Inside the System: The Case for Psychological Literacy
Argument in Brief
Human beings take part in cognitive and social processes that cannot be perceived from inside those processes. Attention selects, memory reconstructs, familiarity is read as credibility, and group membership alters how evidence is weighed, yet each of these operations delivers only its result to awareness. The contemporary information environment is organized around the capture of attention and therefore engages these operations continuously. Psychological literacy is the capacity to observe such mechanisms, evaluate the evidence about them, and examine one's own participation in them. It is distinct from psychological vocabulary, which can be acquired without any of the three. Literacy does not confer immunity. Its value is an additional level of awareness, held by an observer who remains inside the system being described.
Most formal education describes the world outside the person. Students learn how cells divide, how legislatures pass bills, and how markets set prices. Comparatively little instruction is given on the instrument through which all of this is learned: the mind that attends, remembers, infers, and judges. People therefore spend their lives operating a system whose workings they were never systematically taught, and they do so in an environment where many institutions have a direct interest in how that system behaves.
This essay argues that psychological literacy is necessary for a specific structural reason. Human beings participate in cognitive and social processes that they cannot automatically perceive from inside those processes. The argument does not depend on psychology being interesting, therapeutic, or professionally useful, although it may be all three. It depends on a feature of position: the person who needs to understand attention, memory, conformity, and group belonging is using attention, memory, conformity, and group belonging to do the understanding.
The Problem of Position
The mind makes its conclusions available and withholds its procedures. A person experiences a perception, a memory, a judgment, or a preference as a finished product. The selection, weighting, and reconstruction that produced it are not presented alongside it. Nisbett and Wilson (1977), in an influential review, argued that people often have little direct introspective access to the processes behind their judgments and behavior, and that reports about those processes frequently draw on plausible causal theories rather than on observation. Later work has qualified the scope of that claim, but its central point has remained durable: confidence in a self-explanation is not evidence of access to the process explained.
A related line of research describes what Ross and Ward (1996) called naive realism: the tendency to experience one's own perceptions as direct readings of the world rather than as interpretations of it. If perception feels like direct reading, then a person who sees the matter differently appears to be uninformed, unreasonable, or biased. The interpretive step is invisible to the one who took it.
Psychological Architecture treats this condition as a structural property of the Mind domain rather than as an occasional lapse. In the framework's account, the Mind is the interpretive system through which experience is organized into something intelligible: it filters incoming information, assigns salience, and constructs the explanatory narratives that make events cohere. The framework's claim is that this construction is continuous and that its operations are, for the most part, unavailable to inspection. Individuals encounter the output of the interpretive system and take it for the world. The self-account is subject to the same condition, since what a person believes about personal motives and reasoning is itself produced by the system being described.
This is the problem of position. An observer standing outside a process can watch it run. A participant inside it receives only what the process delivers. With respect to their own cognition and their own social belonging, human beings are always participants. Whatever understanding becomes available must therefore be assembled indirectly: from controlled research, from the record of how people in general behave under specified conditions, and from the deliberate application of that record to one's own case.
Literacy Is Not Vocabulary
The term psychological literacy requires a boundary, because the most visible form of psychological knowledge in public life is terminological. Words such as projection, gaslighting, confirmation bias, narcissism, and trauma response circulate widely. Their circulation is sometimes taken as evidence that psychological understanding has spread. The inference does not hold. A vocabulary can be acquired without any change in how its holder observes behavior, weighs evidence, or regards personal conduct.
Psychological literacy, as the term is used here, consists of three capacities. The first is the capacity to observe mechanisms: to describe a behavior in terms of the conditions that preceded it, the function it served, and the consequences that maintained it. The second is the capacity to evaluate evidence: to distinguish a replicated finding from a single study, a correlation from a cause, an effect that is reliable from one that is large, and an empirical result from an interpretive framework laid over it. The third is reflexivity: the capacity to examine one's own participation in the processes being described, and to treat general findings about human cognition as findings about oneself.
