Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Volumn 87, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 327-339

  Epley, Nicholas ^a,e   Keysar, Boaz ^b   Van Boven, Leaf ^c   Gilovich, Thomas ^d  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^d Department of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences   (United States)

^e HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; COOPERATION; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

ADAPTATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; ATTITUDE; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 4344589131     PISSN: 00223514     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.327     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Ames, D. R. (in press). Inside the mind-reader's toolkit: Projection and stereotyping in mental state inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
2. Baldwin, A. K., & Keysar, B. (1998, May). Perspective taking and attentional resources. Paper presented at the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC.
3. Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Slingsby, J. K., Harrell, K. L., Peekna, H. M., & Todd, R. M. (1991). Empathic joy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 413-426.
4. Brinol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2003). Overt head movements and persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1123-1139.
5. Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (2002). Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of Intuitive judgment (pp. 120-138). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
6. Davis, H. L., Hoch, S. J., & Ragsdale, E. E. (1986). An anchoring and adjustment model of spousal predictions. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 25-37.
7. Epley, N. (2004). A tale of tuned decks? Anchoring as accessibility and anchoring as adjustment. In D. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 240-257). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
8. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12, 391-396.
9. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2004a). Are adjustments insufficient? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 447-460.
10. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2004b). Why adjustments are insufficient and how to fix them. Manuscript submitted for publication.
11. Epley, N., Morewedge, C., & Keysar, B. (in press). Perspective taking in children and adults: Equivalent egocentrism but differential correction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
12. Epley, N., Savitsky, K., & Gilovich, T. (2002). Empathy neglect: Reconciling the spotlight effect and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 300-312.
13. Forster, J., & Strack, F. (1996). Influence of overt head movements on memory for valenced words: A case of conceptual-motor compatibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 421-430.
14. Forster, J., & Strack, F. (1997). Motor actions in retrieval of valenced information: A motor congruence effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 1419-1427.
15. Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 708-724.
16. Gilbert, D. T. (1989). Thinking lightly about others: Automatic components of the social inference process. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 189-211). New York: Guilford Press.
17. Gilbert, D. T. (2002). Inferential correction. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 167-184). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
18. Gilbert, D. T., & Gill, M. J. (2000). The momentary realist. Psychological Science, 11, 394-398.
19. Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21-38.
20. Gilovich, T., Medvec, V. H., & Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one's own actions and appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 211-222.
21. Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., & Medvec, V. H. (1998). The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of others' ability to read our emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 332-346.
22. Goldman, A. I. (1992). In defense of the simulation theory. Mind & Language, 7, 104-119.
23. Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (1992). Why the child's theory of mind really is a theory. Mind & Language, 7, 145-171.
24. Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (1994). The theory theory. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 257-293). New York: Cambridge University Press.
25. Gordon, R. M. (1992). The simulation theory: Objections and misconceptions, Mind and Language, 7, 11-34.
26. Karniol, R. (2003). Egocentrism versus protocentrism: The status of self in social prediction. Psychological Review, 110, 564-580.
27. Keysar, B. (1994). The illusory transparency of intention: Linguistic perspective taking in text. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 165-208.
28. Keysar, B. (1998). Language users as problem solvers: Just what ambiguity problem do they solve? In S. R. Fussell & R. J. Kreuz (Eds.), Social and cognitive psychological approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 175-200). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Keysar, B., & Barr, D. J. (2002). Self-anchoring in conversation: Why language users don't do what they "should." In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 150-166). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
30. Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., Balin, J. A., & Brauner, J. S. (2000). Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Science, 11, 32-39.
31. Krueger, J., & Clement, R. W. (1994). The truly false consensus effect: An ineradicable and egocentric bias in social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 596-610.
32. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2001). "Considering the impossible": Explaining the effects of implausible anchors. Social Cognition, 19, 145-160.
33. Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know - and sometimes misjudge - what others know: Imputing one's own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 737-759.
34. Piaget, J. (1959). Judgment and reasoning in the child. Paterson, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, & Co.
35. Pronin, E., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. (in press). Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: Divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psychological Review.
36. Quattrone, G. A. (1982). Overattribution and unit formation: When behavior engulfs the person. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 593-607.
37. Queen, (1991). Another one bites the dust. On The Game [CD]. Hollywood, CA: Hollywood records. (Original release 1980)
38. Robinson, R. J., & Keltner, D. (1996). Much ado about nothing? Revisionists and traditionalists choose an introductory English syllabus. Psychological Science, 7, 18-24.
39. Robinson, R. J., Keltner, D., Ward, A., & Ross, L. (1995). Actual versus assumed differences in construal: "Naive realism" in intergroup perception and conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 404-417.
40. Rock, I., & Nijhawan, R. (1989). Regression to egocentrically determined description of form under conditions of inattention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 259-272.
41. Ross, L., & Ward, A. (1996). Naive realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In T. Brown, E. Reed, & E. Turiel (Eds.), Values and knowledge (pp. 103-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. Trope, Y., & Gaunt, R. (2000). Processing alternative explanations of behavior: Correction or integration? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 344-354.
43. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1130.
44. Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (1994). Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychological Review, 101, 547-567.
45. Van Boven, L., Dunning, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2000). Egocentric empathy gaps between owners and buyers: Misperceptions of the endowment effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 66-76.
46. Vokey, J. R., & Read, J. D. (1985). Subliminal messages: Between the devil and the media. American Psychologist, 40, 1231-1239.
47. Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: The role of naïve theories in corrections for perceived bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 36-51.
48. Weingartner, K. M., & Klin, C. M. (2001, November). Readers' use of privileged information in estimating a character's knowledge. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Orlando, FL.
49. Wells, G. L., & Petty, R. E. (1980). The effects of overt head movements on persuasion: Compatibility and incompatibility of responses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 219-230.
50. Wilson, T. D., Houston, C., Etling, K. M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 4, 387-402.
51. Wright, W. F., & Anderson, U. (1989). Effects of situation familiarity and incentives on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic for probability assessment, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 68-82.