Boundary conditions: some biases fit the two meta-biases only with argument or for some subgroups¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q1
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? The below-average effect (students rating themselves below average in hard domains) and hostile attribution bias fit the framework only via additional argument, and cultural differences may limit generalizability. → Gehlbach 2018

Evidence¶

Gehlbach 2018¶

Gehlbach, H., & Vriesema, C. C. (2018). Meta‐bias: A practical theory of motivated thinking. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9454-6

q1 · i? · theoretical · r3

In its limitations section the article reports, citing Kruger (1999), that students systematically rate themselves below average in hard domains, apparently against the self-enhancement motive; the authors argue this may instead serve cognitive efficiency via an easier proxy question. The article also notes hostile attribution bias and cultural variation as open challenges.

"However, Kruger (1999) also describes a “below-average” effect in which he asks students about domains that are generally perceived to be hard—e.g., chess, juggling, and computer programming—and finds that they systematically rate themselves below the average of their peers."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A systematic review of bias-mitigation training names considering the opposite as a previously validated way to reduce judgment biases, without testing it itself — related
• Argumentation Improves Reasoning — related
• Self-protection and self-enhancement motives lead perceivers to sacrifice accuracy in person perception — related