Vocabulary is compatible with the absence of all three. A term can be used to classify a person without describing any mechanism. It can be asserted without evidence. It can be directed exclusively outward. The distinction matters for the rest of the argument because the environment described below rewards the acquisition of terms and offers little reward for the third capacity in particular. The distinction is taken up again once the mechanisms themselves have been set out.
Attention as a Contested Resource
Incentive without Conspiracy
Simon (1971) observed that information consumes the attention of its recipients, so that an abundance of information produces a scarcity of attention. Attention is finite, and what is finite and useful to others acquires value. In the present environment that value is realized in several forms. Attention that is held becomes engagement; engagement becomes advertising revenue, subscription, donation, loyalty, turnout, and votes. News organizations, advertisers, political campaigns, platforms, influencers, and institutions of many kinds therefore compete for the same limited resource.
No coordinated intent is needed to explain the result. A system that measures attention and rewards whatever captures it will, over repeated cycles, select for content with the properties that capture attention. Producers who supply such content gain reach and resources; those who do not lose both. The outcome resembles a design, but it can be produced entirely by selection. This is an interpretive claim about incentives rather than an experimental finding, and it is offered as the more economical explanation: it accounts for the observed pattern without requiring assumptions about anyone's motives. It also applies to the environment the same discipline the essay later applies to persons, which is explanation by mechanism rather than by character.
What Engagement Ranking Selects
The properties that hold attention are not arbitrary. Brady and colleagues (2017) found that messages about contested political topics on Twitter spread more widely within ideological networks when they contained moral-emotional language. Rathje, Van Bavel, and van der Linden (2021), analyzing posts from news media and members of the United States Congress on Facebook and Twitter, found that posts about the political out-group were shared more often than posts about the in-group, and that out-group language was a strong predictor of engagement. These are observational findings about what users share.
Evidence on ranking systems themselves is more recent and more limited. Milli and colleagues (2025), in a preregistered audit comparing Twitter's engagement-based ranking with a reverse-chronological feed, reported that the engagement-based ranking amplified emotionally charged and out-group-hostile content, and that readers reported feeling worse about their political out-group after reading the posts it selected. Users did not, on average, say they preferred the political posts the algorithm chose. Piccardi and colleagues (2025), in a field experiment on X during the 2024 United States presidential campaign, found that increasing or decreasing exposure to posts expressing partisan animosity and antidemocratic attitudes produced corresponding shifts in participants' feelings toward the opposing party. Not all results point the same way. Guess and colleagues (2023) found that replacing algorithmic feeds with chronological ones on Facebook and Instagram for three months during the 2020 campaign reduced time spent on the platforms but did not detectably change polarization or political attitudes.
A conservative summary is that engagement-based ranking tends to elevate emotionally charged and out-group-directed material, that exposure to such material can shift how people feel about opposing groups, and that the size and durability of these effects under real conditions remain under study. For the present argument the important point is narrower. The operations through which ranked content has its effect, the capture of attention by emotionally significant material and the updating of impressions from what has been attended to, are not registered by the person as operations. Within Psychological Architecture, the Salience Distortion Model proposes that affective intensity reorganizes perceptual weighting, altering which features of a situation feel central. On that interpretation, content selected for emotional charge does more than occupy attention: it changes the weighting within which subsequent judgments are made. The user experiences a feed. The selection that composed it, and the reweighting it produces, are outside the frame.
How a Distorted Sample Becomes a Perceived World
The Loud Minority and the Quiet Majority
People estimate what others think largely by sampling what they encounter. The estimate is accurate only when the sample is representative. In online political discussion the sample is not. A small proportion of users produces a large proportion of political content, and those users tend to hold more extreme positions and express them more intensely than the population they are taken to represent. Robertson, del Rosario, and Van Bavel (2024), reviewing this literature, describe the result as a distorted reflection of social norms: the most active and most extreme voices are overrepresented, moderate and uninterested people are nearly invisible, and observers form impressions of group opinion from what is visible.
