DOCSLIB.ORG

How Should We Think About Americans' Beliefs About Economic Mobility?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How Should We Think About Americans' Beliefs About Economic Mobility? Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 13, No. 3, May 2018, pp. 297–304 How should we think about Americans’ beliefs about economic mobility? Shai Davidai∗ Thomas Gilovich† Abstract Recent evidence suggests that Americans’ beliefs about upward mobility are overly optimistic. Davidai & Gilovich (2015a), Kraus & Tan (2015), and Kraus (2015) all found that people overestimate the likelihood that a person might rise up the economic ladder, and underestimate the likelihood that they might fail to do so. However, using a different methodology, Chambers, Swan and Heesacker (2015) reported that Americans’ beliefs about mobility are much more pessimistic. Swan, Chambers, Heesacker and Nero (2017) provide a much-needed summary of these conflicting findings and question the utility of measuring population-level biases in judgments of inequality and mobility. We value their summary but argue that their conclusion is premature. By focusing on measures that best tap how laypeople naturally think about the distribution of income, we believe that researchers can draw meaningful conclusions about the public’s perceptions of economic mobility. When more ecologically representative measures are used, the consistent finding is that Americans overestimate the extent of upward mobility in the United States. To explain the divergent findings in the literature, we provide evidence that the methods used by Chambers et al. (2015) inadvertently primed participants to think about immobility rather than mobility. Finally, using a novel method to examine beliefs about economic mobility, we show that Americans indeed overestimate the degree of mobility in the United States. Keywords: social mobility, inequality, political ideology, lay beliefs 1 Introduction are Americans’ beliefs about economic mobility? We have found that Americans appear to have unrealistic ideas about The rise of economic inequality in the United States over the upward mobility in the U.S., believing that people are signif- past four decades (Piketty & Saez, 2014) has been associated icantly more likely to rise up the economic ladder than they with a host of negative consequences at the individual, in- actually are. When we asked a large, nationally representa- terpersonal, and societal levels (Payne, 2017). Nevertheless, tive sample of adults to estimate the future relative standing despite living in one of the Western world’s most econom- of a person born to a family in the poorest 20% of the in- ically unequal countries, the rising gap between the rich come distribution, respondents significantly underestimated and the poor in the United States does not appear to be a the likelihood of remaining there and significantly overesti- major concern for most Americans (Pew Research Center, mated the likelihood of rising to the middle quintile or higher 2012; Gallup, 2016). Bernie Sanders’ failed Democratic (Davidai & Gilovich, 2015a). Shortly after our paper was primary bid notwithstanding, economic inequality played a published, Kraus & Tan (2015) likewise reported that partic- relatively minor role in the campaigns run by the two major ipants systematically overestimate the chances of rising up parties in the most recent U.S. Presidential election, with the the economic ladder (e.g., indicating that an individual has candidates focusing instead on immigration, terrorism, and roughly a one-in-six chance of rising from the bottom to the personal scandal. Why do Americans seem so willing to top quintile of the income distribution when the actual like- accept vast economic inequality? lihood is closer to one-in-twenty). Thus, Americans seem One reason for this apparent tolerance of inequality may to overestimate the degree of upward mobility in the United lie in people’s beliefs about meritocracy and upward mo- States (for a pre-registered replication, see Kraus, 2015). bility (Kluegel & Smith, 1986). Americans may be will- But whereas Davidai & Gilovich (2015a), Kraus and Tan ing to accept large discrepancies between the “haves” and (2015), and Kraus (2015) found that people overestimate the “have-nots” because they believe that people can easily the likelihood of rising up the economic ladder, Chambers, rise up the economic ladder. But can