Nevertheless, plaintiffs’ predictions of thejudge’s award were substantially higher than those of the defendants
Defendants, on average, predicted that the judge would award the plaintiff $20,000. Plaintiffs expected the judge to specify a payment of $33,000.
Moreover, the degree of discrepancy between plaintiffs’ and defendants’ predictions of the judge was a strong predictor of whether they settled the case, as opposed to relying on the judge’s decision and paying penalties for not settling.
In a number of follow-up cases, we attempted to intervene in various ways to reduce the magnitude of the self-serving bias. In several studies, we paid participants for accurately predicting the judge’s ruling. This intervention had no measurable effects.
Participants consistently believed that the judge would come out on their side even when we paid them for estimating the judge’s rule accurately.
There was a strong tendency to view arguments supporting one’s own position as more convincing than those supporting the other side, suggesting that the bias operates by distorting one’s interpretation of evidence
We also attempted to reduce the magnitude of the self-serving bias by describing it to participants in some detail and administering a test to them to make sure they understood the description.
Also, just as our participants identified with either the plaintiff or defendant in the legal case, auditors are likely to identify with the firms they audit
The experimental intervention was successful insofar as participants became convinced that the negotiating opponent would be highly biased, but participants believed that they themselves would not succumb to the bias. Continue reading Nevertheless, plaintiffs’ predictions of thejudge’s award were substantially higher than those of the defendants