The inferential error is ordinary. Silence is not sampled. A person who holds a moderate view and says nothing contributes no observation to anyone else's estimate, while a person who posts repeatedly contributes many. The observer, counting what can be counted, concludes that the visible distribution is the actual one. Nothing in the experience marks the sample as skewed.
Repetition, Familiarity, and Credibility
A second mechanism compounds the first. Hasher, Goldstein, and Toppino (1977) found that statements participants had encountered before were rated as more likely to be true than comparable new statements. The effect, now called the illusory truth effect, has been replicated many times; a meta-analysis by Dechêne and colleagues (2010) confirmed its reliability across procedures. The standard explanation is processing fluency. Repeated material is processed more easily, and ease of processing is used as a cue to truth. The cue is often valid in ordinary experience, which is one account of why the inference persists.
Two extensions are relevant. Fazio and colleagues (2015) showed that repetition increased rated truth even for statements that contradicted knowledge the participants demonstrably possessed. Having the relevant knowledge did not prevent the effect. Weaver and colleagues (2007) found that hearing a single group member express an opinion repeatedly increased observers' estimates of how widely the opinion was held. Familiarity is registered; its source is not reliably tracked.
Taken together, these findings describe a route from a skewed sample to a settled belief. A small number of sources repeat a claim. Repetition produces familiarity. Familiarity is read as credibility and as prevalence. The person arrives at the impression that a claim is both probably true and commonly accepted, and experiences that impression as a perception of the world. The chain of inference that produced it is not available for review, because it was never conducted as inference.
Identity as a Filter on Evidence
Asymmetric Evaluation
The mechanisms described so far concern the Mind domain: attention, memory, and inference. A second set concerns identity, and specifically the effect of group membership on how information is processed. The established foundation is social identity theory. Tajfel and colleagues (1971) showed that assigning people to groups on trivial or arbitrary criteria was sufficient to produce favoritism toward members of their own group in the allocation of rewards. Tajfel and Turner (1979) proposed that part of a person's self-concept derives from group memberships, and that people are motivated to maintain a positive distinctiveness for the groups to which they belong. The theory does not claim that group membership makes people irrational. Its claim is that the group is part of the self, so that information bearing on the group's standing bears on the person's own.
One consequence is that evidence is not evaluated on uniform terms. Lord, Ross, and Lepper (1979) presented supporters and opponents of capital punishment with the same mixed body of research; each side rated the studies that supported its position as more convincing and scrutinized the opposing studies more severely. Cohen (2003) found that participants' evaluations of a welfare policy followed the stated position of their political party more than the content of the policy, while the participants themselves denied having been influenced by their party and expected that others would be. Kunda (1990) reviewed the evidence that directional goals shape the search for and evaluation of evidence while leaving the reasoner with a sense of having been objective. A meta-analysis by Ditto and colleagues (2019) found partisan bias of this kind among both liberals and conservatives at similar magnitudes.
Psychological Architecture interprets these findings structurally. In the framework, Identity is the system that maintains a coherent sense of self across time, and it does so partly by determining which interpretations are acceptable to the Mind. Information that threatens the self-narrative, including the standing of groups incorporated into that narrative, meets resistance before it reaches deliberate consideration. The framework's contribution here is a claim about ordering: the filtering is located upstream of reasoning, so that the reasoning a person can observe in themselves is already operating on a preselected field. This is a proposition of the framework and should be read as an interpretation consistent with the experimental record rather than as a result that record establishes.
