................................................. 5 How prevalent is the planning fallacy? ............................................................................................ 5 Causes of optimism bias and the planning fallacy ........................................................................... 6 Self-serving biases..................................................................................................................... 6 Illusion of control ....................................................................................................................... 7 Confirmation bias ...................................................................................................................... 8 Perception of risk ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Fallacy Planning Fallacy
    3/26/2009 Agenda The Obvious, • Getting your hands around Not So Obvious, organizational culture. and Hidden • Essence of influence: The Not So Patterns that Obvious and Hidden Patterns. • The High Performing culture. Affect Your Organization 90M_345 (0804) • L2 ©2008 BST. All rights reserved. Confidential Information. PHU – 1 90M_345 (0804) • L2 ©2008 BST. All rights reserved. Confidential Information. PHU – 2 Diagnostics Exercise #1: Put a star by the ones that you feel like your organization excels in and a check by those that you feel your organization needs to work on. ___ What needs to be in place to produce culture Leadership change? ___ Defining a compelling safety vision? ___ Implementing and sustaining important safety & initiatives? ___ Maintaining morale and trust with the employees? Culture ___ Maintaining strong, positive employee relationships? ___ Maintaining management and employee teamwork? ___ Creating new methods for change? ___ Making strategic safety plans become reality? ___ Aligning safety efforts top-down? ___ Working collaboratively on safety problems? ___ Delivering effective safety communication? 90M_345 (0804) • L2 ©2008 BST. All rights reserved. Confidential Information. PHU – 3 90M_345 (0804) • L2 ©2008 BST. All rights reserved. Confidential Information. PHU – 4 1 3/26/2009 Leaders approach to culture Trial and Error Leaders • Trial and Error leaders. • White Bear Syndrome. • Non-systematic, toss in initiatives and see • Matterhorn Syndrome. what sticks, not sure why something works. • War Room Mentality Syndrome. • Behavioral leaders. • Peer Pressure Syndrome. • StSystema tidttic, data-oritdiented approac h centered on behavior change. • Common Sense Syndrome. • Seeking leaders. • Seek systematic measures reflecting the support of the culture. 90M_345 (0804) • L2 ©2008 BST.
    [Show full text]
  • Cybergenetics © 2003-2016 1
    Overcoming Bias in DNA Mixture Interpretation American Academy of Forensic Sciences February, 2016 Las Vegas, NV Mark W Perlin, PhD, MD, PhD Cybergenetics, Pittsburgh, PA Cybergenetics © 2003-2016 DNA Does Not Advocate Gold standard of forensic evidence However, ... there may be problems ... with how the DNA was ... interpreted, such as when there are mixed samples Cybergenetics © 2003-2016 1 Case context impact With context Without context Include 2 1 Exclude 12 Inconclusive 4 Cybergenetics © 2003-2016 2 DNA mixture Genotype 1 Genotype 2 Data 10, 12 11, 12 10 11 12 (oversimplified cartoon diagram) Interpret #1: separate Data Genotype 1 Genotype 2 10, 10 @ 10% 10, 10 @ 10% Separate 10, 11 @ 20% 10, 11 @ 10% 10, 12 @ 40% 10, 12 @ 10% 11, 11 @ 10% 11, 11 @ 10% 11, 12 @ 10% 11, 12 @ 40% 10 11 12 12, 12 @ 10% 12, 12 @ 20% Unmix the mixture Interpret #2: compare Data Genotype 2 10, 10 @ 10% 10, 11 @ 10% 10, 12 @ 10% 11, 11 @ 10% 11, 12 @ 40% 10 11 12 12, 12 @ 20% Compare with 11,12 Prob{match} 40% Match statistic = = = 10 Prob{coincidence} 4% Cybergenetics © 2003-2016 3 Cognitive bias Illogical thinking affects decisions • Anchoring – rely on first information • Apophenia – perceive meaningful patterns • Attribution bias – find causal explanations • Confirmation bias – interpretation confirms belief • Framing – social construction of reality • Halo effect – sentiments affect evaluation • Oversimplification – simplicity trumps accuracy • Self-serving bias – distort to maintain self-esteem Contextual bias Background information affects decisions
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin Personality and Social Psychology
    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin http://psp.sagepub.com Accuracy in Judgments of Aggressiveness David A. Kenny, Tessa V. West, Antonius H. N. Cillessen, John D. Coie, Kenneth A. Dodge, Julie A. Hubbard and David Schwartz Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2007; 33; 1225 originally published online Jun 15, 2007; DOI: 10.1177/0146167207303026 The online version of this article can be found at: http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/9/1225 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. Additional services and information for Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin can be found at: Email Alerts: http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://psp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 34 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/33/9/1225 Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com at UNIV OF DELAWARE LIB on September 13, 2007 © 2007 Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. Accuracy in Judgments of Aggressiveness David A. Kenny Tessa V. West Antonius H. N. Cillessen University of Connecticut John D. Coie Kenneth A. Dodge Duke University Julie A. Hubbard University of Delaware David Schwartz University of Southern California Perceivers are both accurate and biased in their under-
    [Show full text]