they? How accurate Swan and Heesacker (2015) reported data indicating that Americans underestimate the degree of upward mobility in Copyright: © 2018. The authors license this article under the terms of the United States. In addressing these conflicting findings, the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Swan, Chambers, Heesacker, and Nero (2017) conclude that ∗The New School for Social Research. Email: [email protected]. studying the accuracy of lay beliefs about economic mobility †Cornell University is “the wrong target for judgment and decision making sci- 297 Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 13, No. 3, May 2018 Conceptualizing perceptions of social mobility 298 entists,” who would be better off channeling “future efforts ply that psychologists should give up on the quest to better away from the question of population-level bias.” Although understand people’s beliefs about economic mobility. we sympathize with the desire to move on from a topic that Indeed, given what has been learned in the past half- elicits such diametrically opposed findings, we believe there century from research on judgment and decision making, it is still much to be learned about lay beliefs about inequal- would be surprising if judgments of mobility were not influ- ity and economic mobility. Whether people overestimate enced by subtle differences in research methods, and there or underestimate upward mobility has considerable practical are many such differences in the methods used by Davidai & importance, and resolving the inconsistencies in the results Gilovich (2015a) and Chambers et al., (2015). For example, to date can shed light on basic processes of human judg- whereas Davidai & Gilovich (2015a) asked participants to ment. Thus, rather than attributing the diverging findings to think about an individual’s likelihood of rising up the eco- “methodological fragility” (Swan et al., 2017), we believe it nomic ladder in the future, Chambers et al., (2015) asked is important to examine which methods of assessment best them to consider the frequency of a cohort of individuals capture people’s underlying beliefs about economic mobility. who had experienced mobility/immobility in the past. Given To do so, it is necessary to understand why Chambers et that different mental processes are recruited in judgments of al. (2015) reached such different conclusions from those of probabilities versus frequencies (Kahneman, 2011), it is to Davidai & Gilovich (2015a), Kraus & Tan (2015), and Kraus be expected that people would judge an individual’s likeli- (2015). How can seemingly similar approaches lead to such hood of rising up the economic ladder differently than the divergent conclusions about lay beliefs about mobility? The proportion of people who had experienced such mobility. answer, like the devil, is in the details, and it is the nuanced And given that people put more weight on effort and free effects of these details that we explore here. Like Swan et will when thinking about events in the future than in the al., (2017), we believe that subtle methodological differences past (Helzer & Gilovich, 2012), it is not surprising that they influenced each research group’s findings and, as a conse- would expect more mobility in the future than the past. Fi- quence, the conclusions drawn. However, we argue that the nally, to the extent that the label “lower class” brings to mind different methods of assessment are not equally effective at negative associations that go beyond mere income or wealth, tapping people’s underlying beliefs about economic mobil- it is not surprising that characterizing people at the bottom ity. When researchers use measures that more closely fit with of the income distribution as “lower class” (as Chambers et al., 2015 did) might lead participants to think in terms of how people naturally think about the distribution of income, immobility rather than mobility. It is likely that any sub- a reliable pattern emerges. set of these methodological differences contributed to the conflicting findings highlighted by Swan et al. (2017). But arguably the most consequential difference between 2 How should psychologists think the methods used by Davidai & Gilovich (2015a), Kraus & about economic inequality and mo- Tan (2015), and Kraus (2015), on the one hand, and those used by Chambers et al., (2015), on the other, is how the bility? researchers divided the economic distribution in the