The optimist within? Selective sampling and self-deception. / Van Der Leer, Leslie; McKay, Ryan.

In: Consciousness and Cognition, Vol. 50, 04.2017, p. 23–29.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Published

Standard

The optimist within? Selective sampling and self-deception. / Van Der Leer, Leslie; McKay, Ryan.

In: Consciousness and Cognition, Vol. 50, 04.2017, p. 23–29.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Van Der Leer, Leslie ; McKay, Ryan. / The optimist within? Selective sampling and self-deception. In: Consciousness and Cognition. 2017 ; Vol. 50. pp. 23–29.

BibTeX

@article{a6e89f2c1bcf4fc492fb0b299c903611,
title = "The optimist within?: Selective sampling and self-deception",
abstract = "The nature and existence of self-deception is controversial. On a classic conception, self-deceived individuals carry two conflicting representations of reality. Proponents of an alternative, deflationary account dispute this, arguing that putative cases of self-deception simply reflect distorted information processing. To investigate these alternatives, we adapted a paradigm from the “crowd-within” literature. Participants provided two different estimates for each of a series of incentivized questions. Half of the questions were neutral in content, while half referred to undesirable future events. Whereas the first and second estimates for neutral questions did not differ systematically, second estimates for undesirable questions were more optimistic than first estimates. This result suggests that participants were sampling selectively from an internal probability distribution when providing estimates for undesirable events, implying they had access to a less rosy representation of their future prospects than their individual estimates conveyed. In short, self-deception is real.",
author = "{Van Der Leer}, Leslie and Ryan McKay",
year = "2017",
month = apr,
doi = "10.1016/j.concog.2016.07.005",
language = "English",
volume = "50",
pages = "23–29",
journal = "Consciousness and Cognition",
issn = "1053-8100",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The optimist within?

T2 - Selective sampling and self-deception

AU - Van Der Leer, Leslie

AU - McKay, Ryan

PY - 2017/4

Y1 - 2017/4

N2 - The nature and existence of self-deception is controversial. On a classic conception, self-deceived individuals carry two conflicting representations of reality. Proponents of an alternative, deflationary account dispute this, arguing that putative cases of self-deception simply reflect distorted information processing. To investigate these alternatives, we adapted a paradigm from the “crowd-within” literature. Participants provided two different estimates for each of a series of incentivized questions. Half of the questions were neutral in content, while half referred to undesirable future events. Whereas the first and second estimates for neutral questions did not differ systematically, second estimates for undesirable questions were more optimistic than first estimates. This result suggests that participants were sampling selectively from an internal probability distribution when providing estimates for undesirable events, implying they had access to a less rosy representation of their future prospects than their individual estimates conveyed. In short, self-deception is real.

AB - The nature and existence of self-deception is controversial. On a classic conception, self-deceived individuals carry two conflicting representations of reality. Proponents of an alternative, deflationary account dispute this, arguing that putative cases of self-deception simply reflect distorted information processing. To investigate these alternatives, we adapted a paradigm from the “crowd-within” literature. Participants provided two different estimates for each of a series of incentivized questions. Half of the questions were neutral in content, while half referred to undesirable future events. Whereas the first and second estimates for neutral questions did not differ systematically, second estimates for undesirable questions were more optimistic than first estimates. This result suggests that participants were sampling selectively from an internal probability distribution when providing estimates for undesirable events, implying they had access to a less rosy representation of their future prospects than their individual estimates conveyed. In short, self-deception is real.

U2 - 10.1016/j.concog.2016.07.005

DO - 10.1016/j.concog.2016.07.005

M3 - Article

VL - 50

SP - 23

EP - 29

JO - Consciousness and Cognition

JF - Consciousness and Cognition

SN - 1053-8100

ER -