Overestimated Hostility and the Self-Confirming Cycle
Group membership also shapes beliefs about what the other group thinks. Robinson and colleagues (1995) found that partisans on contested issues overestimated the extremity of the opposing side's views, and to some degree their own side's. More recent work has examined meta-perceptions: beliefs about how the out-group regards one's own group. Lees and Cikara (2020) found across several experiments that people overestimated how negatively the out-group viewed their group's actions in competitive contexts, and that greater inaccuracy was associated with attributing obstructive motives to the other side. Moore-Berg and colleagues (2020) found that Democrats and Republicans in the United States each overestimated how much the other side disliked and dehumanized them, and that these exaggerated meta-perceptions were associated with greater hostility toward the other side.
The structure of the resulting cycle can be stated plainly. A person believes the out-group is more hostile than it is. That belief warrants defensive or hostile behavior in return. The behavior is observed by members of the out-group, for whom it serves as evidence of hostility. Their response then supplies the original believer with confirmation. Each party experiences its own conduct as reaction and the other's as initiation. The cycle as a sequence is an interpretive synthesis; the experimental literature establishes the misperception and its association with hostility, and Lees and Cikara further report that informing participants of their inaccuracy reduced negative attributions. The distorted sample described earlier supplies the cycle with material, since the most hostile members of each group are the ones most visible to the other.
When Opposition Is Structural
Social identity theory describes group membership as a contributor to the self-concept. Psychological Architecture proposes that in some cases the relationship is stronger. Contrastive Identity Organization is the framework's term for a configuration in which opposition to an out-group is constitutive of a person's identity rather than incidental to it: the boundary between the groups does the primary work of defining the self. In the framework's account this configuration begins as compensation for insufficient internal coherence and consolidates over time until the opposition is load-bearing.
The construct is a theoretical proposition of the framework, not an established empirical category, and it is proposed for a class of cases rather than for group identification in general. Its relevance here is limited and specific. Where identity is organized contrastively, information that reduces the perceived distance between groups is processed as a threat to structure rather than as a correction of fact. For a person so organized, an attention environment that continuously supplies evidence of an adversary is supplying something the identity system requires. The participation is stabilizing, which is one reason it would not present itself to the participant as a distortion.
Psychology Applied Only to Opponents
The findings reviewed above are widely reported, and many people know some version of them. Knowing them does not ensure that they are applied evenly. Pronin, Lin, and Ross (2002) found that people rated themselves as less susceptible to a range of cognitive and motivational biases than the average person, and continued to do so after the biases were described to them. They called this the bias blind spot. Pronin and Kugler (2007) traced it in part to a difference in method: people assess bias in others by looking at behavior and assess bias in themselves by introspecting, and introspection, for the reasons given earlier, does not reveal a process that operates outside awareness. Finding no trace of bias, the person concludes that none was present. West, Meserve, and Stanovich (2012) found that greater cognitive sophistication did not reduce the blind spot.
Applied to groups, the same asymmetry produces a characteristic use of psychological knowledge. The opposing side's beliefs are explained by conformity, motivated reasoning, fear, or manipulation. One's own side's beliefs are explained by the evidence. Waytz, Young, and Ginges (2014) documented a related pattern in political and ethnoreligious conflicts: participants attributed their own group's engagement in conflict to love of the in-group and the opposing group's engagement to hatred of the out-group. Pettigrew (1979) described a similar asymmetry in causal explanation, in which an out-group's negative acts are attributed to disposition and its positive acts are explained away as exceptions or circumstance.
It is at this point that the distinction between literacy and vocabulary becomes consequential. Psychological vocabulary, held without reflexivity, leaves this asymmetry intact and gives it better tools. A person who has learned the names of biases has acquired a more authoritative set of labels with which to describe people who disagree. The labels carry the standing of a science, and their use can feel like analysis.
The framework's construct of Parochial Attribution offers a structural reading of why this occurs. Parochial Attribution describes what happens when an observer lacks, or under pressure does not select, an interpretive frame in which another person's behavior is coherent: the cognitive system does not suspend attribution but defaults to the nearest available frame, which is typically organized around deficiency. The construct was developed to account for the reading of unfamiliar behavior, appearance, and practice under constrained exposure. Extended to the present case, the proposal is that an opposing group's position is frequently encountered without any frame in which it makes sense from the inside. The default reading is then a deficit: the others are ignorant, deceived, or disordered. Psychological terminology leaves the missing frame missing and makes the deficit reading more sophisticated. This extension is an interpretive application of the construct, offered as a hypothesis about function.