United States. Whereas the former researchers asked participants to At the heart of judgment and decision making research is estimate movement up or down an economic ladder with five the insight that judgments can be pushed around by small, rungs (labeled as the richest 20%, the second-richest 20%, seemingly minor features of the prevailing context. People’s the middle 20%, the second-poorest 20%, and the poorest judgments are powerfully influenced by the order of the ques- 20%), Chambers et al. (2015) asked them to estimate mobil- tions asked (Strack, Martin & Schwarz, 1988), the framing ity along three rungs—the lower class, the middle class, and of the prospects presented (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984), the upper class. Although this difference in the depiction of the numerical values of the response scales used (Schwarz, the economic distribution might seem trivial, we believe that Knauper, Hippler, Noelle-Neuman & Clark, 1991), and by it goes a long way toward explaining the conflicting findings whether options are assessed in isolation or in the presence regarding judgments of mobility. Swan et al. (2017) would of other alternatives (Davidai & Shafir, 2018; Hsee, 1996), surely agree. This point, in essence, was one of the main whether respondents are asked to accept or reject different claims in their paper. But, unlike them, we also argue that the alternatives (Shafir, 1993), whether respondents are asked to 5-rung approach better taps how both laypeople and experts opt-in or opt-out of a course of action (Davidai, Gilovich & naturally tend to think about mobility.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Art of Thinking Clearly (577H) Sources.Indd
    THE ART OF THINKING CLEARLY A NOTE ON SOURCES Hundreds of studies have been conducted on the vast majority of cognitive and behav- ioural errors. In a scholarly work, the complete reference section would easily double the pages of this book. I have focused on the most important quotes, technical refer- ences, recommendations for further reading and comments. The knowledge encompassed in this book is based on the research carried out in the fields of cognitive and social psychology over the past three decades. SURVIVORSHIP BIAS Survivorship bias in funds and stock market indices, see: Edwin J. Elton, Martin J. Gruber & Christopher R. Blake, ‘Survivorship Bias and Mutual Fund Performance’, The Review of Financial Studies, volume 9, number 4, 1996, 1097–1120. Statistically relevant results by coincidence (self-selection), see: John P. A. Ioan- nidis, ‘Why Most Published Research Findings Are False’, PLoS Med 2(8), 2005, e124. SWIMMER’S BODY ILLUSION Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable (New York: Random House, 2007), 109–110. ‘Ideally, the comparison should be made between people who went to Harvard and people who were admitted to Harvard but chose instead to go to Podunk State. Unfortunately, this is likely to produce samples too small for statistical analysis.’ Thomas Sowell, Economic Facts and Fallacies (New York: Basic Books, 2008), 106. David Lykken & Auke Tellegen, ‘Happiness Is a Stochastic Phenomenon’, Psycho- logical Science, Vol.7, No. 3, May 1996, 189. In his book Good to Great, Jim Collins cites the CEO of Pitney Bowes, Dave Nassef: ‘I used to be in the Marines, and the Marines get a lot of credit for building people’s values.
    [Show full text]
  • Heuristics and Biases the Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. In
    P1: FYX/FYX P2: FYX/UKS QC: FCH/UKS T1: FCH CB419-Gilovich CB419-Gilovich-FM May 30, 2002 12:3 HEURISTICS AND BIASES The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment Edited by THOMAS GILOVICH Cornell University DALE GRIFFIN Stanford University DANIEL KAHNEMAN Princeton University iii P1: FYX/FYX P2: FYX/UKS QC: FCH/UKS T1: FCH CB419-Gilovich CB419-Gilovich-FM May 30, 2002 12:3 published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom cambridge university press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA 477 Williamstown, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarcon´ 13, 28014, Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org C Cambridge University Press 2002 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2002 Printed in the United States of America Typeface Palatino 9.75/12.5 pt. System LATEX2ε [TB] A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication data Heuristics and biases : the psychology of intuitive judgment / edited by Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, Daniel Kahneman. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-521-79260-6 – ISBN 0-521-79679-2 (pbk.) 1. Judgment. 2. Reasoning (Psychology) 3. Critical thinking. I. Gilovich, Thomas. II. Griffin, Dale III. Kahneman, Daniel, 1934– BF447 .H48 2002 153.4 – dc21 2001037860 ISBN 0 521 79260 6 hardback ISBN 0 521 79679 2 paperback iv P1: FYX/FYX P2: FYX/UKS QC: FCH/UKS T1: FCH CB419-Gilovich CB419-Gilovich-FM May 30, 2002 12:3 Contents List of Contributors page xi Preface xv Introduction – Heuristics and Biases: Then and Now 1 Thomas Gilovich and Dale Griffin PART ONE.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Traffic-Light Labels and Time Pressure on Estimating
    THE EFFECT OF TRAFFIC-LIGHT LABELS AND TIME PRESSURE ON ESTIMATING KILOCALORIES AND CARBON FOOTPRINT OF FOOD Luca A. Panzonea, Falko F Sniehottab, Rob Comberc, Fred Lemked a School of Natural and Environmental Science, Newcastle University (UK); email: [email protected] b Institute for Health and Society, Newcastle University (UK); email: [email protected] c RISE Research Institute (Sweden); email: [email protected] d Vlerick Business School, Ghent University (Belgium). [email protected] Abstract Food consumption decisions require consumers to evaluate the characteristics of products. However, the literature has given limited attention to how consumers determine the impact of food on health (e.g., kilocalories) and on the environment (e.g., carbon footprint). In this exercise, 1,511 consumers categorised 43 food products as healthy/unhealthy and good/bad for the environment, and estimated their kilocalories and carbon footprint, which were known to the investigator. The task was performed either with no stimuli (a control group), under time pressure only, with traffic-light labels only, or both. Results show that traffic-light labels: 1) operate through improvements in knowledge, rather than facilitating information processing under pressure; 2) improve the ability to rank products by both kilocalories and carbon footprint, rather than the ability to use the metric; 3) reduce the threshold used to categorise products as unhealthy/bad for the environment, whilst raising the threshold used to classify products as good for the environment (but not healthy). Notably, traffic-light increase accuracy by reducing the response compression of the metric scale. The benefits of labels are particularly evident for carbon footprint.
    [Show full text]
  • The Spotlight Effect in Social Judgment: an Egocentric Bias in Estimates of the Salience of One's Own Actions and Appearance
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2000 by the Ainerican Psychological Association, Inc. 2000, Vol. 78, No. 2, 211-222 0022-3514100/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.211 The Spotlight Effect in Social Judgment: An Egocentric Bias in Estimates of the Salience of One's Own Actions and Appearance Thomas Gilovich Victoria Husted Medvec Cornell University Northwestern University Kenneth Savitsky Williams College This research provides evidence that people overestimate the extent to which their actions and appearance are noted by others, a phenomenon dubbed the spotlight effect. In Studies 1 and 2, participants who were asked to don a T-shirt depicting either a flattering or potentially embarrassing image overestimated the number of observers who would be able to recall what was pictured on the shirt. In Study 3, participants in a group discussion overestimated how prominent their positive and negative utterances were to their fellow discussants. Studies 4 and 5 provide evidence supporting an anchoring-and-adjustment interpre- tation of the spotlight effect. In particular, people appear to anchor on their own rich phenomenological experience and then adjust--insufficiently--to take into account the perspective of others. The discussion focuses on the manifestations and implications of the spotlight effect across a host of everyday social phenomena. Most of us stand out in our own minds. Whether in the midst of view as extraordinary and memorable go unnoticed or underap- a personal triumph or an embarrassing mishap, we are usually preciated by others. The same is true of the actions we wish to quite focused on what is happening to us, its significance to our disown because they reflect poorly on our ability or character.
