Running head: Attribution and Longevity Bias
An Attributional Model of Longevity Bias
John C. Blanchar
University of Arkansas
Scott Eidelman
University of Arkansas
Word count: 8613 (excluding abstract and references; Abstract: 149)
Author Note
This research was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship
awarded to John C. Blanchar under Grant No. 2011118823.
Please address correspondence to:
Scott Eidelman
Department of Psychological Science
University of Arkansas
211 Memorial Hall
Fayetteville, AR 72701
eidelman@uark.edu
ph: 479-575-4967; fax: 479-575-3219
1
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
2
Abstract
Across five studies, we test an attribution model of longevity bias, the tendency for perceivers to
assume longstanding entities are better and more legitimate. A conspiracy theory, a
psychotherapy, a pseudoscience, and a legend were each judged as more legitimate when
described as longer-standing. Longevity was explained in ways that corroborated inherent
qualities (Studies 1 and 4) and led to assumptions about competition and testing (Studies 2 and
5); inherent qualities and successful competition both mediated the relation between longevity
and legitimacy. Longevity bias was eliminated when an external attribution for success was
rendered salient (Study 3), when participants were instructed to think hard (Study 4), and among
those who corrected initial, intuitive responses (Study 5). Longevity bias seems to be due to an
intuitive, attributional logic akin to notions of “survival of the fittest:” perceivers assume
longstanding entities are better due to inherent qualities that suggest successful competition.
Key Words: Longevity Bias, Attribution, Status Quo Maintenance; Heuristics
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
3
An Attributional Model of Longevity Bias
People often cite the longevity of institutions and practices to establish their credibility.
Examples include the ancient wisdom of alternative medicines and the time-honored rituals of
our religious traditions. With these examples comes a recognition for what is commonly referred
to as the wisdom of the ages; what persists is given credence. As Hitchens (2003) noted, “[T]ime
has a way of assigning value” (p. A12).
In what follows we describe the process through which people link this value to time in
existence. We argue that perceivers follow an attributional logic akin to notions of Darwinian
natural selection and survival of the fittest; they recognize that time is antagonistic to survival,
assume that what maintains has inherent qualities (e.g., validity, credibility, and truth) that
indicate successful competition, and augment these qualities to account for persistence through
time. In this way, perceived time in existence confers legitimacy.
The value of longer time in existence
That which persists through time is judged more favorably. Institutional rules are better
and more right, medical practices more effective, and consumer products more desirable when
thought to exist for longer (Eidelman, Crandall, & Pattershall, 2009; Eidelman, Pattershall, &
Crandall, 2010). Interrogation techniques commonly described as torture are justified and
supported more when said to be older rather than new (Crandall, Eidelman, Skitka, & Morgan,
2009), and religious, economic, and social institutions are perceived as more legitimate when
presented as longstanding (Blanchar & Eidelman, 2013; Warner & Kiddo, 2014).
We have labelled this tendency to derive goodness and rightness from time in existence
as a longevity bias, and described it as the outcome of heuristic processing (Eidelman &
Crandall, 2014). For example, positive evaluation of longstanding entities is overgeneralized to
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
4
dimensions uncorrelated with time in existence; chocolate said to have been on the market for
longer is tastier, an older tree is more beautiful, and an older painting is more aesthetically
pleasing than their more recent (but otherwise identical) counterparts (Eidelman et al., 2010).
People also do not seem to recognize the effect of time in existence when its connection defies
reason (e.g., when time in existence affects aesthetic and gustatory evaluations). When asked for
reasons why they liked the chocolate they sampled, participants did not mention or endorse the
time the product had been on the market even though they reported that the older chocolate
tasted better. Overgeneralization and lack of awareness of a process are markers of heuristic
processing (Kahneman, 2011; Kahneman & Frederick, 2002; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).
Of course, describing a process as heuristic still leaves much unsaid; it is still necessary
to explain how the process works (Kahneman & Frederick, 2002; Shaw & Oppenheimer, 2008).
Bellow we detail an attributional model to explain why people assume that longstanding states of
the world are better and more right.
An attributional model
Perceivers tend to attribute the cause of outcomes to stable, dispositional sources (Heider,
1958). In the case of person perception, they initially and easily interpret behavior to be the result
of corresponding traits that reside within people (Gilbert & Malone, 1995; Uleman, Newman, &
Moskowitz, 1996) while missing, ignoring, or under-appreciating situational demands (e.g.,
Ross, 1977). A similar process occurs for the perception of groups (Allison & Messick, 1985),
and for patterns more generally (Cimpian & Salomon, 2014). These findings make the point that
social inference is outcome-biased; perceivers assume that outcomes are caused by requisite
outcome-consistent qualities that reside within agents (Allison, Mackie, & Messick, 1996).
These tendencies to treat dispositional and inherent features as causal have been described as
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
5
automatic (Gilbert, Pelham, & Krull, 1988) and heuristic (Allison, Worth, & Campbell King,
1990; Campian & Salomon, 2014), and they are also consistent with dual-process models of
intuitive thinking. Particular features of an event or pattern automatically come to mind at the
expense of others that may be important but less salient; these accessible features are then
combined to form a coherent story that results in an intuition (Cimpian & Salomon, 2014;
Kahneman, 2011). Although this process is thought be to automatic, its output may be modified
or overridden if more deliberate, intentional thinking uncovers evidence that indicates the need to
correct the initial response.
A similar process may explain longevity bias (and the related existence bias; Eidelman &
Crandall, 2014). Just as perceivers automatically assume behavior occurs because actors have the
necessary traits to perform an act, so too may they automatically assume existing and
longstanding entities have the necessary capacities to overcome time and its opposing forces
(e.g., competition, scrutiny, and testing). These capacities are qualities inherent to the entity that
explain its ability to successfully establish and persist, and include goodness (desirability),
rightness (legitimacy), and supporting features that are indicative of, and give weight to, these
qualities. This process loosely resembles Darwinian natural selection and notions of “survival of
the fittest;” entities that survive and persist are necessarily better and more legitimate because
they have inherent qualities that allow them to overcome the barriers of time. The greater the
persistence (the longer the time in existence), the more the entity should possess these requisite
qualities, and the stronger these qualities should be.
