CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 117Social and Intergroup PsychologyExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesNames, Identity, and Discrimination Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.

Misperceptions About Others

Bursztyn, Leonardo, Yang, David Y.·2022·Annual Review of Economics
DOI 10.1146/annurev-economics-051520-023322
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Perceptions about others play an important role in shaping people's attitudes and behaviors, as well as social norms more broadly. This review presents a meta-analysis of the recent empirical literature that examines perceptions about others in the field, covering over a million observations for a total of 434 elicited perceptions. We document a number of stylized facts. Misperceptions about others are widespread, asymmetric, much larger when about out-group members, and positively associated with one's own attitudes. Experimental treatments to recalibrate misperceptions generally work as intended; they sometimes lead to meaningful changes in behaviors, though this often occurs only immediately after the treatments. We discuss different conceptual frameworks that could explain the origin, persistence, and rigidity of misperceptions about others. We point to several directions for future research.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-economics-051520-023322

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 104 · Cited by 117

Research works printed but not linked: 103

  1. 10.1017/S0022381614000085 · DOI
  2. 10.1086/697253 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.3386/w24733 · DOI
  4. 10.3386/w28651 · DOI
  5. Anders J, 2021, The welfare effects of eligibility expansions: theory and evidence from SNAP
  6. 10.1093/qje/qjz039 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2021.102653 · DOI
  8. 10.1093/restud/rds049 · DOI
  9. Benabou R, 2020, Narratives, imperatives, and moral persuasion
  10. 10.1086/711410 · DOI
  11. 10.3386/w28235 · DOI
  12. 10.1257/pandp.20181086 · DOI
  13. 10.1093/qje/qjw029 · DOI
  14. 10.1257/aer.20170007 · DOI
  15. 10.1093/qje/qjaa007 · DOI
  16. Bordalo P, 2021, Issue salience and political stereotypes
  17. Bottan NL, 2020, Rev. Econ. Stat.
  18. Braghieri L., 2021, Political correctness, social image, and information transmission
  19. 10.1017/S0003055418000011 · DOI
  20. 10.1561/100.00014074 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Bursztyn L, 2021, The immigrant next door: exposure, prejudice, and altruism
  22. 10.1086/666746 · DOI
  23. 10.1257/aer.20171175 · DOI
  24. Bursztyn L, 2020, Social media and xenophobia: evidence from Russia
  25. 10.1257/aer.20180975 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1086/261651 · DOI
  27. Cantoni D, 2017, The fundamental determinants of anti-authoritarianism
  28. 10.1093/qje/qjz002 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1093/qje/qjz008 · DOI
  30. Carlson TN, 2021, J. Exp. Political Sci.
  31. 10.1086/678331 · DOI
  32. Cavaille C., 2017, The consequences of moral reasoning: why some care more about free riding than others and why it matters
  33. 10.1177/0146167206289979 · DOI
  34. Coffman LC, 2015, A model of information nudges
  35. 10.1093/qje/qjab005 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.10.009 · DOI
  37. 10.1086/717891 · DOI
  38. 10.1093/restud/rdx031 · DOI
  39. 10.1146/annurev.economics.102308.124309 · DOI
  40. 10.1162/qjec.122.3.1187 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1257/aer.20141409 · DOI
  42. 10.1561/100.00013110 · DOI
  43. 10.1257/aer.20171172 · DOI
  44. 10.2139/ssrn.3774662 · DOI
  45. Enke B, 2020, Cognitive uncertainty
  46. Ersoy F., 2019, Effects of perceived productivity on study effort: evidence from a field experiment