    [Show full text]
  • Insights from Psychology: Teaching Behavioral Legal Ethics As a Core Element of Professional Responsibility
    INSIGHTS FROM PSYCHOLOGY: TEACHING BEHAVIORAL LEGAL ETHICS AS A CORE ELEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Tigran W. Eldred* 2016 MICH. ST. L. REV. 757 ABSTRACT The field of behavioral legal ethics—which draws on a large body of empirical research to explore how subtle and often unconscious psychological factors influence ethical decision-making by lawyers—has gained significant attention recently, including by many scholars who have called for a pedagogy that incorporates behavioral lessons into the professional responsibility curriculum. This Article provides one of the first comprehensive accounts of how law teachers can meet this challenge. Based on an approach that employs a variety of experiential techniques to immerse students in the contextual and emotional aspects of legal practice, it provides a detailed model of how to teach legal ethics from a behavioral perspective. Reflections on the approach, including the encouraging response expressed by students to this interdisciplinary method of instruction, are also discussed. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 758 II. TEACHING BEHAVIORAL LEGAL ETHICS ................................ 762 A. Understanding Behavioral Science ................................ 762 B. Teaching Methodology .................................................. 767 * Professor, New England Law | Boston. Special thanks to Lawrence Friedman, K. Babe Howell, Vivien Holmes, Leslie Levin, Catherine Gage O’Grady, Robert Prentice, Jordan Singer, Jean Sternlight, Jennifer Stumpf, Juliet Stumpf, and Molly Wilson for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this Article. Thanks also to the American Bar Association’s 41st National Conference on Professional Responsibility and CUNY Law School’s faculty colloquium, where earlier versions of this Article were presented; and to my excellent research assistants, Justin Amos and Julianna Zitz. 758 Michigan State Law Review 2016 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Illusion of Transparency and the Alleviation of Speech Anxietyq
    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (2003) 618–625 www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp The illusion of transparency and the alleviation of speech anxietyq Kenneth Savitskya,* and Thomas Gilovichb a Department of Psychology, Bronfman Science Center, Williams College, Williamstown, MA 01267, USA b Department of Psychology, Uris Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA Received 1 July 2002; revised 25 March 2003 Abstract Individuals often believe their internal states are more apparent to others than is actually the case, a phenomenon known as the illusion of transparency. In the domain of public speaking, for example, individuals who are nervous about delivering a public speech believe their nervousness is more apparent to their audience than it actually is, a finding we document in Study 1. We contend that the illusion of transparency can play a role in the self-exacerbating nature of speech anxiety, and show in Study 2 that an awareness of the illusion can improve the quality of a speakerÕs performance, from both the speakerÕs own perspective and in the eyes of observers. Discussion focuses on the application of these findings to the treatment of speech anxiety and other forms of social anxiety. Ó 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. I turn pale at the outset of a speech and quake in every limb and McFarland, 1987, 1991; Vorauer & Ross, 1999). This in all my soul. illusion derives from the difficulty people have in getting Cicero, De Oratore beyond their own phenomenological experience when Individuals often wish to conceal their internal states. attempting to determine how they appear to others.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessments of Bias 1 the Bias Blind Spot and Its Implications Lee Ross
    Assessments of Bias 1 The Bias Blind Spot and its Implications Lee Ross Department of Psychology Stanford University Joyce Ehrlinger Department of Psychology Florida State University Thomas Gilovich Department of Psychology Cornell University To appear in Contemporary Organizational Behavior in Action. Elsbach, K.D. & Kayes, A.B. (Eds.), Pearson Prentice Hall. Assessments of Bias 2 Everyday events often prompt us to assess the objectivity of opinions and judgments— our own, those of our friends and colleagues, and those of jurists, political leaders, and advocates for interest groups. Was our decision to promote a favored employee tainted by a desire to nurture a friendship or was it the result of an even-handed evaluation of her qualifications? Was the television pundit’s bleak assessment of national healthcare influenced by the political leanings of the network’s owners or was it a fair evaluation of the proposals on the table? Was a presidential decision to go to war a reflection of cool-headed assessments of national interest or the result of ideological blindness, unwarranted optimism, or personal anger? Indeed, are our assessments of whether our own or others’ judgments are biased themselves the product of our personal biases? A wealth of evidence suggests that people’s judgments are subject to a number of cognitive and motivational biases1. Individuals consistently rate themselves above average across a variety of domains2, take credit for their successes but explain away their failures3, and detect more support for deeply held beliefs than is objectively warranted4. Furthermore, people suffer from a “bias blind spot,” or the conviction that their own judgments are less susceptible to bias than the judgments of others5.
