The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Social Perception and Social Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Abstract
This book contests the received wisdom in the field of social psychology that suggests that social perception and judgment are generally flawed, biased, and powerfully self-fulfilling. The book reviews a wealth of real-world, survey, and experimental data collected over the last century to show that, in fact, social psychological research consistently demonstrates that biases and self-fulfilling prophecies are generally weak, fragile, and fleeting. Furthermore, research in the social sciences has shown stereotypes to be accurate. The book overturns the received wisdom concerning social perception in several ways. It critically reviews studies that are highly cited darlings of the bias conclusion and shows how these studies demonstrate far more accuracy than bias, or are not replicable in subsequent research. Studies of equal or higher quality, which have been replicated consistently, are shown to demonstrate high accuracy, low bias, or both. The book is peppered with discussions suggesting that theoretical and political blinders have led to an odd state of affairs in which the flawed or misinterpreted bias studies receive a great deal of attention, while stronger and more replicable accuracy studies receive relatively little attention. In addition, the book presents both personal and real-world examples (such as stock market prices, sporting events, and political elections) that routinely undermine heavy-handed emphases on error and bias but are generally indicative of high l…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“SFPs are, however, neither pervasive nor all-powerful (Jussim 2012), and there are various conditions for them to occur (Snyder and Klein 2007).”
From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as Jussim 2012
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evaluating Effect Size in Psychological Research: Sense and Nonsense
Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2515245919847202 · Cited by 3,295
Ajzen, I. (2015) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2014.883474 · Cited by 704
Political diversity will improve social psychological science
Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L. J., & Tetlock, P. E. (2014) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x14000430 · Cited by 604
Self-citationFunder, D. C. (2012) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721412445309 · Cited by 439
Wineburg, S., & McGrew, S. (2019) · Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education · doi:10.1177/016146811912101102 · Cited by 394
Metadata
- Authors
- Jussim, L.
- Corresponding author
- Jussim, Lee
- ORCID
- Jussim, Lee
- Venue
- Oxford University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2012-04-06
- OpenAlex
- W2989983672
- Cited by
- 271
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 11.09
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (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 › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
- Keywords
- social perception, social judgment, cognitive biases, self-fulfilling prophecy, stereotypes, replication, rationality, stock prices, political elections, sports prediction, social psychology theory
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