The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Insensitivity to sample bias: Generalizing from atypical cases.
Abstract
Two experiments were conducted to determine whether subjects take into account the representativeness of a sample before generalizing from the sample to a population. Subjects were presented with vivid one-case samples of populations—a welfare recipient in one study and a prison guard in another. Subjects were then asked to rate the population (of welfare recipients or prison guards) on a number of dimensions. Exposure to the sample case influenced attitudes about the population whether subjects were told nothing about the typicality of the case, were told that the case was highly typical of the population, or were told that the case was highly atypical of the population. The results suggest that, at least when information about sample bias is pallid and information about the nature of the sample is vivid, people may make unwarranted generalizations from samples to populations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
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-citationBelief in the law of small numbers.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0031322 · Cited by 3,246
Cited by
Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect
Taylor, S. E., & Thompson, S. C. (1982) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.89.2.155 · Cited by 913
The Role of Ignorance in Intergroup Relations
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1984) · Groups in Contact · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-497780-8.50017-6 · Cited by 309
The Empirical Study of the Persuasive Effects of Evidence The Status After Fifty Years of Research
REINARD, J. C. (1988) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00170.x · Cited by 199
The Least Likely of Times: How Remembering the Past Biases Forecasts of the Future
Morewedge, C. K., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2005) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01585.x · Cited by 184
Self-citationFemale tokens in high-prestige work groups: Catalysts or inhibitors of group diversification?
Duguid, M. (2011) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.05.009 · Cited by 140
Metadata
- Authors
- Hamill, R., Wilson, T. D., & Nisbett, R. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 1980-10
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 578-589
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2074395913
- Cited by
- 305
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 28.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Insensitivity to sample bias: Generalizing from atypical cases. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0022-3514.39.4.578
- The paper
- Hamill, R., Wilson, T. D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1980). Insensitivity to sample bias: Generalizing from atypical cases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.4.578
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