The tendency for perceivers to assume inherent properties as causal and to augment them
in response to the opposing forces of time (e.g., Kelley, 1971) requires the additional assumption
that persistence is not aided by forces external to the entity. Perceivers seem to be unaware of the
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
6
influence of external forces on behavior (Jones, 1979; Miller, Mayerson, Poque, & Whitehouse,
1977), and we expect the same bias when they explain persistence. If they were to become aware
of these forces, and able and willing to engage in effortful correction (D’Agostino & FincherKiefer, 1992; Gilbert et al., 1988), the causal weight given to inherent qualities might be
discounted. If external features that facilitate persistence are not considered, these inherent
features should be augmented to account for the antagonism of time. In the present context, this
means that perceivers should under-appreciate external forces that encourage survival of entities
beyond what is ostensibly due to their inherent qualities. In terms that speak to notions of natural
selection and survival of the fittest, perceivers may under-appreciate the role of “artificial” or
“unnatural selection forces (e.g., success due to the intent of those with vested interests) in
maintaining these long-standing entities.
Overview of the Present Research
The above reasoning leads to several predictions. First, perceptions of longer time in
existence should bestow entities with goodness and rightness. In the present research, we focused
on judgments of legitimacy; entities thought to maintain for longer should be seen as more valid
credible, and true. Second, this persistence should be attributed to inner qualities. Similar to
biases favoring dispositional and outcome-correspondent inferences, people should assume the
presence of inherent qualities that explain persistence and provide legitimacy. Third, perceivers
should assume that longevity is evidence of success over competition and testing; entities with
the stamp of time should be seen as more likely to have beat out competitors and overcome
scrutiny to persist, and perceptions of successful competition should also explain longevity bias.
Fourth, in much the same way that salient situational forces weaken attributional bias, awareness
of external factors that explain persistence should eliminate the causal link between longevity
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
7
and legitimacy. Finally, because longevity bias is posited to result from heuristic processing that
automatically brings to mind inherent features that explain success over time, it should be most
likely to manifest when perceivers give a quick, initial response. Deliberate responding should
result in the discovery of other reasons for success over time, decrease reliance on inherent
features, and reduce or eliminate the bias.
Five studies tested these ideas in the context of dubious beliefs and practices. Study 1 was
designed to test whether perceivers assume inherent features of entities are responsible for
persistence through time; we manipulated the perceived longevity of a conspiracy theory and
measured its legitimacy as well as internal vs. external attributions for persistence by coding
open-ended explanations. Study 2 addressed assumptions about competition due to time in
existence. We manipulated the perceived longevity of a questionable psychotherapeutic
technique and measured legitimacy and assumptions about overcoming competition and scrutiny
to determine whether these assumptions mediated the relation between longevity and legitimacy.
In Study 3, we manipulated the perceived longevity of Astrology and the presence of an external
explanation for its persistence. We measured legitimacy in two ways, including susceptibility to
bogus personality feedback ostensibly based on astrological information. We expected
participants to correct their judgments and not show a longevity bias when an external
explanation for persistence was rendered salient.
The last two studies also addressed the issue of correction, as well as the role of
heuristic/intuitive vs. deliberate thinking in producing longevity bias. Both manipulated the
perceived time in existence of the legend of the Yeti of Nepal. In Study 4, we manipulated
instructions to use either intuitive or deliberate thinking when considering reasons for
persistence, and coded these reasons for inherent attributions. We also measured legitimacy, and
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
8
predicted that longevity would confer legitimacy among those instructed to think intuitively
because longevity is evidence of inherent features. Those using deliberate thought should not
demonstrate a longevity bias because they should be less likely to evoke inherent features to
explain persistence. In Study 5, we tested a moderated mediation model to see if those who
differed in their tendency to correct initial, intuitive responses were less likely to demonstrate a
longevity bias; all participants should assume successful competition due to time, but only those
who fail to engage in effortful correction of their initial response should link success competition
with increased legitimacy.
Study 1
People assume that longstanding entities are good and right (Eidelman & Crandall, 2014).
Are these assumptions due to an overreliance on inherent features as the cause of persistence, at
the expense of explanations external to the entity? We tested this idea in Study 1. We focused on
alien conspiracy theories surrounding the covert operations of the U.S. Government’s military
base known as “Area 51.” We manipulated perceived time in existence explicitly; participants
read that Area 51 conspiracy theories have existed for about 30 years or 90 years. We predicted
that participants would judge this conspiracy theory as more legitimate and true when told it has
been in existence for a longer period of time. We also predicted that participants would be more
likely to explain persistence by evoking inherent features when the conspiracy theory was older,
and that inherent features would mediate the effect of longevity on legitimacy.
Method
Participants. We posted 60 time slots on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Fifty-nine
American participants (53% female, Mage = 34.5 years) completed the study for remuneration of
10 cents. They completed one of two versions of a survey, described below.
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
9
Procedure. Participants read about a conspiracy theory in which the United States
Government was allegedly hiding knowledge of alien aircrafts at a top-secret facility known as
“Area 51.” Such claims assert that Area 51 is a research facility for the storage, examination, and
reverse engineering of crashed alien spacecrafts in order to develop advanced aircraft
technology. The approximate year of origin for Area 51 conspiracy theories was varied to
manipulate perceived time in existence. The old condition indicated that Area 51 conspiracy
theories “originated about 90 years ago, in the 1920s.” The new condition indicated that these
theories “originated about 30 years ago, in the 1980s.” All other information was held constant
across conditions.
Participants then responded to five items to measure perceived legitimacy of the
conspiracy theory, operationalized as acceptance of its truth: “The United States Government is
hiding evidence that we have been visited by aliens,” “The unusual events surrounding Area 51
involve research on alien technology,” “The incredible advances in military technology stem
from the secret study of alien aircrafts,” “Top-secret research at Area 51 is too advanced to have
not originated from alien beings,” and “There is good reason to suspect that the mysterious
events at Area 51 are connected to aliens.” Responses (1 = definitely false, 9 = definitely true)
were combined to form a legitimacy index (α = .96).
Participants also wrote open-ended answers to the prompt “Why do you think claims that
Area 51 is connected to aliens continue to exist?” Two coders (blind to conditions) individually
read these open-ended statements. Explanations citing evidence corroborating inherent qualities
of the theory were coded as internal attributions (e.g., “mainly because new stories keep
cropping up that compare too well with the older stories giving them credibility” and “because of
footage”); explanations that described factors that were due to something outside the scope of the
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
10
theory were coded as external attributions (e.g., “folklore and movies” and “it is easy to
understand and an exciting theory that many want to be true”). Inter-rater agreement was high (κ
= .88) and discrepancies were resolved through discussion.
Finally, participants indicated how long they thought theories connecting Area 51 to
aliens have been around (1 = not long at all, 9 = a long time).
