Cited by 33Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyConflict Management and Negotiation

The adversarial mindset

Open access
Simon, Dan, Ahn, Minwoo, Stenstrom, Douglas M., Read, Stephen J.·2020·Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Abstract

Many social outcomes are reached by means of competitions between opposing actors. While the positive effects of competition are beyond dispute, this paper contends that competitive situations also trigger a particular psychological mindset that can distort contestants’ judgment and lead to suboptimal courses of action. The paper presents a theoretical framework that consists of a myside bias, by which people adopt a self-serving view of the competition, evaluate themselves favorably, and evaluate their counterpart unfavorably. The framework also proposes the construct of otherside bias, by which people impute to their counterparts distortions that are similar, but opposite, to their own. The combined effect of these biases is to fuel conflict-promoting behavior. Next, the paper presents two experiments designed to test this framework. Using minimalistic experimental treatments, we find that participants assigned to adversarial roles display the myside and otherside biases.\nThe primary objective of this paper is to offer a comprehensive account of the psychological mindset evoked by competitive situations. We integrate findings established across a variety of research fields into a unifying theoretical framework and demonstrate their joint impact on this important domain of human judgment and behavior. Second, we propose that coherence-based reasoning serves as the cognitive backbone of the framework, in that the array of judgments are intricately interconnected and organize…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/law0000226

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Organizational factors are especially acute in an adversarial legal system, as adversarial allegiance and mindset can cause judgments and conclusions about the same identical evidence to depend on which side retained them.

    “Organizational factors are especially acute in an adversarial legal system, as adversarial allegiance and mindset can cause judgments and conclusions (about the same identical evidence) to depend on which side retained them.”

    From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as Simon et al., 2020

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Simon, D., Ahn, M., Stenstrom, D. M., & Read, S. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • California State University Los Angeles (US)
Venue
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
Published
2020-08
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
353-377
ISSN
  • 1076-8971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1528
OpenAlex
W3015210902
Cited by
33
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 9 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3
FWCI
3.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychology Public Policy and Law (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • bepress Legal Repository (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Conflict Management and Negotiation
Keywords
competition, myside bias, self-serving bias, cognitive coherence, legal negotiation, litigation, expert testimony, police investigation

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