Performance (such as a course grade) is a joint function of an individual’s ability (such as intelligence) and the situation (such as the instructor’s grading leniency). Prior research has documented a human bias toward dispositional inference, which ascribes performance to individual ability, even when it is better explained through situational influences on performance. It is hypothesized here that this tendency leads admissions decisions to favor students coming from institutions with lenient grading because those students have their high grades mistaken for evidence of high ability. Three experiments show that those who obtain high scores simply because of lenient grading are favored in selection. These results have implications for research on attribution because they provide a more stringent test of the correspondence bias and allow for a more precise measure of its size. Implications for university admissions and personnel selection decisions are also discussed.

No abstract

When explaining others' behaviors, achievements, and failures, it is common for people to attribute too much influence to disposition and too little influence to structural and situational factors. We examine whether this tendency leads even experienced professionals to make systematic mistakes in their selection decisions, favoring alumni from academic institutions with high grade distributions and employees from forgiving business environments. We find that candidates benefiting from favorable situations are more likely to be admitted and promoted than their equivalently skilled peers. The results suggest that decision-makers take high nominal performance as evidence of high ability and do not discount it by the ease with which it was achieved. These results clarify our understanding of the correspondence bias using evidence from both archival studies and experiments with experienced professionals. We discuss implications for both admissions and personnel selection practices.

Physicians are affected by the conflict of interest (COI) policies they help formulate. This study examines whether physicians evaluate these policies impartially. One hundred and seventy‐nine physicians, 224 financial advisors, and 1,430 members of the general public evaluated the fairness and efficacy of a COI policy in either a medical or financial context. Physicians were more critical of the medical COI policy compared to a financial COI policy, while financial professionals displayed the reverse pattern and control respondents rated both policies similarly. This suggests a bias against COI policies by those who will be directly affected.

No abstract