Results and Discussion
Time in existence. Participants thought Area 51 conspiracy theories existed longer in the
old condition (M = 7.84, SD = 1.42) versus the new condition (M = 6.85, SD = 1.63), t(56) =
2.46, p < .02, ηp2 = .10, 95% CI for difference [0.19, 1.79].
Legitimacy. Area 51 conspiracy theories were also conferred more legitimacy in the old
condition (M = 4.68, SD = 2.07) than in the new condition (M = 3.40, SD = 1.85), t(57) = 2.49, p
< .02, ηp2 = .10, 95% CI for difference [0.25, 2.31]. As predicted, Area 51 alien conspiracy
theories were perceived as more legitimate when they were said to have existed longer.
Explanations. Of the 59 coded responses, 22 cited evidence that corroborated the
inherent qualities of the theory (i.e., they made internal attributions), whereas 33 cited factors
that explained persistence through situational forces (i.e., external attributions). Four participants
did neither (e.g., “not sure”). A Pearson’s Chi-Square analysis indicated that attributions differed
as a function of time in existence. Participants in the old condition reported more internal
attributions (54%) compared those in the new condition (26%), whereas participants in the new
condition reported more external attributions (74%) compared to those in the old condition
(46%), χ2 (1, N = 55) = 4.38, p < .04, Φ = .28.
Mediation analysis. We tested the hypothesis that attributions for the persistence of Area
51 conspiracy theories (0 = internal, 1 = external) mediated the effect of perceived time in
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
11
existence (0 = new, 1 = old) on judgments of legitimacy. Because the bootstrap procedures
developed by Preacher and Hayes (2008) do not allow for estimates of a binary mediator, Mplus
7.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012) was used to generate bootstrapped confidence intervals of the
indirect effect of time in existence on legitimacy by way of attribution based on 5,000 samples.
As predicted, the indirect effect was significant, b = 1.13, 95% CI [0.07, 2.33], and completely
eliminated the direct effect of time in existence on legitimacy, b = -0.02, p > .97, 95% CI [-0.98,
0.87].
These data support our contention that longevity is a cue for its legitimacy, and that
perceivers invoke inherent qualities to explain this longevity. Participants who thought a
conspiracy theory was older were more likely to invoke internal reasons that in turn created
perceptions of legitimacy. Persistence across time seems to provide evidence of inherent
qualities that speak to credibility and truth.
Study 2
We maintain that perceivers follow an attributional logic that resembles notions of
“survival of the fittest.” Time is antagonistic to survival because it provides opportunities for
scrutiny, testing, and competition. This idea is well-captured by conventional idioms such as
“withstanding the test of time” and “only time will tell.” It is continued success over the
antagonism of time that indicates that entities are better and more legitimate. In Study 3 we
tested the idea that time increases competition and scrutiny, which in turn confers legitimacy. We
asked participants to read about Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR)
therapy, a questionable psychotherapeutic technique used to treat trauma-related disorders (e.g.,
Herbert et al., 2000). We manipulated how long this technique was said to have existed and then
measured its legitimacy and opportunities for competition and testing. We predicted that
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
12
perceivers would assume longer time in existence indicated more competition and testing, and
that this in turn would increase legitimacy.
Method
Participants. Sixty slots were posted on Amazon Mechanical Turk for a study about
therapeutic techniques. Fifty-nine American participants (20.3% female; Mage = 26.27 years)
completed the study and were compensated 20 cents.
Procedure. Participants read a short but accurate description of EMDR. It indicated that
EMDR is a psychotherapy in which a patient recalls a traumatic event while simultaneously
undergoing bilateral stimulation (e.g., moving the eyes from side to side or tapping movements
on different sides of the body). According to the theory, when a distressing experience occurs, it
may overwhelm the usual coping mechanisms; the experience is inadequately processed and
dysfunctionally stored in memory. The goal of EMDR therapy is to process these distressing
memories to reduce their lingering influence. The description went on to note that the technique
is controversial. To manipulate time in existence, participants read that EMDR was developed in
1998 and had been around for about 15 years (in the new condition) or was developed in 1938
and had been around for about 75 years (in the old condition).
Participants then indicated the extent to which they agreed (1 = strongly disagree, 9 =
strongly agree) with four items measuring the perceived legitimacy of EMDR (whether EMDR
was legitimate, valid, credible, and nonsense [reverse-scored]). These items were combined to
form a legitimacy index (α = .93). Participants also completed three items measuring testing and
competition over alternatives (α = .94; e.g., “There have been many tests of EMDR” and
“EMDR has been pitted against and competed with other techniques.” Finally, participants
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
13
completed a one-item manipulation check for time in existence that asked how long EMDR has
been around (1 = not long at all, 9 = a very long time).
Results and Discussion
Time in existence. EMDR was judged to have existed longer in the old (M = 6.55, SD =
1.76) condition compared to the new (M = 5.30, SD = 1.34) condition, t(57) = 3.06, p = .004, ηp2
= .14, 95% CI for difference [0.43, 2.07].
Legitimacy. The predicted effect of condition on legitimacy was significant, t(57) = 2.26,
p = .028, ηp2 = .08, 95% CI for difference [0.10, 1.71]. Participants perceived EMDR therapy to
be more legitimate in the old condition (M = 5.53, SD = 1.34) relative to new condition (M =
4.58, SD = 1.91).
Competition/testing. A marginally significant effect of condition on perceptions of
competition and testing was found, t(57) = 1.83, p = .072, ηp2 = .06, 95% CI for difference [-0.07,
1.59]. Participants in the old condition reported that EMDR therapy had encountered more
competition and testing (M = 5.09, SD = 1.42) than those in the new condition (M = 4.33, SD =
1.74).
Mediation analysis. We used the bootstrap estimation procedure with BC 95%
confidence intervals for the indirect effect based on 5,000 samples to test whether
competition/testing could account for the effect of time in existence on perceptions of legitimacy.
Longevity (0 = new, 1 = old) marginally affected competition/testing, b = 0.76, p = .07, and
competition/testing predicted legitimacy, b = 0.56, p < .001. While the total effect of longevity
on legitimacy was significant (b = 91, p < .03), its direct effect was not (b = 0.48, p > .16). The
indirect effect of longevity through legitimacy was significant (b = 0.42, 95% CI [0.01, 1.01]);
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
14
perceptions of competition and testing mediated the relationship between longevity and
legitimacy.
