They saw a game: a case study.

By A. Hastorf, H. Cantril. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 2011

849 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6352fef59f72ce488afe481a6989011a7616d9e0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

From inconsistency to hypocrisy: When does “saying one thing but doing another” invite condemnation? (2018, background): “One factor is motivation, which research has long documented can shape the perception of ambiguous stimuli (Abrams, Randsley de Moura, & Travaglino, 2013; Balcetis & Dunning, 2006; Hastorf & Cantril, 1954).”
The Illusion of Conscious Will (2018, background): “A classic social psychological study called “They Saw a Game” by Hastorf and Cantril (1954) recounted the wholesale misperception of the number of infractions on each side of a football game between Princeton and Dartmouth.”
A Rose by Any Name? The Values Construct (2000, background): “For example, perhaps the Dartmouth and Princeton football fans’ football club social value priorities were highly salient and therefore influenced their perceptions of the football game made famous by Hastorf and Cantril (1954).”
Moderating and Mediating Effects of Team Identification in Regard to Causal Attributions and Summary Judgments Following a Game Outcome (2008, background): “The first study to consider how fans’ attributions about a game outcome are interpreted differently based on team allegiance was conducted by Hastorf and Cantril (1954). They found that Princeton students reported seeing a higher number of infractions committed against their school’s team than did s”
Data from Paper “False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant” (2014, background): “…copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1850704 of ambiguous information and remarkably adept at reaching justifiable conclusions that mesh with their desires (Babcock & Loewenstein, 1997; Dawson, Gilovich, & Regan, 2002; Gilovich, 1983; Hastorf & Cantril, 1954; Kunda, 1990; Zuckerman, 1979).”
False-Positive Psychology (2011, background): “…3/17/11; Revision accepted 5/23/11 of ambiguous information and remarkably adept at reaching justifiable conclusions that mesh with their desires (Babcock & Loewenstein, 1997; Dawson, Gilovich, & Regan, 2002; Gilovich, 1983; Hastorf & Cantril, 1954; Kunda, 1990; Zuckerman, 1979).”
Feeling Validated Versus Being Correct:A Meta-Analysis of Selective Exposure to Information (2009, neutral): “Therefore, to obtain a clearer picture of congeniality biases, future research should explore the size and variability of the bias at information interpretation (Bargh, 1999; Bruner, 1957; Darley & Gross, 1983; Duncan, 1976; Hastorf & Cantril, 1954; Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979).”
Reputation as a Benefit and a Burden? How Stakeholders’ Organizational Identification Affects the Role of Reputation Following a Negative Event (2016, background): “For example, Hastorf and Cantril’s classic study of an American collegiate football game showed that students favored their alma mater versus the opponent when tracking penalties (Hastorf & Cantril, 1954).”
Media bias in presidential elections: a meta‐analysis (2000, background): “It might be a matter of selective perception (Bauer, 1964), an example of two people observing the same message or event, but interpreting it differently (Hastorf & Cantril, 1954).”
The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: The sensemaking-intuition model (2007, background): “ences in perception, Hastorf and Cantril (1954) asked Dartmouth and Princeton students to as”
Conveniently Upset: Avoiding Altruism by Distorting Beliefs About Others’ Altruism (2015, neutral): “4 See Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler (1986); Hoffman et al. (1994); and Bolton, Katok, and Zwick (1998). A vast literature studies different aspects of these preferences, including Rabin (1993); Fehr and Schmidt (1999); Bolton and Ockenfels (2000); Heinrich et al. (2001); and Malmendier, te Velde, an”