Cited by 1,550Social and Intergroup PsychologyCategorization, perception, and languageDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations.

Skowronski, John J., Carlston, Donal E.·1989·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

Mise au point sur les explications de certains biais lies aux recherches sur la formation des impressions, et presentation d'un modele fonde sur des indices de categorisation du stimulus pour rendre compte de tels biais

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131

Cites

97 of 97 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 98 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University Newark (US)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
1989
Volume
105
Issue
1
Pages
131-142
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W1981706854
Cited by
1,550
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 73 · 2020: 90 · 2019: 84 · 2018: 64 · 2017: 72 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 58 · 2014: 68 · 2013: 70 · 2012: 51
FWCI
48.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
negativity bias, impression formation, stimulus classification, social perception

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