Consistent with our claim that participants use attributional logic akin to notions of
“survival of the fittest” and the augmenting principle (Kelley, 1972), data from Study 2 suggest
that assumptions about competition and testing play a role in the way time increases perceptions
of what is valid, credible, and true. Participants indicated that a questionable psychotherapeutic
technique was more legitimate when thought to exist for a longer period of time. They also
tended to assume this technique was subject to more competition and testing under conditions of
longer existence, and these assumptions about successful competition and testing mediated the
relation between longevity and legitimacy. Perceptions of legitimacy were enhanced when
people anticipated counter-veiling forces that were brought on by time.
Study 3
Studies 1 and 2 suggest that perceivers assume time in existence provides evidence of
inherent features and successful competition that in turn provide evidence of legitimacy. But
there are other explanations for persistence across time. Inertia, legislation, ingroup bias, weak or
no competitors, and the like may explain in whole or in part why some entities exist and
maintain. External forces like these may be under-appreciated, if recognized at all (Gilbert &
Malone, 1995). When other factors that might contribute to longevity go unrecognized, they
cannot be taken into account.
In Study 3, we helped participants recognize an external force. We presented them with
information about astrology, manipulated its perceived longevity, and added an additional “old”
condition in which the vested interest of other people (a form of “artificial” selection) was noted
as an alternative account for longevity. Because perceivers are poor at recognizing situational
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
15
constraints (e.g., even when they personally experience the situational constraints or are told
about them directly; Choi & Nisbett, 1998; Jones & Harris, 1967; Snyder & Jones, 1974), we
first opted for an explicit and direct means of rendering external forces salient.
We measured legitimacy in two ways. In addition to asking participants about their
perceptions of astrology’s legitimacy, we also gauged whether they were suggestible due to its
influence. Social influence is a consequence of legitimacy (Michener & Burt, 1975; Raven,
1965), and so we gave participants a bogus personality profile ostensibly based on astrology to
investigate their susceptibility to the Barnum effect, the gullible tendency to endorse a general
personality description as true (Foreer, 1949). We expected participants to rate astrology as more
legitimate, and to be more likely to fall prey to the Barnum effect, when astrology was said to be
older—unless an external force (artificial selection) was rendered salient.
Method
Participants. We posted seventy slots, a number determined by the availability of
research credits at the time of data collection. Sixty-nine University of Arkansas undergraduates
(54% female) filled these slots and participated in exchange for course credit. Two participants
were excluded for failing to follow instructions, leaving 67 participants in the final sample. Each
was randomly assigned to view one of three versions of information about astrology, described
below.
Procedure. Participants were run individually. They were greeted and escorted to a
private room to complete a study purportedly about how personality relates to attitudes and
opinions. The experimenter seated participants in front of a computer and asked them to read the
instructions on each screen carefully. Participants completed the remainder of the study alone via
computer.
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
16
After providing informed consent, participants read a short but accurate description of
astrology. Participants were told that astrology was the study of the movements and positions of
celestial bodies interpreted as having an influence on human affairs and the natural world. They
read that astrologers use mathematical models along with astrological charts to make predictions
about terrestrial events (e.g., natural disasters) and personality characteristics that manifest from
celestial influences. A dateless timeline—varied to portray astrology as relatively new or old—
followed this description as a manipulation of time in existence. The new condition depicted the
origins of astrology adjacent to present day on the far right of the timeline with events preceding
it (e.g., Egyptian Calendar, Xia Dynasty). The old condition depicted astrology’s origins furthest
from present day with subsequent events (e.g., Zhou Dynasty, Treaty of Peronne) in between. A
third condition, also portraying astrology as relative old, added information highlighting
circumstances of artificial selection. An additional sentence indicated that “many have suggested
that astrology has persisted only because of financial interests among its promoters.” Aside from
this and the timeline, all information was held constant across conditions.
Participants then completed three filler items (e.g., “How familiar are you with the
American Federation of Astrologers?”), a time in existence manipulation check (“For how long
has the study of astrology been around?” [1 = not long at all, 7 = a very long time]), and four
items that measured perceived legitimacy on 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scales (α
= .95): “Astrology is a legitimate/valid/credible field of study” and “Astrology is nonsense”
(reverse-scored).
Participants next answered several questions that would seemingly contribute to the
calculation of a personality profile. They were asked to indicate, for example, their full date of
birth, whether they were born in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere, the approximate time
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
17
they were born, and how many siblings they had. After this information was entered, a fictitious
computer program appeared to generate a personality profile using this information in
conjunction with astrological charts representing planetary positions. In reality, all participants
received the same bogus personality profile used in classic research on the Barnum effect (Forer,
1949):
You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be
critical of yourself. You have a great deal of unused capacity, which you have not turned
to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able
to compensate for them. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be
worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have
made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change
and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You
pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others' statements without
satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to
others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are
introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic.
Security is one of your major goals in life.
Upon viewing this personality profile, participants responded to four items measuring the extent
to which this profile was “accurate,” “a good fit,” “a poor description” (reverse-scored), and “a
fair description” (α = .88). They then were invited to write any comments they had about the
study. No participant was suspicious of the true purpose of the experiment, and none expressed
any doubt about the authenticity of the personality profile. Participants were then debriefed,
thanked, and dismissed.
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
18
Results and Discussion
Time in existence. A one-way ANOVA confirmed the effectiveness of the time in
existence manipulation, F(2, 64) = 5.69, p < .01, ηp2 = .15. Relative to the new condition (M =
4.17, SD = 2.32), astrology was perceived as significantly older in both the old (M = 5.91, SD =
1.54), t(64) = 3.03, p < .01, ηp2 = .13, 95% CI for difference [0.58, 2.90], and old/artificial
selection (M = 5.71, SD = 1.80) conditions, t(64) = 2.52, p < .02, ηp2 = .09, 95% CI for difference
[0.30, 2.78]. There was no difference between the old and old/artificial selection conditions, t <
1.
Legitimacy. Time in existence also produced a significant effect on legitimacy, F(2, 64)
= 7.79, p = .002, ηp2 = .17.1 To test our hypothesis that artificial selection would attenuate
legitimacy that was otherwise augmented due to longevity, we computed a planned comparison
using -.5, -.5, and +1 contrast weights for the new, old/artificial selection, and old conditions,
respectively. This analysis was significant, F(1, 64) = 13.10, p < .001, ηp2 = .17; legitimacy
appraisals of astrology were greater in the old condition (M = 6.18, SD = 0.87) relative to the
new (M = 4.64, SD = 1.93) and old/artificial selection conditions (M = 4.87, SD = 1.51).
