Daily Horizons: Evidence of Narrow Bracketing in Judgment From 10 Years of M.B.A. Admissions Interviews

Uri Simonsohn, Francesca Gino

Producció científica: Article en revista indexadaArticleAvaluat per experts

20 Cites (Scopus)

Resum

Many professionals, from auditors, venture capitalists, and lawyers, to clinical psychologists and journal editors, divide continuous flows of judgments into subsets. College admissions interviewers, for instance, evaluate but a handful of applicants a day. We conjectured that in such situations, individuals engage in narrow bracketing, assessing each subset in isolation and then-for any given subset-avoiding much deviation from the expected overall distribution of judgments. For instance, an interviewer who has already highly recommended three applicants on a given day may be reluctant to do the same for a fourth applicant. Data from more than 9,000 M.B.A. interviews supported this prediction. Auxiliary analyses suggest that contrast effects and nonrandom scheduling of interviews are unlikely alternative explanations of the observed pattern of results.

Idioma originalAnglès
Pàgines (de-a)219-224
Nombre de pàgines6
RevistaPsychological Science
Volum24
Número2
DOIs
Estat de la publicacióPublicada - de febr. 2013
Publicat externament

Fingerprint

Navegar pels temes de recerca de 'Daily Horizons: Evidence of Narrow Bracketing in Judgment From 10 Years of M.B.A. Admissions Interviews'. Junts formen un fingerprint únic.

Com citar-ho