Behavioral and Brain Sciences

Cambridge Journals Online - CUP Full-Text Page
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (2009), 32:526-527 Cambridge University Press
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010
doi:10.1017/S0140525X09991270

Open Peer Commentary

(Not so) positive illusions


Justin Krugera1, Steven Chana2 and Neal Roesea3

a1 Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, NY 10012. jkruger@stern.nyu.edu http://w4.stern.nyu.edu/faculty/facultyindex.cgi?id=370
a2 Department of Marketing, Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, NY 10012. schan@stern.nyu.edu http://w4.stern.nyu.edu/marketing/research.cfm?doc_id=872
a3 Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208. n-roese@kellogg.northwestern.edu http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/Faculty/Directory/Roese_Neal.aspx
Article author query
kruger j [PubMed]  [Google Scholar]
chan s [PubMed]  [Google Scholar]
roese n [PubMed]  [Google Scholar]

Abstract

We question a central premise upon which the target article is based. Namely, we point out that the evidence for “positive illusions” is in fact quite mixed. As such, the question of whether positive illusions are adaptive from an evolutionary standpoint may be premature in light of the fact that their very existence may be an illusion.

The evolution of misbelief Ryan T. McKay and Daniel C. Dennett Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich, Zurich 8006, Switzerland; and Centre for Anthropology and Mind, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6PE, United Kingdom ryantmckay@mac.com http://homepage.mac.com/ryantmckay/; The Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155-7059 ddennett@tufts.edu http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/incbios/dennettd/dennettd.htm