Personality endorsement. Endorsement of the bogus personality profile was also
submitted to a one-way ANOVA. A marginally significant effect for time in existence emerged,
F(2, 64) = 2.46, p = .09, ηp2 = .07. We followed this omnibus test with the planned comparison
and contrast weights as above. Consistent with predictions, participants in the old condition (M =
6.06, SD = 0.92) endorsed the bogus personality profile as more self-descriptive compared to
those in the new (M = 5.44, SD = 1.20) and old/artificial (M = 5.32, SD = 1.39) conditions, F(1,
64) = 4.88, p = .03, ηp2 = .07.
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
19
Meditation analyses. We expected that perceptions of longer time in existence would
confer greater legitimacy upon astrology and in turn lead participants to believe the personality
profile was more diagnostic. We tested this prediction by computing bootstrapped BC
confidence intervals to estimate the indirect of effect of time in existence (0 = new, 1 = old) on
personality endorsement through perceptions of astrology as legitimate. The indirect effect was
significant, b = 0.38, 95% CI [0.14, 0.72], and completely reduced the direct effect of time in
existence on personality endorsement to non-significance, b = 0.72, p > .47, providing evidence
of mediation.
Astrology was conferred more legitimacy when it was portrayed as older, and this
increased legitimacy led participants to construe bogus personality feedback as more accurate.
As expected, bias from time in existence was attenuated when attention was drawn to the
possibility of “artificial” selection to explain persistence, in this case the vested interest of others.
Participants did not seem to summon external causes for longstanding beliefs on their own, but
seemed to correct for such information when it was rendered salient.
Study 4
Is longevity bias due to quick, intuitive processing that can be overcome with
deliberation? In Study 4, we manipulated the longevity of the legend of the Yeti of Nepal.
Crossed with this manipulation was another that instructed participants to either think intuitively
or deliberately before coming up with an explanation for its persistence. Participants then
answered questions about the legend’s legitimacy. When instructed to give the first reason that
comes to mind, participants should focus on inherent qualities (internal attributions) to explain
longevity and assume legitimacy from it. By contrast, participants instructed to think hard and
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
20
consider multiple factors before giving a reason should be less likely to invoke inherent features
to explain persistence, and less likely to assume that longer existence confers legitimacy.
Method
Participants. We posted one hundred slots, a number determined by the availability of
research credits at the time of data collection. One hundred undergraduates (71% female; Mage =
19.35, SD = 2.09) filled these slots and completed a series of unrelated studies via an Internet
survey in exchange for course credit.
Procedure. We gave participants a short description of the myth of the Yeti of Nepal,
Participants read that the Yeti, also known as the Abominable Snowman, was a lumbering apelike creature supposedly inhabiting the Himalayan region. To manipulate time in existence, they
read that this legend first appeared more than 125 years ago (old) or less than 25 years ago (new).
Participants were then randomly assigned to a processing-explanation condition. Half were
instructed to provide the “very first, immediate reason that comes to mind for why the Yeti
legend continues to exist” (intuitive explanation); the rest were instructed to not give the first
reason that came to mind but instead to “consider all of the relevant factors and then give a
reason after you have thought hard about why the Yeti legend continues to exist” (deliberative
explanation). Two coders, blind to condition, independently coded these responses for
explanations emphasizing “inherent essence/internal attributions” versus “outside
forces/situational attributions;” reliability was high (κ = .76, p < .001; 88% agreement) with
disagreements resolved through discussion.
Participants then responded to eight items measuring perceived legitimacy that were
combined to form a legitimacy index (α = .89). Representative items included: “It is reasonable
to believe Yeti-like creatures inhabit the Himalayan Mountains,” “It is unrealistic to believe
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
21
Yeti-like creatures inhabit the Himalayan Mountains” (reverse-scored), and “It is legitimate to
believe Yeti-like creatures inhabit the Himalayan Mountains” (1 = strongly disagree, 9 =
strongly agree). A manipulation check asked participants to indicate how long belief in the Yeti
myth has existed (1 = not long at all, 9 = a long time).
Time in existence. Participants’ perceived time in existence of the Yeti legend was
submitted to a 2 (Longevity) × 2 (Processing) between-subjects ANOVA. Confirming our
manipulation, only a main effect of longevity condition was found, F(1, 96) = 27.17, p < .001,
η2p = .22, 95% CI for difference [1.51, 3.33]. The Yeti legend was judged to be older in the old
condition (M = 7.12, SD = 2.29) than the new condition (M = 4.71, SD = 2.27). Perceptions of
time in existence were not influenced by processing condition (p > .96), nor its interaction with
longevity condition (p > .68).
Legitimacy. Perceived legitimacy of the Yeti legend was analyzed in a 2 (Longevity) × 2
(Processing) between-subjects ANOVA. This analysis revealed a significant Longevity ×
Processing interaction, F(1, 96) = 9.00, p = .003, η2p = .09. In the intuitive processing condition,
participants judged the Yeti legend to be more legitimate when described as old (M = 4.52, SD =
1.38) than when described as new (M = 3.70, SD = 1.62), F(1, 96) = 3.89, p = .052, η2p = .04,
95% CI for difference [-0.006, 1.65]. By contrast, in the deliberate processing condition
participants rated the Yeti myth as less legitimate when described as old (M = 3.62, SD = 1.60)
versus new (M = 4.55, SD = 1.19), F(1, 96) = 5.17, p = .025, η2p = .05, 95% CI for difference
[0.12, 1.74]. No effects of longevity or processing condition were found, Fs < 1, ps > .85.
Explanations. Coded explanations for whether participants indicated the Yeti legend
persisted due to inherent reasons (i.e., made internal attributions; 0) or external forces (1) were
analyzed via binary logistic regression with longevity (0 = new, 1 = old), processing (0 =
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
22
intuitive, 1 = deliberative), and their interaction in the model. Only a main effect of longevity
condition was found, b = 1.27, SE = .60, Wald = 4.47, p = .035. Participants in the old condition
primarily relied on inherent qualities/internal attributions (59%) to account for the Yeti legend’s
persistence, whereas those in the new conditioned were more likely to cite outside or external
forces (63%).
The predicted interaction between processing instructions and longevity was not
significant (p > .38). However, separate analyses within processing condition indicated that those
in the intuitive condition were more likely to invoke internal attributions in the old condition
(66.7%) than the new condition (36%), z = 2.1, p < .04. Participants in the deliberate condition
did not differ in their tendency to mention internal attributions in the old (52%) vs. new (38.4%)
condition, z = 1.0, p > .33.There was no effect for processing condition (p > .85).
