Inhaltszusammenfassung

In 3 studies, the authors examined the impact of judgeability concerns in the overattribution bias (OAB; G. A. Quattrone, 1982) by manipulating the presence-absence of a constrained essay, the participants' accountability, and the applicability of the available information. A constrained essay was neither necessary nor sufficient to anchor a judgment. When no essay was circulated, no OAB occurred in the cases of accountability or of inapplicability (Studies 1 and 2). When the essay was provid...In 3 studies, the authors examined the impact of judgeability concerns in the overattribution bias (OAB; G. A. Quattrone, 1982) by manipulating the presence-absence of a constrained essay, the participants' accountability, and the applicability of the available information. A constrained essay was neither necessary nor sufficient to anchor a judgment. When no essay was circulated, no OAB occurred in the cases of accountability or of inapplicability (Studies 1 and 2). When the essay was provided, however, both accountability and inapplicability were needed to eliminate the OAB (Studies 2 and 3). These findings did not result from conversational rules or demand characteristics. They illustrate that people control the expression of a judgment made under uncertainty; people express the judgment to the extent they feel entitled to do so. The results are discussed in the wider context of current multistage models of the dispositional inference process. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)» weiterlesen» einklappen

Autoren

Klassifikation

DFG Fachgebiet:
Psychologie

DDC Sachgruppe:
Psychologie