    [Show full text]
  • AMIT KUMAR 2110 Speedway, B6700, Austin, Texas, 78712 [email protected] | (973) 722-2510 Current Position
    AMIT KUMAR 2110 Speedway, B6700, Austin, Texas, 78712 [email protected] | (973) 722-2510 http://www.kumar-amit.com Current Position 2018- THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, AUSTIN, TX Assistant Professor of Marketing and Psychology Education 2010-2015 CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NY Ph.D. in SociaL and PersonaLity Psychology Dissertation: “From Looking Backward to Looking Forward: On Consuming the Anticipation of ExperientiaL and MateriaL Purchases” Committee Chair: Tom GiLovicH Committee Members: MeLissa Ferguson and Dave Dunning 2004-2008 HARVARD UNIVERSITY, CAMBRIDGE, MA A.B. Magna Cum Laude with Highest Honors in Psychology (Secondary FieLd: Economics) Honors Thesis: “The Impact of Outcome VaLence on Perceived Duration” Advisor: Dan GiLbert Reader: Max Bazerman Honors and Awards 2017 University of Chicago Center for Decision Research Independent Research Grant ($3000) 2016 Society for ExperimentaL SociaL Psychology Dissertation Award FinaList 2011-2015 NationaL Science Foundation Pre-DoctoraL FeLLow ($96,000 + tuition supplement) 2014 CorneLL University TraveL Grant ($675) 2014 CorneLL University John S. Knight FeLLowship ($11,735) 2014 Judgment and Decision-Making SPSP Pre-Conference TraveL Award ($200) 2014 CorneLL University TraveL Grant ($440) 2013 FeLLow, Summer Institute in SociaL and PersonaLity Psychology 2013 Summer Institute in SociaL and PersonaLity Psychology TraveL Award ($300) 2013 Society for PersonaLity and SociaL Psychology Graduate Student TraveL Award ($500) 2013 Judgment and Decision-Making SPSP Pre-Conference
    [Show full text]
  • The Dark Side of Self- and Social Perception: Black Uniforms and Aggression in Professional Sports
    Journal of Pereonality and Social Psychology Copyrighl 1988 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 1988, Vol. 54, No. 1,74-85 0022-3514/88/$00.75 The Dark Side of Self- and Social Perception: Black Uniforms and Aggression in Professional Sports Mark G. Frank and Thomas Gilovich Cornell University Black is viewed as the color of evil and death in virtually all cultures. With this association in mind, we were interested in whether a cue as subtle as the color of a person's clothing might have a signifi- cant impact on his or her behavior. To test this possibility, we examined whether professional football and ice hockey teams that wear black uniforms are more aggressive than those that wear nonblack uniforms. An analysis of the penalty records of the National Football League and the National Hockey League indicate that teams with black uniforms in both sports ranked near the top of their leagues in penalties throughout the period of study. On those occasions when a team switched from nonblack to black uniforms, the switch was accompanied by an immediate increase in penalties. The results of two laboratory experiments indicate that this finding can be attributed to both social perception and self-perception processes—that is, to the biased judgments of referees and to the increased aggressiveness of the players themselves. Our discussion focuses on the theoretical implica- tions of these data for an understanding of the variable, or "situated," nature of the self. A convenient feature of the traditional American Western over, this association between black and evil is not strictly an film was the ease with which the viewer could distinguish the American or Western phenomenon, because college students in good guys from the bad guys: The bad guys wore the black hats.