Mediation analysis. We predicted that participants’ tendency to rely on internal
attribution explanations for the Yeti legend in the intuitive condition would account for the effect
of longevity on perceived legitimacy. We tested for mediation using the bootstrapped estimation
procedure in Mplus based on 5,000 samples. Longevity condition (0 = new, 1 = old) predicted
participants’ explanations for the Yeti legend’s persistence (0 = internal, 1= external), b = -0.79,
p = .043, which in turn predicted perceived legitimacy, b = -0.78, p = .001. As expected, the
indirect effect of longevity condition on perceived legitimacy through internal explanations was
significant, b = 0.61, 95% CI [0.10, 1.53], and fully accounted for the effect of longevity on
legitimacy; the direct effect of longevity on legitimacy was not significant, b = 0.21, p > .64.
Discussion
Consistent with Study 1, participants in Study 4 invoked inherent features to explain
persistence. Those who were led to think the legend of the Yeti of Nepal was older were more
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
23
likely to attribute this longevity to qualities internal to the legend, and these internal qualities
mediated the positive relation between time in existence and the legend’s legitimacy.
Importantly, this was only the case when participants were instructed to think intuitively and
report the first reason that came to mind for persistence. Participants who were instructed to give
a more thoughtful, deliberate response tended to invoke internal features less, and they did not
confer legitimacy from longevity (though we are quick to note that the Processing Instruction by
Longevity interaction for participants’ explanations of longevity was not significant, and so we
offer this interpretation with caution). These data support our claims that perceivers assume
longstanding entities are more good and right because they have inherent features that explain
persistence, that this is due to heuristic processing, and that more deliberate processing can
correct these assumptions.
Study 5
Our attributional model of longevity bias posits that assumptions about the goodness and
rightness of longstanding entities stem from a quick, intuitive process similar to models of
attribution and heuristic processing (e.g., Allison et al., 2000; Cimpian & Salomon, 2014; Gilbert
et al., 1988; Kahneman, 2011); perceivers automatically assume longstanding entities are
necessarily better and more legitimate because they have inherent qualities that allow the barriers
of time to be overcome. These initial assumptions prevail when perceivers fail to take into
account external forces that could explain persistence. Study 3 showed that perceivers can take
these external forces into account when mentioned explicitly, and Study 4 suggested that
deliberate processing via instruction can have a similar effect. Will perceivers uncover this
information and then deliberately correct for it on their own, and does this correction overrides
an initial, intuitive response?
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
24
In Study 5, we attempt to answer these questions by comparing the judgments of
participants who differ in their tendency to deliberately override an initial, intuitive response.
Participants were given the same brief description of the Yeti legend from Study 4. We
manipulated how long this legend had (supposedly) been around and then measured participants’
perceptions of its legitimacy and presumed success over scrutiny, testing, and competitors.
Participants also completed the Cognitive Reflections Test (CRT; Frederick, 2005). The CRT
consists of three simple problems, each with an intuitive-but-incorrect answer that can be
corrected with deeper thought. This measure has been shown to predict performance on several
heuristics and biases tasks that require overcoming an initial response (Toplak, West, &
Stanovich, 2011). We expected all participants to assume that longevity indicated success over
competition and testing (an initial response), but that only those who scored high on the CRT
would correct this assumption, disrupting the link between longevity and legitimacy otherwise
found. We used a moderated mediation model to test these predictions.
Method
Participants. We posted eighty slots, a number determined by the availability of research
credits at the time of data collection. Seventy-eight undergraduates (65 women; Mage = 18.84, SD
= 1.35) filled these slots and participated in a study about social perception in exchange for
partial fulfillment of a course requirement. One participant was excluded from the sample for
failing to follow instructions, leaving 77 participant for analyses. Each completed one of two
versions of a questionnaire described below.
Procedure. Participants independently completed a packet of unrelated questionnaires in
groups of four to six. One questionnaire contained the same brief description of the Yeti myth
used in Study 4. However, this time we manipulated time in existence by showing participants a
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
25
dateless timeline. Similar to Study 3, this timeline depicted the origins of the Yeti myth as
relatively new or old. Participants in the new condition viewed a version of this timeline
depicting the Yeti myth’s origins on the right-most end of the timeline—adjacent to present
day—with other events chronologically preceding (e.g., James Cook lands on Hawaiian Islands,
Napoleon defeated at Waterloo), whereas participants in the old condition viewed the Yeti
myth’s origins on the left-most end of the timeline—furthest away from present day—with other
events chronologically following (e.g., Prussia invades Austria, Neil Armstrong walks on the
Moon). Participants were asked to review the timeline before responding to the statements that
followed.
Participants then responded to the same legitimacy index from Study 4 (α = .89). Five
additional items measured presumed success over scrutiny, testing, and competition. Agreement
with each of the following statement was assessed on 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree)
response scales: “Belief in the Yeti has had to beat out other explanations for sightings of an apelike creature in the Himalayans,” “Belief in the Yeti has successfully competed with other
reasons for sightings of an ape-like creature in the Himalayans,” “Belief in Yeti creatures has
overcome scrutiny,” “Belief in Yeti creatures has stood up to a lot of questions,” and “Belief that
Yeti creatures inhabit the Himalayans has withstood the test of time” (α = .66). A manipulation
check asked participants to indicate how long belief in the Yeti myth has existed (1 = not long at
all, 9 = a long time).
Participants’ packets also contained the 3-item version of the CRT (Frederick, 2005). The
number of correct responses to these three questions, indicating the overriding of an initial
intuitive response, was summed and used as a measure of reflective thinking.
Results
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
26
Manipulation check. Supporting our manipulation of time in existence, participants in
the old condition perceived the Yeti myth as having existed longer (M = 7.68, SD = 1.51)
compared to those in the new condition (M = 5.34, SD = 2.33), t(74) = 5.20, p < .001, η2p = .27,
95% CI for difference [1.45, 3.24].2
Legitimacy. As predicted, the Yeti myth was perceived as more legitimate in the old
condition (M = 4.42, SD = 1.80) relative to the new condition (M = 3.65, SD = 1.50), t(75) =
2.03, p < .05, η2p = .05, , 95% CI for difference [0.02, 1.52].
Presumed competition and vetting. Perceptions of how much competition and vetting
the Yeti myth was subject to also differed as a function of longevity condition, t(74) = 1.95, p =
.055, η2p = .05, 95% CI for difference [-0.01, 1.31]. Greater competition was presumed in the old
condition (M = 4.90, SD = 1.72) compared to the new condition (M = 4.26, SD = 1.11).
