The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Bias blind spot has been theorized to be a result of the three possible sources: introspection illusion, naïve realism, and self-enhancement motives (Pronin & Kugler, 2007).”
From Agency and self-other asymmetries in perceived bias and shortcomings: Replications of the Bias Blind Spot and link to free will beliefs (2021) · cites this paper as Pronin & Kugler, 2007
In the citing paper
“Bias blind spots have been attributed to two complementary mechanisms (Pronin, 2007, 2008; Pronin et al., 2004): (a) people’s belief that they objectively perceive reality (i.e., naïve realism; Griffin & Ross, 1991; Ross & Ward, 1996) and (b) self-other asymmetries in the value1 given to introspective evidence (Pronin & Kugler, 2007).”
From Everyone I Don’t Like Is Biased: Affective Evaluations and the Bias Blind Spot (2026) · cites this paper as Pronin, 2007
In the citing paper
“Self-other asymmetries regarding the value given to introspective evidence support the perception of an objective self in a world of biased others.”
From Everyone I Don’t Like Is Biased: Affective Evaluations and the Bias Blind Spot (2026) · cites this paper as Pronin & Kugler, 2007
In the citing paper
“But people actually lack access to their own associative machinery 18,19 , and rely on heuristics to understand the decision-making of other people 20 .”
From Understanding, explaining, and utilizing medical artificial intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as [20]
Citations
Cites
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
The Handbook of Social Psychology
Gravatt, A. E., Lindzey, G. E., & Aronson, F. (1969) · The Family Coordinator · doi:10.2307/582242 · Cited by 12,518
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317 · cited 3×
“People often fail to recognize that while they do have access to their mental contents, they do not have access to the mental processes that underlie those contents and therefore to whether those processes involve bias (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977a).”
BackgroundHuman Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment.
Cherniak, C., Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. D. (1983) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2184495 · Cited by 4,196
Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior
JONES, E. E. (1987) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,760
Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment
Bottom, W. P., Gilovich, T. D., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. J. (2004) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/20159081 · Cited by 3,583
Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility.
Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0025589 · Cited by 3,083 · cited 1×
“These included the eVects of nonconscious cues on bystander intervention ( Darley & Latane, 1968; Darley, Teger, & Lewis, 1973), interpersonal rudeness (Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996), achievement at a verbal task (Bargh, Gollwitzer, Lee-Chai, Barndollar, & Troetschel, 2001), cooperation vs. competition in a prisoner’s…”
BackgroundMiller, G. A., & Cantor, N. E. (1982) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.1982.1.1.83 · Cited by 2,862
Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230 · Cited by 2,736
Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment.
Connolly, T., Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. D. (1981) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392481 · Cited by 2,690
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The preregistration revolution
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114 · Cited by 1,998
Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions.
Lai, C. K., Marini, M., Lehr, S. A., Cerruti, C., Shin, J.-E. L., Joy-Gaba, J. A., Ho, A. K., Teachman, B. A., Wojcik, S. P., Koleva, S. P., et al. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/a0036260 · Cited by 719
“Intervention 9: The phenomenon known as the " bias blind spot " (Pronin & Kugler, 2007) reflects people's beliefs that they are objective and impartial and are immune to biased judgments.”
The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections
Epstein, R., & Robertson, R. E. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1419828112 · Cited by 640
“Invisible sources of influence can be harder to defend against (67–69), and for people who are impressionable, invisible sources of influence not only persuade, they also leave people feeling that they made up their own minds— that no external force was applied (70, 71).”
BackgroundPerception and misperception of bias in human judgment
Pronin, E. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.001 · Cited by 433
Self-citationDoing Unto Future Selves As You Would Do Unto Others: Psychological Distance and Decision Making
Pronin, E., Olivola, C. Y., & Kennedy, K. A. (2008) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167207310023 · Cited by 380
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Pronin, E., & Kugler, M. B.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Pronin, Emily
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-07
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 565-578
- ISSN
- 0022-1031 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2124744634
- Cited by
- 366
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 18.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Keywords
- bias blind spot, behavioral data, unconscious processes, metacognition
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
