IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v61y2015i10p2468-2486.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bias Blind Spot: Structure, Measurement, and Consequences

Author

Listed:
  • Irene Scopelliti

    () (Cass Business School, City University London, London EC1Y 8TZ, United Kingdom)

  • Carey K. Morewedge

    () (Questrom School of Business, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215)

  • Erin McCormick

    () (Dietrich School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213)

  • H. Lauren Min

    () (Leeds School of Business, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309)

  • Sophie Lebrecht

    () (Dietrich School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213)

  • Karim S. Kassam

    () (Dietrich School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213)

Abstract

People exhibit a bias blind spot : they are less likely to detect bias in themselves than in others. We report the development and validation of an instrument to measure individual differences in the propensity to exhibit the bias blind spot that is unidimensional, internally consistent, has high test-retest reliability, and is discriminated from measures of intelligence, decision-making ability, and personality traits related to self-esteem, self-enhancement, and self-presentation. The scale is predictive of the extent to which people judge their abilities to be better than average for easy tasks and worse than average for difficult tasks, ignore the advice of others, and are responsive to an intervention designed to mitigate a different judgmental bias. These results suggest that the bias blind spot is a distinct metabias resulting from naïve realism rather than other forms of egocentric cognition, and has unique effects on judgment and behavior. This paper was accepted by Yuval Rottenstreich, judgment and decision making .

Suggested Citation

  • Irene Scopelliti & Carey K. Morewedge & Erin McCormick & H. Lauren Min & Sophie Lebrecht & Karim S. Kassam, 2015. "Bias Blind Spot: Structure, Measurement, and Consequences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(10), pages 2468-2486, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:61:y:2015:i:10:p:2468-2486
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2096
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klayman, Joshua & Soll, Jack B. & Gonzalez-Vallejo, Claudia & Barlas, Sema, 1999. "Overconfidence: It Depends on How, What, and Whom You Ask, , , , , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 216-247, September.
    2. John Horton & David Rand & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 399-425, September.
    3. Richard P. Larrick & Jack B. Soll, 2006. "Erratum--Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 309-310, February.
    4. John Horn, 1965. "A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 30(2), pages 179-185, June.
    5. Levin, Irwin P. & Gaeth, Gary J. & Schreiber, Judy & Lauriola, Marco, 2002. "A New Look at Framing Effects: Distribution of Effect Sizes, Individual Differences, and Independence of Types of Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 411-429, May.
    6. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    7. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(03), pages 351-368, June.
    8. Bonaccio, Silvia & Dalal, Reeshad S., 2006. "Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 127-151, November.
    9. Larrick, Richard P. & Nisbett, Richard E. & Morgan, James N., 1993. "Who Uses the Cost-Benefit Rules of Choice? Implications for the Normative Status of Microeconomic Theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 331-347, December.
    10. Richard P. Larrick & Jack B. Soll, 2006. "Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 111-127, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maria De Paola & Francesca Gioia & Fabio Piluso, 2017. "Does Reminding Of Behavioural Biases Increase Returns From Financial Trading? A Field Experiment," Working Papers 201705, Università della Calabria, Dipartimento di Economia, Statistica e Finanza "Giovanni Anania" - DESF.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:61:y:2015:i:10:p:2468-2486. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.