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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bargh, J. A. (1992). Does subliminality matter to social psychology? Awareness of the stimulus versus awareness of its influence. In R. Bornstein & T. Pittman (Eds.), Perception without awareness (pp. 236-255). New York: Guilford.
2.
Bless, H. , Strack, F., & Schwarz, N. (1993). The informative functions of research procedures: Bias and the logic of conversation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 149-165.
3.
Brown, D. R. (1953). Stimulus-similarity and the anchoring of subjective scales. American Journal of Psychology, 66, 199-214.
4.
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.
5.
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133-168). New York: Guilford.
6.
Hilton, D. J. (1995). Conversational processes in causal explanation. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 65-81.
7.
Kubovy, M. (1977). Response availability and the apparent spontaneity of numerical choices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 359-364.
8.
Martin, L. L. (1986). Set/reset: Use and disuse of concepts in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 493-504.
9.
Martin, L. L. , & Achee,J. W. (1992). Beyond accessibility: The role of processing objectives in judgment. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 195-216). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
Nisbett, R. E. , & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
11.
Petty, R. E. , & Wegener, D. T. (1993). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: Correcting for context-induced contrast. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 137-165.
12.
Schwarz, N. (1994).Judgment in a social context: Biases, shortcomings, and the logic of conversation. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 123-162). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
13.
Schwarz, N. (1996). Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods and the logic of conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
Schwarz, N. , & Bless, H. (1992). Constructing reality and its alternatives: An inclusion/exclusion model of assimilation and contrast effects in social judgment. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 217-245). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
Schwarz, N. , & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513-523.
16.
Schwarz, N. , Strack, F., & Mai, H. P. (1991). Assimilation and contrast effects in part-whole question sequences: A conversational-logic analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 3-23.
17.
Seta,J.J. , Martin, L. L., & Capehart, G. (1979). The effects of contrast and generalization on the attitude similarity-attraction relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 462-467.
18.
Strack, F. (1992). The different routes to social judgments: Experiential versus informational strategies. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 249-276). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
Strack, F. , & Hannover, B. (1996). Awareness of influence as a precondition for implementing correctional goals. In P. M. Gollwitzer &J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action (pp. 579-596). New York: Guilford.
20.
Strack, F. , Martin, L. L., & Schwarz, N. (1988). Priming and communication: Social determinants of information use in judgments of life satisfaction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 429-442.
21.
Thompson, E. P. , Roman, R.J., Moskowitz, G. B., Chaiken, S., & Bargh, J. A. (1994). Accuracy motivation attenuates covert priming: The systematic reprocessing of social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 474-489.
22.
Wegener, D. T. , & Petty, R. E. (1995). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: The role of naive theories in corrections for perceived bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 36-51.
23.
Wilson, T. D. , & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 117-142.
24.
Yzerbyt, V. Y,Schadron, G. , Leyens, J-P., & Rocher, S. (1994). Social judgability: The impact of meta-informational cues on the use of stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 48-55.
