CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 502Social and Intergroup PsychologyDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The psychology of being "right": The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition.

Kruglanski, Arie W.·1989·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.106.3.395
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Several difficulties are noted with general questions psychologists have been asking about human accuracy, such as whether people are typically accurate or inaccurate, what the boundary conditions for accuracy are, or the general process whereby accuracy may be improved. Instead, a situationally specific approach to accuracy is adopted in which a central role is assigned to the judgmental process. Accordingly, two general paradigms are distinguished addressing accuracy from realistic and phenomenal perspectives. The realist paradigm focuses on subjects' judgments and the degree to which these correspond to an external criterion. The phenomenal paradigm focuses on subjects' internal criterion as well as their perceptions of the target judgment and the judgment-to-criterion correspondence. Research possibilities in each paradigm are noted. It is suggested that attention to judgmental factors may extend accuracy work in previously unexplored directions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.106.3.395

Cites

6 of 6 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.

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?

  • Because labeling conventions for what should be considered a weak, moderate, or strong bias are entirely arbitrary, interpretations of surprise reactions as evidence for unawareness are based on a questionable normative premise.

    “Because labeling conventions for what should be considered a weak, moderate, or strong bias are entirely arbitrary, in the sense that there is no objective ba- sis to treat one metric as correct and another one as incorrect (Kruglanski 1989), interpretations of surprise reactions as evidence for unawareness are based on a questionable normative premise (Gawronski et al. 2022a).”

    From Unawareness of Attitudes, Their Environmental Causes, and Their Behavioral Effects (2025) · cites this paper as Kruglanski 1989

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kruglanski, A. W.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, College Park (US)
Corresponding author
Kruglanski, Arie W.
ORCID
Kruglanski, Arie W.
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1989-11
Volume
106
Issue
3
Pages
395-409
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/0033-2909.106.3.395
OpenAlex
W2079002577
Cited by
502
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 8
FWCI
33.30
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 › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
accuracy, social perception, social cognition, realism

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