This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cotton, J. L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Cotton, J. L. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Verbal Reports on Mental Processes

Ignoring Data for the Sake of the Theory?

Iowa State University

Nisbett and Wilson (1977) proposed that subjects are often unaware of important stimuli, cognitive processes, and responses, and that verbal reports concerning these are often incorrect. Following this hypothesis, the experimenter may assume that when the subjects disagree with the experimenter and his or her hypothesis, the subjects must be unaware of the process involved and are wrong. One problem with Nisbett and Wilson's hypothesis, then, is that valuable verbal reports may be abandoned when they conflict with established theories. Using the misattribution of arousal paradigm, an example of how this can happen is outlined. A warning against too free use of Nisbett and Wilson's hypothesis is given.

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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. Chalmers and J. A. Lawrence Investigating the Effects of Planning Aids on Adults' and Adolescents' Organisation of a Complex Task International Journal of Behavioral Development, June 1, 1993; 16(2): 191 - 214. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. L. S. T. Hoshmand Alternate Research Paradigms: A Review and Teaching Proposal The Counseling Psychologist, January 1, 1989; 17(1): 3 - 79. [Abstract]