  47. 10.1162/REST_a_00365 · DOI
  48. 10.1017/S0003055415000283 · DOI
  49. Fedyk A., 2021, Asymmetric naivete: beliefs about self-control
  50. Fehr D, 2019, Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy.
  51. 10.1162/REST_a_00344 · DOI
  52. 10.1257/aer.100.1.541 · DOI
  53. 10.1093/restud/rdu030 · DOI
  54. 10.1093/restud/rdz024 · DOI
  55. 10.1016/S0167-2681(00)00111-6 · DOI
  56. 10.1257/0002828043052187 · DOI · Paper page
  57. 10.1257/aer.103.3.412 · DOI
  58. 10.1093/qje/qjr044 · DOI · Paper page
  59. 10.1257/app.20180574 · DOI
  60. Glaeser EL., 2005, Q. J. Econ., 120, 45
  61. 10.1371/journal.pone.0050092 · DOI
  62. 10.1162/rest_a_01036 · DOI
  63. Haaland I, 2020, Designing information provision experiments
  64. Hager A, 2019, Political activists as free-riders: evidence from a natural field experiment
  65. 10.1086/712140 · DOI
  66. 10.1017/S0003055418000606 · DOI
  67. 10.1007/s10683-019-09604-3 · DOI
  68. 10.3386/w28099 · DOI
  69. 10.1162/qjec.2010.125.2.515 · DOI
  70. 10.1162/qjec.2009.124.3.1057 · DOI · Paper page
  71. 10.1017/XPS.2020.35 · DOI · Paper page
  72. Karing A., 2021, Social signaling and childhood immunization: a field experiment in Sierra Leone
  73. 10.1257/aer.20131063 · DOI
  74. 10.1086/711347 · DOI
  75. Koutout K., 2020, Gendered beliefs and the job application decision: evidence from a large-scale field and lab experiment
  76. 10.1111/0022-3816.00033 · DOI · Paper page
  77. Kuran T., 1997, Private Truths, Public Lies
  78. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01441.x · DOI
  79. 10.1177/2053168014545414 · DOI · Paper page
  80. 10.1257/aer.20191777 · DOI · Paper page
  81. 10.1016/j.irle.2020.105892 · DOI
  82. 10.1093/restud/rdr044 · DOI
  83. 10.1017/S0007123417000321 · DOI
  84. Mukherjee P., 2017, The effects of social identity on aspirations and learning outcomes: a field experiment in rural India
  85. 10.1086/696991 · DOI
  86. 10.1257/jep.34.3.220 · DOI
  87. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.05.002 · DOI
  88. Reyes SP., 2018, Coordination as an unintended benefit: lab-in-the-field evidence from a conditional cash transfer program
  89. 10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_3 · DOI
  90. 10.3102/0002831218772274 · DOI
  91. 10.1038/s41562-018-0328-1 · DOI
  92. 10.1038/s41562-021-01092-x · DOI · Paper page
  93. Sabarwal S, 2018, Better than most: teacher beliefs about effort and ability in Uganda
  94. 10.1093/restud/rdaa039 · DOI
  95. Shiller RJ., 2020, Narrative Economics: How Stories Go Viral and Drive Major Economic Events
  96. 10.1007/s10683-015-9452-1 · DOI
  97. 10.1111/jasp.12489 · DOI
  98. 10.1016/j.joep.2005.02.002 · DOI
  99. 10.1017/XPS.2019.22 · DOI
  100. 10.1093/restud/rdu044 · DOI · Paper page
  101. 10.3386/w28716 · DOI
  102. Yu H., 2019, Social stigma as a barrier to HIV testing: evidence from a randomized experiment in Mozambique
  103. 10.1257/aer.20180728 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Bursztyn, L., & Yang, D. Y.
Affiliations
National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
ORCID
Bursztyn, Leonardo
Venue
Annual Review of Economics
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2022-08-12
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
425-452
ISSN
  • 1941-1383 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-1391
DOI
10.1146/annurev-economics-051520-023322
OpenAlex
W3196785837
Cited by
117
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 11
FWCI
3.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Annual Review of Economics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
Keywords
person perception, outgroup members, in-group favoritism, attitudes, social norms, behavior change, field experiments

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