Cited by 107Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsSocial and Intergroup PsychologySocial Power and Status Dynamics

The headwinds/tailwinds asymmetry: An availability bias in assessments of barriers and blessings.

Davidai, Shai, Gilovich, Thomas·2016·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

Seven studies provide evidence of an availability bias in people's assessments of the benefits they've enjoyed and the barriers they've faced. Barriers and hindrances command attention because they have to be overcome; benefits and resources can often be simply enjoyed and largely ignored. As a result of this "headwind/tailwind" asymmetry, Democrats and Republicans both claim that the electoral map works against them (Study 1), football fans take disproportionate note of the challenging games on their team's schedules (Study 2), people tend to believe that their parents have been harder on them than their siblings are willing to grant (Study 3), and academics think that they have a harder time with journal reviewers, grant panels, and tenure committees than members of other subdisciplines (Study 7). We show that these effects are the result of the enhanced availability of people's challenges and difficulties (Studies 4 and 5) and are not simply the result of self-serving attribution management (Studies 6 and 7). We also show that the greater salience of a person's headwinds can lead people to believe they have been treated unfairly and, as a consequence, more inclined to endorse morally questionable behavior (Study 7). Our discussion focuses on the implications of the headwind/tailwind asymmetry for a variety of ill-conceived policy decisions. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/pspa0000066

Cites

66 of 66 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Davidai, S., & Gilovich, T.
Affiliations
  • The New School (US)
  • Cornell University (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2016-12
Volume
111
Issue
6
Pages
835-851
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2549165840
Cited by
107
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3
FWCI
4.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Social Power and Status Dynamics
Keywords
availability bias, benefits and barriers, self-serving bias, self-serving attribution, perceived injustice, moral judgment, electoral maps, football schedule, academic peer review, tenure, policy choice
MeSH terms
Adult, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Social Perception, Thinking

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