Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to register today!

Click here to register today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (26)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stapel, D. A.
Right arrow Articles by Schwarz, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Stapel, D. A.
Right arrow Articles by Schwarz, N.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 24, No. 8, 797-806 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167298248002
© 1998 Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

The Smell of Bias: What Instigates Correction Processes in Social Judgments?

Diederik A. Stapel

University of Amsterdam, sp_stapel{at}macmail.psy.uva.nl

Leonard L. Martin

University of Georgia-Athens

Norbert Schwarz

University of Michigan-Ann Arbor

Participants were either informed that contextual influences bias their judgment and asked to correct for the unspecified influence (blatant warning) or they were instructed that they should correct for the unspecified influence if they felt that there may be biasing influences (conditional warning). Whereas blatantly warned participants corrected under all conditions (Study 2), conditionally warned participants corrected their judgments when the source of bias was salient but not when the source was subtle (Studies 1 to 3). Implications for models of theory-driven correction are discussed.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
B. M. Wilkowski and M. D. Robinson
Keeping One's Cool: Trait Anger, Hostile Thoughts, and the Recruitment of Limited Capacity Control
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, September 1, 2007; 33(9): 1201 - 1213.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
G. Weary, D. A. Reich, and S. J. Tobin
The Role of Contextual Constraints and Chronic Expectancies on Behavior Categorizations and Dispositional Inferences
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, January 1, 2001; 27(1): 62 - 75.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol RevHome page
T. E. Ford and E. P. Thompson
Preconscious and Postconscious Processes Underlying Construct Accessibility Effects: An Extended Search Model
Personality and Social Psychology Review, November 1, 2000; 4(4): 317 - 336.
[Abstract] [PDF]