Mediation analysis. We employed the bootstrap estimation procedure to assess the
indirect effect of time in existence (0 = new, 1 = old) on perceived legitimacy through presumed
competition. The predicted indirect effect was significant, b = 0.48, 95% CI [0.01, 0.99] and
fully explained the direct effect of time in existence on legitimacy.
Moderated mediation analysis. Our model posits that people presume longer time in
existence indicates greater success over competition, which should lead to augmented legitimacy
unless perceivers engage in effortful correction. If true, the indirect effect by way of presumed
success over competition should be attenuated to the extent perceivers engage in effortful
correction of intuitive responses. We found support for this idea using Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS
macro for SPSS to test for moderated mediation (Model 14; see Figure 1), model summary: R2 =
.22, F(1, 74) = 4.05, p = .055; index of moderated mediation: b = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.47, -0.02].
The indirect effect of time in existence on legitimacy through presumed success over
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
27
competition was progressively weaker the more participants responded with effortful correction
on the CRT. Participants who responded with no or little correction on the CRT (-1 SD) judged
the Yeti legend to be the most legitimate, b = 0.54, 95% CI [0.04, 1.10], followed by those who
engaged in moderate correction (mean; M = 0.61), b = 0.44, 95% CI [0.03, 0.92]; those who
engaged in the most correction (+1 SD) judged the Yeti legend as even less legitimate, b = 0.29,
95% CI [0.01, 0.77].
Discussion
Participants once again conferred legitimacy from longevity, and this occurred because
they tended to presume success over competition, testing, and vetting; success over competition
and testing was the intermediate step between longevity and legitimacy. The moderated
mediation model suggests that all participants drew the same initial inference (time in existence
leads to successful competition) but their final judgment depended on whether participants
engage in effortful correction of their initial responses (i.e., CRT performance). Those who
engaged effortful correction did not assume legitimacy from success over competition and
vetting. By contrast, those who tended to go with their first response (and to give intuitive but
incorrect answers on the CRT) did make this assumption. These data provide additional support
for our attributional model of longevity bias. Perceivers initially assume that longevity is due to
successful competition that in turn confers legitimacy, but with reflection and mental effort these
initial assumptions can be overcome.
General Discussion
Longevity confers legitimacy across a wide range of domains. A conspiracy theory, a
psychotherapy, a pseudoscience, and a legend were all judged as more legitimate when thought
to exist longer. We believe these examples of longevity bias are explained by an intuitive,
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
28
attributional logic that seems to resemble notions of natural selection and survival of the fittest:
Perceivers assume entities that survive and persist are necessarily better and more legitimate
because they have inherent qualities that explain success over time and its concomitants (e.g.,
competition, scrutiny, and testing). To reduce mental effort (Kahneman, 2011; Shaw &
Oppenheimer, 2008), perceivers substitute time in existence for characteristics that underlie
goodness, utility, and truth.
An attributional model of longevity bias
Support for this model comes in several forms. In Studies 1 and 4, we found that
participants were more likely to explain persistence of an older entity in ways that corroborated
inherent qualities (i.e., they made internal attributions), and these explanations mediated the
relation between longevity and legitimacy. Studies 3 and 5 found that persistence also led to
assumptions about competition and vetting; these assumptions also mediated the longevitylegitimacy link. Together these findings provide support for our claim that perceivers consider
long-standing entities to possess necessary capacities to overcome the tests of time.
But are these judgments intuitive? When instructed to consider the first reason that came
to mind for why a legend persisted, participants in Study 4 demonstrated a longevity bias
(mediated by internal attributions); by contrast, instructions to think hard and consider multiple
reasons eliminated the bias. In Study 5, only participants who tended to go with their initial
intuitions (as gauged by their responses on the CRT) conferred legitimacy from longevity. These
data suggest that longevity bias is due to uncorrected, intuitive responses that are driven by
heuristic processing (Eidelman & Crandall, 2014; Eidelman et al., 2010). Of course initial
responses can be overcome with time and effort (e.g., Gilbert et al., 2988; Kahneman, 2011).
Participants in Study 3 did not confer legitimacy from longevity when made aware of “external”
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
29
factors that could facilitate longevity, and as noted instruction (Study 4) and motivation (Study
5) to think hard and deliberate offset longevity bias.
This evidence in support of our model must be met with caution. Although we found that
longer time in existence led to assumptions of successful competition and a focus on inherent
features, we have no evidence that the former was the cause of the latter, as our model presumes.
Because we did not measure perceived competition and attribution judgments in the same study,
tests of our own assumption must await future research. We also note that the predictions derived
from our model that we did test were limited to the context of unusual beliefs and practices. Our
intent was to provide strong tests of longevity bias, but nore research is needed to before these
findings can be generalized to other domains.
A novel path to legitimacy
Previous research on legitimacy has focused on fair procedures (Thibaut & Walker,
(1975;Tyler, 2006), fair and desirable outcomes (Skitka, Winquist, & Hutchinson , 2003),
dependence on outcomes (Van der Toorn, Tyler & Jost, 2011), and repeated exposure (in the
case of perceptions of truth; Bacon, 1979; Dechêne, Stahl, Hansen, & Wänke, 2010; Hasher,
Goldstein, & Toppino, 1977). Perceptions of longevity provides a unique path to legitimacy, and
one that may be easier to harness than these alternatives. Time in existence need not be objective
or absolute; as revealed through our timeline manipulations, merely framing an institution,
belief, or practice as relatively older alters legitimacy. Even comparatively illegitimate entities
(e.g., a conspiracy theory or legend) were mutable. Underscoring time in existence seems to be a
novel, quick, and simple means to enhance perceptions of validity, credibility, and truth.
Other implications
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
30
Because legitimacy elicits a sense of obligation that evokes acceptance and deference
(Tyler, 1997; Van der Toorn et al., 2011), it can be considered a form of social influence
(Michner & Burt, 1975; Raven, 1965); Institutions, beliefs, and practices that are thought to have
persisted for longer should exert more influence on people through their increased legitimacy. In
Study 3, we found that the longevity of astrology increased participants’ susceptibility to bogus
personality feedback ostensibly based on this practice; mediation analyses indicated that this was
due to the legitimacy participants assigned to astrology.
Longer-standing entities are likely to be more familiar, and exposure to them more
frequent. These features, held constant in our studies, should increase the biasing impact of
longevity on legitimacy “in the wild” (e.g., Dechêne et al., 2010). Actual time in existence may
also help to disassociate a source from its claims. Under the right conditions, this process can
also increase legitimacy (Arkes, 1991; Gruder et al., 1978; Watts & Holt, 1979; Watts &
McGuire, 1964). These factors speak to the staying power of institutions, beliefs, and practices
across time. Once established, the legitimacy of longevity should be self-perpetuating: What has
been around for longer will be seen as more legitimate, which in turn should increase longevity.