A discipline used only to explain other people has been converted from a method of inquiry into an instrument of position. The conversion does not require bad faith. It follows from the blind spot, from identity-based filtering, and from the ordinary fact that other people's behavior is available to observation while one's own processes are not.
Mechanism over Character
The alternative to explanation by deficit is explanation by mechanism. A mechanistic account of a behavior addresses three matters: the conditions that preceded it, what the behavior accomplished for the person who performed it, and what consequences maintained it. These correspond to the antecedent, function, and reinforcement of a behavior, a structure with a long history in learning theory. The account describes what happened and why it continued. It does not issue a verdict on the kind of person involved.
The preference for mechanism over character rests on explanatory power. A character attribution, that a person is gullible, hateful, or weak, names a category and stops. It predicts little, since the same person behaves differently under different conditions, and it identifies nothing that could be otherwise. A mechanistic account specifies conditions, and conditions vary. To say that a person shared a false claim because the claim was familiar, was endorsed by the person's group, and was rewarded with approval when shared is to say something that can be checked and that applies to a wide range of people.
That breadth is the feature that matters most for the present argument. A mechanism is general in a way that a character verdict is not. If repetition raises perceived truth, it does so in whoever is exposed to repetition. If group endorsement shifts the evaluation of a policy, it shifts it for members of any group. An account framed at the level of mechanism cannot be confined to opponents without an additional and unsupported assumption that the observer is built differently. Mechanistic explanation therefore carries reflexivity within it. It is the form of psychological explanation that most readily returns to the person using it.
Mechanistic explanation is sometimes taken to excuse what it explains. The two are separate. Describing the conditions under which a behavior occurs leaves questions of responsibility where they were. What the description removes is the assumption that the behavior marks its performer as a different kind of being from the observer.
The Observer Remains Inside
Serious study of these processes eventually turns toward the person conducting it. The findings are about human cognition, and the student is an instance. This is where the limits of psychological literacy have to be stated accurately, because the claim that understanding a bias removes it is not supported. Knowledge did not prevent the illusory truth effect in the studies by Fazio and colleagues. Cognitive sophistication did not reduce the bias blind spot. Participants in Cohen's studies followed their party's position while reporting that they had not been influenced by it. The evidence is consistent that these processes operate in informed people.
Psychological literacy therefore confers no immunity. What it provides is narrower and still substantial: an additional level of awareness. A literate observer still feels the pull of a familiar claim, still finds congenial evidence more persuasive, and still experiences the other side as more hostile than it is. What changes is that these experiences can be recognized as outputs with a known provenance. The impression that a claim is widely believed can be accompanied by the knowledge that prevalence is routinely inferred from repetition. The sense that an opposing study is weak can be accompanied by the knowledge that scrutiny is applied asymmetrically. The awareness does not replace the first-order response. It sits alongside it and makes a second response possible, such as checking a source, looking for the base rate, or applying to a favored conclusion the scrutiny given to a disfavored one. Research on correcting misperceptions, including the intervention reported by Lees and Cikara, suggests that such second responses can have measurable effects, though the evidence concerns specific interventions and does not show that general knowledge of psychology produces them.
The same condition applies to psychology and to those who practice or teach it. Training in the discipline supplies concepts and methods; it does not relocate the trained person outside the processes studied. Researchers are subject to confirmation in their own work, which is why the discipline relies on preregistration, replication, and peer criticism rather than on the self-assessment of investigators. Those institutional practices are an acknowledgment, built into method, that the observer is inside the system. Psychological knowledge accordingly gives its holder no elevated position relative to the people it describes. The people it describes include its holder.