    [Show full text]
  • When Effortful Thinking Influences Judgmental Anchoring
    Journal of Behavioral Decision Making J. Behav. Dec. Making, 18: 199–212 (2005) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/bdm.495 When Effortful Thinking Influences Judgmental Anchoring: Differential Effects of Forewarning and Incentives on Self-generated and Externally Provided Anchors NICHOLAS EPLEY1* and THOMAS GILOVICH2 1University of Chicago, USA 2Cornell University,USA ABSTRACT Two experiments examined the impact of financial incentives and forewarnings on judgmental anchoring effects, or the tendency for judgments of uncertain qualities to be biased in the direction of salient anchor values. Previous research has found no effect of either manipulation on the magnitude of anchoring effects. We argue, however, that anchoring effects are produced by multiple mechanisms—one involving an effortful process of adjustment from ‘‘self-generated’’ anchors, and another involving the biased recruitment of anchor-consistent information from ‘‘externally provided’’ anchors— and that only the former should be influenced by incentives and forewarning. Two stu- dies confirmed these predictions, showing that responses to ‘‘self-generated’’ anchors are influenced by both incentives and forewarnings whereas responses to ‘‘externally provided’’ anchors are not. Discussion focuses on the implications of these effects for debiasing efforts. Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. key words anchoring; bias; incentives; effortful thought INTRODUCTION The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing when it is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors. (J. S. Mill, 1859/1975, On liberty, p. 105) Although one may argue with Mill’s figure, it is hard to argue with his conclusion. Everyday life confronts us with a wide range of complicated problems, and at least some of the errors in thinking about these * Correspondence to: Nicholas Epley, University of Chicago, Graduate School of Business, 5807 South Woodlawn Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Heuristics and Biases at the Bargaining Table Russell Korobkin
    Marquette Law Review Volume 87 Article 17 Issue 4 Special Issue Heuristics: Heuristics and Biases at the Bargaining Table Russell Korobkin Chris Guthrie Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Russell Korobkin and Chris Guthrie, Heuristics: Heuristics and Biases at the Bargaining Table, 87 Marq. L. Rev. (2004). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol87/iss4/17 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HEURISTICS AND BIASES AT THE BARGAINING TABLE RUSSELL KOROBKIN* & CHRIS GUTHRIE** I. INTRODUCTION Negotiation is an inherently interpersonal activity that nonetheless requires each participant to make individualjudgments and decisions. Each negotiator must evaluate a proposed agreement, assess its value and the value of alternative courses of action-such as continuing to negotiate or pursuing an alternative transaction-and ultimately choose whether to accept or reject the proposal. The interdisciplinary field of "decision theory" offers both a normative account (how should individuals act) and descriptive accounts (how do individuals act) of decision making in the negotiation context. According to the normative model, negotiators should compare the subjective expected value of an agreement to the subjective expected value of non-agreement, taking into account such factors as risks, differential transaction costs, and reputational and relational consequences of each possible course of action.' Once a negotiator has calculated the expected value of each course of action,2 the negotiator should then select the one that promises the greatest return.
    [Show full text]
  • Perception and Misperception of Bias in Human Judgment
    Review TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.11 No.1 Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment Emily Pronin Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Green Hall, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA Human judgment and decision making is distorted by an outcomes and to disregard evidence that threatens their array of cognitive, perceptual and motivational biases. self-esteem. Recent evidence suggests that people tend to recognize Despite the well-documented role of self-enhancement (and even overestimate) the operation of bias in human (or ego-protective) bias in human judgment, people rarely judgment – except when that bias is their own. Aside recognize their susceptibility to it. Although they rate from the general motive to self-enhance, two primary themselves as ‘better than average’ on a wide range of sources of this ‘bias blind spot’ have been identified. traits and abilities, most people also claim that their overly One involves people’s heavy weighting of introspective positive self-views are objectively true [10,11]. Moreover, evidence when assessing their own bias, despite the their unwarranted claims of objectivity persist even when tendency for bias to occur nonconsciously. The other they are informed about the prevalence of the bias and involves people’s conviction that their perceptions invited to acknowledge its influence [11]. In another exam- directly reflect reality, and that those who see things ple, people are biased to make themselves feel better after differently are therefore biased. People’s tendency to negative things happen to them (from heartbreaks to job deny their own bias, even while recognizing bias in rejections) but they are unaware of this ego-protective bias.
    [Show full text]