Andrei Cimpian
LightNews LightNews
banner
andreicimpian.bsky.social
Andrei Cimpian
@andreicimpian.bsky.social
310 followers 140 following 46 posts
Professor, Department of Psychology, New York University
Research: gender, stereotypes, motivation, explanation
President, @cogdevsoc.bsky.social
Married to @joecimpian.bsky.social
Website: https://cimpianlab.com
Posts Replies Media Videos
andreicimpian.bsky.social
Cc: @aashnap.bsky.social @sophieharnold.bsky.social
November 3, 2025 at 3:33 PM
andreicimpian.bsky.social
Congrats, Benedek! I chuckled at the backronym 💯
October 15, 2025 at 1:06 AM
andreicimpian.bsky.social
Same here!
October 14, 2025 at 2:38 PM
andreicimpian.bsky.social
More information about the benefits packages at NYU Abu Dhabi: drive.google.com/file/d/1myMH...

Questions? Feel free to reach out to @avial.bsky.social @jsskeffington.bsky.social
NYU-Abu-Dhabi-Compensation-and-Benefits.pdf
drive.google.com
October 14, 2025 at 11:32 AM
andreicimpian.bsky.social
Looking forward! 🤗
October 13, 2025 at 7:18 PM
andreicimpian.bsky.social
Yes, the correspondence bias is (in my view) a particular instantiation of this same heuristic, as applied to human behavior. We discuss this in the paper. Hope it seems plausible to you!
September 22, 2025 at 6:33 PM
andreicimpian.bsky.social
Free pdf: drive.google.com/file/d/1D9GJ...
HorneKobasCimpian_PNAS.pdf
drive.google.com
September 22, 2025 at 2:27 PM
andreicimpian.bsky.social
Scientific explanation is one of the most sophisticated forms of human reasoning. Nevertheless, here we hypothesize that scientific explanation is susceptible to some of the same biases that influence everyday thinking—particularly during the initial stages of theory building, when scientists are first grappling with complex phenomena and are thus more likely to rely on explanatory “guesses.” Specifically, we investigated whether scientific explanation exhibits an inherence bias—a tendency to explain phenomena through inherent or intrinsic features rather than extrinsic factors such as context or relations. Consistent with this hypothesis, a comprehensive analysis of major explanatory transitions across the history of Western science revealed that initial scientific explanations systematically favored inherent properties, while subsequent explanations incorporated extrinsic factors more consistently. Seven experiments with lay participants (both adults and children; N 1,673) and two experiments with practicing scientists from top departments worldwide (N 275) provided converging evidence for this bias and identified the psychological mechanisms involved. When explaining unfamiliar phenomena, even leading scientists showed a robust tendency to overweight inherent properties and underweight extrinsic factors relative to established scientific understanding. This bias appears rooted in basic cognitive constraints on attention and memory that excessively narrow the space of hypotheses initially considered.
September 22, 2025 at 2:27 PM