Research
My research focuses on decision making, negotiation, and the ways that individuals stray from the strategies that would create the most value for their organizations and themselves.
Expand the details sections for more information including data and analysis files. Feel free to contact me for copies of any of my papers.
Peer Reviewed Publications
-
Moore, D. A., Swift, S. A., Sharek, Z. S., & Gino, F. (2010) Correspondence bias in performance evaluation: Why grade inflation works. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36(6) 843-852.
Details
Abstract
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.
Data and Analyses
Publications in Edited Volumes
- Swift, S. A., Moore, D. A. (in press). "Bluffing, agonism, and the role of overconfidence in negotiation" in Handbook on Negotiation and Conflict Resolution. Oxford University Press.
- Moore, D. A., Swift, S. A. (2010). "The three faces of overconfidence in organizations" In D. De Cremer, J. K. Murnigham, & R. van Dick (Eds.), Social Psychology and Organizations. Routledge Academic.
Manuscripts Under Review
-
Swift, S. A., Moore, D. A., Sharek, Z. S., & Gino, F. Inflated Applicants: Attribution Errors in Performance Evaluation by Professionals. Under review at the Journal of Applied Psychology.
Details
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 lenient grading 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. There are profound implications for both admissions and personnel selection practices.
Data and Analyses
Working Papers
- Swift, S. A., Sharek, Z. S., Gino, F., & Moore, D. A. On the Robustness and Generality of the Correspondence Bias.
- Swift, S. A., Cohen, T. R., Leonardelli, G.J., & Thompson, L. Avoiding the Agreement Trap: Teams Facilitate Impasse in Negotiations with Negative Bargaining Zones.
- Swift, S. A., Gino, F., & Schweitzer, M. When Lies are Funny: How Humor Influences Perceptions of Deception.
- Swift, S. A., Talking the Value out of the Deal: Self Perception and the Value of Negotiated Outcomes.
- Swift, S. A., Moore, D. A., Klein, W. Relative versus absolute measures of explicit attitudes in the prediction of behavior.
Curriculum Vitae