Such a process helps to explain the persistence of entities that represent the status quo.
Concluding Remarks
Time has a way of assigning value, and legitimacy in particular. That way seems to be
through an intuitive, attributional logic. Persistence is the outcome of inherent qualities that are
augmented in response to successful competition over time and its concomitants. For
longstanding institutions, beliefs, and practices, this means more credibility, validity, and truth
due to longer time in existence. Although some truths may be self-evident, others may require
the (presumed) test of time to establish their legitimacy.
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
31
References
Allison, S. T., Mackie, D. M., & Messick, D. M. (1996). Outcome biases in social perception:
Implications for dispositional inference, attitude change, stereotyping, and social
behavior. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp.
53-93). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Allison, S. T., & Messick, D. M. (1985). The group attribution error. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 21, 563-579.
Allison, S. T., Worth, L. T., & Campbell King, M. W. (1990). Group decisions as social
inference heuristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 801-811.
Arkes, H. R., Boehm, L. E., & Xu, G. (1991). Determinants of judged validity. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 576-605.
Bacon, F. T. (1979). Credibility of repeated statements: Memory for trivia. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 241-252.
Blanchar, J.C., & Eidelman, S. (2013). Perceived system longevity increases system justification
and the legitimization of inequality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 238245.
Choi, I., Nisbett, R.E. (1998). Situational salience and cultural differences in the correspondence
bias and actor observer bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 949-960.
Cimpian, A. & Salomon, E. (2014). The inherence heuristic: An intuitive means of making
sense of the world, and a potential precursor to psychological essentialism. Brain and
Behavioral Sciences, 37, 461-480.
Crandall, C.S., Eidelman, S., Skitka, L., & Morgan, G.S. (2009). Status quo framing increases
support for torture. Social Influence, 4, 1-10.
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
32
D’Agostino, P. R., & Fincher-Kiefer, R. (1992). Need for cognition and the correspondence bias.
Social Cognition, 10, 151-163.
Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). The truth about the truth: A metaanalytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 238257.
Eidelman, S., & Crandall, C.S. (2014). The intuitive traditionalist: How biases for existence
and longevity promote the status quo. In M.P. Zanna & J.M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 50, pp. 53-104). Burlington: Academic Press.
Eidelman, S., Crandall, C. S., & Pattershall, J. (2009). The existence bias. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 97, 765-775.
Eidelman, S., Pattershall, J., & Crandall, C. S. (2010). Longer is better. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 57, 993-998.
Forer, B. R. (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of gullibility.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 118–123.
Frederick, S. ( 2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 19, 25– 42.
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
21-38.
Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person
perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
733-740.
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
33
Gruder, C. L., Cook, T. D., Hennigan, K. M., Flay, B. R., Alessi, C., & Halamaj, J. (1978).
Empirical tests of the absolute sleeper effect predicted from the discounting cue
hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1061-1074.
Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential
validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 107-112.
Herbert, J., Lilienfeld, S., Lohr, J.; Montgomery, R., O'Donohue, W., Rosen, G., Tolin, D.
(2000). "Science and pseudoscience in the development of eye movement desensitization
and reprocessing: Implications for clinical psychology". Clinical Psychology Review, 20,
945–971.
Hitchens, C. (2003, November 21). Where's the Aura?. Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition. p.
A12.
Jones, E. E. (1979). The rocky road from acts to dispositions. American Psychologist, 34, 107117.
Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 3, 1-24.
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of System Justification Theory:
Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo.
Political Psychology, 25, 881-919.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in
intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and
biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49-81). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
34
Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attribution in social interaction. New York: General Learning Press.
Michener, H. A., & Burt, M. R. (1975). Use of social influence under varying conditions of
legitimacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 398-407.
Miller, A. G., Mayerson, N., Pogue, M., & Whitehouse, D. (1977). Perceivers’ explanations of
their attributions of attitude. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3,111-114.
Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2012). Mplus User's Guide. Seventh Edition. Los
Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40,
879-891.
Raven, B. H. (1965). Social influence and power. In I. D. Steiner & M. Fishbein (Eds.), Current
studies in social psychology (pp. 371−382). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution
process. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp.
174-220). New York: Academic Press.
Shah, A.K., & Oppenheimer, D.M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: An effort-reduction
framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 207-222.
Skitka, L. J., Winquist, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2003). Are outcome fairness and outcome
favorability distinguishable psychological constructs? A meta-analytic review. Social
Justice Research, 16, 309 – 341.
Snyder, M. & Jones, E.E. (1974). Attitude attribution when behavior is constrained. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 585-560.
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
35
Thibaut J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice; A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The Cognitive Reflection Test as a
predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39, 12751289.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
Science, 185, 1124-1131.
Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary
deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 323-345.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annu. Rev.
Psychol., 57, 375-400.
Uleman, J. S., Newman, L. S., & Moskowitz, G. B. (1996). People as flexible interpreters:
Evidence and issues from spontaneous trait inference. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 211-280). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Van der Toorn, J., Tyler, T. R., & Jost, J. T. (2011). More than fair: Outcome dependence,
system justification, and the perceived legitimacy of authority figures. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 127-138.
Warner, R. H., & Kiddo, K.L. (2014). Are the latter-day saints too later day? Perceived age of
the Mormon Church and attitudes toward Mormons. Group Processes and Intergroup
Relations., 17, 67-778.
Watts, W. A., & Holt, L. E. (1979). Persistence of opinion change induced under conditions of
forewarning and distraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 778-789.
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
36
Watts, W. A., & McGuire, W. J. (1964). Persistence of induced opinion change and retention of
inducing message content. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 223-241.
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
37
Footnotes
1
Levene’s test of homogeneity of variances was significant, F(2, 64) = 7.79, p = .001. Adjusting
for the unequal variances among groups produced the same result, F(2, 38.58) = 10.00, p < .001.
2
Levene’s test for equality of variances was significant, F(74) = 7.56, p < .01. However,
Welch’s t-test produced the same conclusion, t(63.42) = 5.20, p < .001. The same was true for
the competition index, Levene’s test, F(74) = 7.56, p < .01; Welch’s test: t(63.19) = 1.95, p =
.056.
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
38
Figure Captions
Figure 1. Moderated mediation analysis examining presumed competition as a mediator of the
effect of longevity condition on perceived legitimacy as a function of effortful correction on the
CRT (Study 5).
TIME CONFERS LEGITIMACY
39