Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:10:44.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Context, as well as inputs, shape decisions, but are people aware of it?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2014

Erik G. Helzer  and
David Dunning
Erik G. Helzer
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109. helzereg@wfu.edu
David Dunning
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853. dad6@cornell.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Even if people are experts at understanding how various input cues landed them at a particular decision (something the authors refer to as cue utilization), they may still fail to appreciate how context influences the weight given to those input variables. We review evidence suggesting that people are unaware of contextual influences on their decisions.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 30 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balcetis, E. & Dunning, D. (2013) Considering the situation: Why people are better social psychologists than self-psychologists. Self and Identity 12:1–15.Google Scholar
Davidson, W. P. (1983) The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly 47:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, K. M. & Sutton, R. M. (2008) The hidden impact of conspiracy theories: Perceived and actual influence of theories surrounding the death of Princess Diana. Journal of Social Psychology 148:210–21.Google Scholar
Douglas, K. M. & Sutton, R. M. (2010) Right about others, wrong about ourselves? Actual and perceived self-other differences in resistance to persuasion. British Journal of Social Psychology 43:585–03.Google Scholar
Epley, N. & Dunning, D. (2000) Feeling “holier than thou”: Are self-serving assessments produced by errors in self- or social prediction? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79:861–75.Google Scholar
Harries, C., Evans, J. St. B. T. & Dennis, I. (2000) Measuring doctors' self-insight into their treatment decisions. Applied Cognitive Psychology 14:455–77.3.0.CO;2-V>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helzer, E. G. & Dunning, D. (2013) Understanding agency in self and other: A meta-cognitive perspective. Unpublished manuscript. Wake Forest University.Google Scholar
Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. & Griskevicius, V. (2008) Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34:913–23.Google Scholar
Perloff, R. M. (1993) Third-person effect research 1983–1992: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 5:167–94.Google Scholar
Perloff, R. M. (1999) The third-person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology 1:353–78.Google Scholar
Pronin, E., Berger, J. & Molouki, S. (2007) Alone in a crowd of sheep: Asymmetric perceptions of conformity and their roots in an introspective illusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92:585–95.Google Scholar
Van Boven, L., Loewenstein, G., Dunning, D. & Nordgren, L. (2013) Changing places: Empathy gaps in emotional perspective taking. In Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 48, ed. Olson, J. & Zanna, M. P., pp. 117–71. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Van Boven, L., Loewenstein, G., Welch, E. & Dunning, D. (2012) The illusion of courage in self-predictions: Mispredicting one's own behavior in embarrassing situations. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 25:1–12.Google Scholar