The DOI matches its Crossref record; 168 of the 171 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations.
Abstract
We define mental contamination as the process whereby a person has an unwanted response because of mental processing that is unconscious or uncontrollable. This type of bias is distinguishable from the failure to know or apply normative rules of inference and can be further divided into the unwanted consequences of automatic processing and source confusion, which is the confusion of 2 or more causes of a response. Mental contamination is difficult to avoid because it results from both fundamental properties of human cognition (e.g., a lack of awareness of mental processes) and faulty lay beliefs about the mind (e.g., incorrect theories about mental biases). People's lay beliefs determine the steps they take (or fail to take) to correct their judgments and thus are an important but neglected source of biased responses. Strategies for avoiding contamination, such as controlling one's exposure to biasing information, are discussed.
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
“the extent to which people have introspective access to psychological processes has been disputed”
From Unawareness of Attitudes, Their Environmental Causes, and Their Behavioral Effects (2025) · cites this paper as Wilson & Brekke 1994
In the citing paper
“The cognitive processes that engender psychological biases are thought to be nonconscious and, as such, inaccessible to introspection (Wilson & Brekke, 1994; Wilson et al., 2002).”
From Everyone I Don’t Like Is Biased: Affective Evaluations and the Bias Blind Spot (2026) · cites this paper as Wilson & Brekke, 1994
In the citing paper
“Given that the cognitive processes that produce many psychological biases are inaccessible to introspection (Wilson & Brekke, 1994; Wilson et al., 2002)”
From Everyone I Don’t Like Is Biased: Affective Evaluations and the Bias Blind Spot (2026) · cites this paper as Wilson & Brekke, 1994
Citations
Cites
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Armstrong, J. S., & Georgoff, D. M. (1988) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/0169-2070(88)90019-2 · Cited by 18,339
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Morvan, C., & O’Connor, A. (2017) · Macat Library eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781912282432 · Cited by 18,284
(1954) · Cited by 15,935
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
Self-citationMetacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry
Flavell, J. H. (1979) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906 · Cited by 11,282
Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect.
Higgins, E. T. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.3.319 · Cited by 7,219
Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state.
Schachter, S., & Singer, J. (1962) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0046234 · Cited by 6,223
Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components
Devine, P. G. (1989) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5 · Cited by 5,673
Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.
Shafer, G. R., Kahnerman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1984) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288362 · Cited by 5,658
Flagged first, then by citations
3 of the 171 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00003435 · Cited by 4,481
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
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920
“Warnings seem to be more effective when they are administered before the misinformation is encoded rather than after (Chambers & Zaragoza, 2001; Ecker et al., 2010; Schul, 1993).”
Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043 · Cited by 2,913
Ironic processes of mental control.
Wegner, D. M. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.101.1.34 · Cited by 2,609
Metadata
- Authors
- Wilson, T. D., & Brekke, N.
- Affiliations
- University of Virginia (US)
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 1994
- Volume
- 116
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 117-142
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2035370986
- Semantic Scholar
- 713d6a95d5409a9a7ffcd4ae4337078e4851ccf4
- Cited by
- 1,157
- References
- 171
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 45
- FWCI
- 12.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r01mh041841-10)
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH41841)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Keywords
- mental contamination, judgment bias, automatic processing, source confusion, unconscious processes, metacognition
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Humans, Judgment, Mental Processes
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