Psychological Architecture states the general form of this point in its account of the Mind: self-knowledge is produced by the same interpretive processes that produce every other perception, and those processes are shaped by emotional signals, identity commitments, and frameworks of meaning that operate largely outside awareness. On that account, examining one's own participation is not a matter of looking inward more carefully. It requires treating one's own outputs as data to be explained, by the same mechanisms and to the same standard as anyone else's.
Awareness without Exemption
The case for psychological literacy can now be consolidated. Human cognition delivers results without displaying its procedures. Attention is captured, samples are skewed, familiarity is read as truth and as consensus, group membership alters the weighing of evidence, and hostility is overestimated in ways that tend to confirm themselves. Each of these processes has been documented with reasonable care, and each operates without notifying the person in whom it operates. An environment in which attention carries economic and political value engages all of them continuously, through incentives that require no coordination.
Under those conditions, what a person believes about the world and about other people depends partly on processes that cannot be seen from the position the person occupies. The only available correction is knowledge obtained from outside the first-person position and then applied back to it. That is the function of psychological literacy, and it is the reason the distinction from vocabulary carries weight. Vocabulary names processes in others. Literacy observes mechanisms, weighs the evidence for them, and includes the observer in their scope.
The limits belong to the case. Literacy does not remove the processes it describes, and it does not place anyone above them. Its contribution is a second level of awareness within a system that continues to run. The need for it arises from the same fact that limits it: the person studying the mind is using one, and remains inside the processes under study.
References
Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114.
Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85.
Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14.
Ditto, P. H., Liu, B. S., Clark, C. J., Wojcik, S. P., Chen, E. E., Grady, R. H., Celniker, J. B., & Zinger, J. F. (2019). At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14.
Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N. M., Payne, B. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2015). Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144.
Guess, A. M., Malhotra, N., Pan, J., Barberá, P., Allcott, H., Brown, T., et al. (2023). How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign? Science, 381.
Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108.
Lees, J., & Cikara, M. (2020). Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nature Human Behaviour, 4.
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37.
Milli, S., Carroll, M., Wang, Y., Pandey, S., Zhao, S., & Dragan, A. D. (2025). Engagement, user satisfaction, and the amplification of divisive content on social media. PNAS Nexus, 4.
Moore-Berg, S. L., Ankori-Karlinsky, L.-O., Hameiri, B., & Bruneau, E. (2020). Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport's cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5.
Piccardi, T., Saveski, M., Jia, C., Hancock, J. T., Tsai, J. L., & Bernstein, M. S. (2025). Reranking partisan animosity in algorithmic social media feeds alters affective polarization. Science, 390.
Pronin, E., & Kugler, M. B. (2007). Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43.
Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28.
Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118.
Robertson, C. E., del Rosario, K. S., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2024). Inside the funhouse mirror factory: How social media distorts perceptions of norms. Current Opinion in Psychology, 60.
Robinson, R. J., Keltner, D., Ward, A., & Ross, L. (1995). Actual versus assumed differences in construal: “Naive realism” in intergroup perception and conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68.
Ross, L., & Ward, A. (1996). Naive realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In E. S. Reed, E. Turiel, & T. Brown (Eds.), Values and knowledge. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Simon, H. A. (1971). Designing organizations for an information-rich world. In M. Greenberger (Ed.), Computers, communications, and the public interest. Johns Hopkins Press.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Brooks/Cole.
Waytz, A., Young, L. L., & Ginges, J. (2014). Motive attribution asymmetry for love vs. hate drives intractable conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111.
Weaver, K., Garcia, S. M., Schwarz, N., & Miller, D. T. (2007). Inferring the popularity of an opinion from its familiarity: A repetitive voice can sound like a chorus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92.
West, R. F., Meserve, R. J., & Stanovich, K. E. (2012). Cognitive sophistication does not attenuate the bias blind spot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103.