Age differences in the correspondence bias: When a plausible explanation matters

Journals of Gerontology - Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences

Volumn 60, Issue 5, 2005, Pages

  Blanchard Fields, Fredda ^a   Horhota, Michelle ^a  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; WRITING;

EID: 24144485452     PISSN: 10795014     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/geronb/60.5.P259     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Blanchard-Fields, F. (1994). Age differences in causal attributions from an adult developmental perspective. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 49, P43-P51.
2. Blanchard-Fields, F. (1996). Causal attributions across the adult life span: The influence of social schemas, life context and domain specificity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 137-146.
3. Blanchard-Fields, F., & Beatty, C. (2005). Age differences in blame attributions: The role of relationship outcome ambiguity and personal identification. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 60B, P19-P26.
4. Blanchard-Fields, F., Chen, Y., Schocke, M., & Hertzog, C. (1998). Evidence for content-specificity of causal attributions across the adult life span. Aging. Neuropsychology & Cognition, 5, 241-263.
5. Blanchard-Fields, F., & Hertzog, C. (2000). Age differences in schematicity. In U. von Hecker, S. Dutke, & G. Sedak (Eds.). Generative mental processes and cognitive resources: Integrative research on adaption and control (pp. 175-198). Dordrecht. The Netherlands: Kluwer.
6. Blanchurd-Fields, F., & Hertzog, C. (2005). Violate my beliefs?-Then you're to blame! Belief content as an explanation for causal attribution biases. Manuscript submitted for publication.
7. Chen, Y., & Blanchard-Fields, F. (1997). Age differences in stages of attributional processing. Psychology and Aging. 12, 694-703.
8. Chen, Y., & Blanchard-Fields, F. (2000). Unwanted thought: Age differences in the correction of social judgments. Psychology and Aging, 15, 475-482.
9. Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). Situational salience and cultural differences in the correspondence bias and actor-observer bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 24, 949-960.
10. Devine, P. G. (1989). Overattribution effect: The role of confidence and attributional complexity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 149-158.
11. Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H.. & Derman, D. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton. NJ: Educational Testing Services.
12. Fein, S. (1996). Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1164-1184.
13. Fein, S. (2001). Beyond the fundamental attribution era? Psychological Inquiry, 12, 16-21.
14. Fein, S., Hilton, J. L., & Miller, D. T. (1990). Suspicion of ulterior motivation and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 753-764.
15. Follett, K. J. & Hess, T. M. (2002). Aging, cognitive complexity, and the fundamental attribution error. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 57B, P312-P323.
16. Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21-38.
17. Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 733-740.
18. Hess, T. M., & Auman, C. (2001). Aging and social expertise: The impact of trait-diagnostic information on impressions of others. Psychology and Aging, 16, 497-510.
19. Hess, T. M., McGee, K. A., Woodburn, S. M., & Bolstad, C. A. (1998). Age-related priming effects in social judgments. Psychology and Aging, 13, 127-137.
20. Hess, T. M., Rosenberg, D. C., & Waters, S. J. (2001). Motivation and representational processes in adulthood: The effects of social accountability and information relevance. Psychology and Aging, 16, 629-642.
21. Isaacowitz, D. M., Charles, S. T., & Carstensen, L. L. (2000). Emotion and cognition. In F. I. M. Craik & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (2nd ed., pp. 593-631). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Jacoby, L. L. (1999). Deceiving the elderly: Effects of accessibility bias in cued-recall performance. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 16, 417-436.
23. Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attributions of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1-24.
24. Krull, D. S., Loy, M., Lin, J., Wang, C., Chen, S., & Zhao, X. (1999). The fundamental attribution error: Correspondence bias in individualist and collectivist cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1208-1219.
25. Malle, B. F. (1999). How people explain behavior: A new theoretical framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 23-48.
26. Mather, M., Johnson, M. K., & De Leonardis, D. M. (1999). Stereotype reliance in source monitoring: Age differences and neuropsychological test correlates. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 16, 437-458.
27. O'Laughlin, M. J., & Malle, B. F. (2002). How people explain actions performed by groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 33-48.
28. Reeder, G. D., Vonk, R., Ronk, M. J., Ham, J., & Lawrence, M. (2004). Dispositional attribution: Multiple inferences about motive-related trails. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 530-544.
29. Salthouse, T. A. (1991). Theoretical perspectives on cognitive aging. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Trope, Y., & Gaunt, R. (2000). Processing alternative explanations of behavior: Correction or integration? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 344-354.