Peer Reviewed Publications

  1. Cole, J. C., Flores, A., Giga-Boy, G., Klein, O., Sheman, D, K. & Van Boven, L. (in press). Party over pandemic: Partisan cues and trust explain influence public support for Covid-19 policies. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations.  
  2. Ramos, J., Grant, M. D., Dickert, S., Eom, K., Flores, A., Jiga-Boy, G., Kogut, T. Mayorga, M., Pedersen, E. J., Pereira, B., Rubaltelli, E., Slovic, P., Västfjäll, D., & Van Boven, L. (in press). Structured reflection increases intentions to reduce other people’s health risks during COVID-19. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: Nexus.
  3. Cole, J.C., Ehret, P.J., Sherman, D.K., & Van Boven, L. (2022). Social norms explain prioritization of climate policy. Climatic Change, 173 (10). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03396-x 
  4. Flores, A., Cole, J. C., Dickert, S., Eom, K., Jiga-Boy, G. M., Kogut, T., *Loria, .R., Mayorga, M., Pedersen, E.J., Pereira, B., Rubaltelli, E., Sherman, D. K., Slovic, P., Västfjäll, D., & Van Boven, L. .(2022). Politicians polarize and experts depolarize public support for COVID-19 management policies across countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117543119
  5. Grant, M. D., Flores, A., Pedersen, E. J., Sherman, D. K., & Van Boven, L. (2021). When election expectations fail: Polarized perceptions of election legitimacy increase with accumulating evidence of election outcomes and with polarized media. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259473
  6. Fernbach, P.M., & Van Boven, L. (2021). False polarization: Cognitive mechanisms and potential solutions. Current Opinion in Psychology: People Watching: Interpersonal Perception and Prediction, 43, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.06.005
  7. Sherman, D. K., Shteyn, M. F., Han, H., & Van Boven, L. (2021). The exchange between citizens and elected officials: A social psychological framework for citizen climate activists. Behavioural Public Policy, 5(4), 576-705. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.41
  8. Van Boven, L., & Sherman, D. K. (2021). Elite influence on public attitudes about climate policy. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences: Human Response to Climate Change: From Neurons to Collective Action, 42, 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.03.023 
  9. van der Linden, S., Pearson, A., & Van Boven, L. (2021). Introduction. Behavioural Public Policy: Special Issue on Behavioural Climate Policy, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.44
  10. Mrkva, K., Chan, L., & Van Boven, L. (2020). Commentary: Above and beyond the content: Feelings influence mental simulation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43, e139. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X19003108
  11. Mrkva K., Cole, J., & Van Boven, L. (2020). Attention increases environmental risk perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000772
  12. Mrkva, K., Ramos, J., & Van Boven, L. (2020). Attention influences emotion, judgment, and decision making to explain mental simulation. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000221
  13. Shrum, T., Markowitz, E., Buck, H., Gregory, R., van der Linden, S., Attari, S.Z., & Van Boven, L. (2020). Behavioral frameworks to understand public risk response and value assessment of carbon dioxide removal. Journal of the Royal Society Interface Focus, Special Issue: “Going negative: An Interdisciplinary, Holistic Approach to Carbon Dioxide Removal.” https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2020.0002
  14. Bhandari, S., Hallowell, M. R., Van Boven, L., Welker, K., & Gruber, J. (2020). Using augmented virtuality to examine how emotions influence construction hazard identification, risk assessment, and safety decisions. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001755
  15. Mrkva, K., & Van Boven, L. (2020). Salience theory of mere exposure: Relative exposure increases liking, extremity, and emotional intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. DOI: 10.1037/pspa0000184
  16. Mrkva K., Westfall, J., & Van Boven, L. (2019). Attention drives emotion: Voluntary visual attention increases perceived emotional intensity. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619844231
  17. Van Boven, L., Ramos, J., Montal-Rosenberg, R., Kogut, T., Sherman, D. K., & Slovic, P. (2019). It depends: Partisan evaluation of conditional probability importance. Cognition, 51-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.01.020
  18. André, Q., Carmon, Z., Wertenbroch, K., Crum, A., Frank, D., Goldstein, W., Huber, J., Van Boven, L., Weber, B., & Yang, H. (2019). Consumer choice and autonomy in the age of artificial intelligence and big data. Customer Needs and Solutions. DOI: 10.1007/s40547-017-0085-8
  19. Ehret, P., Van Boven, L., & Sherman, D. (2018). Partisan barriers to bipartisanship: Understanding climate policy polarization. Social Psychological and Personality Science: Recent Geopolitical Events, 9, 308–318. DOI: 10.1177/1948550618758709. (Winner: Best Graduate Student paper, APA Division 34, Population and Conservation Psychology.)
  20. Van Boven, L., Ehret, P. J., & Sherman, D. K. (2018a). Psychological barriers to bipartisan public support for climate policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 492-507. DOI: 10.1177/1745691617748966
  21. Van Boven, L., Ehret, P. J., & Sherman, D. K. (2018b). Toward surmounting the psychological barriers to climate policy—appreciating contexts and acknowledging challenges: A reply to Weber (2018). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 512-517. DOI: 10.1177/1745691618774535
  22. Mrkva, K., Travers, M., & Van Boven, L. (2018). Simulational fluency reduces feelings of psychological distance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 354-376. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000408
  23. Mrkva, K., & Van Boven, L. (2017). Attentional accounting: Voluntary spatial attention increases budget category prioritization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 46, 1296–1306. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000347
  24. Bhandari, S., Hallowell, M., Van Boven, L., Gruber, J., and Welker, K. (2016) Emotional states and their impact on hazard identification skills. Construction Research Congress, 2831–2840. DOI: 10.1061/9780784479827.282
  25. Keating, J., Van Boven, L., Judd, C. M. (2016). Partisan underestimation of the polarizing influence of group discussion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 52–58. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.03.002
  26. Aknin, L., Van Boven, L., & Johnson-Graham, L. (2015). Abstract construals make the emotional rewards of pro-social behavior more salient. Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 458–462.
  27. Huber M., Van Boven L., Park B., Pizzi, W.T. (2015) Seeing Red: Anger Increases How Much Republican Identification Predicts Partisan Attitudes and Perceived Polarization. PLoS ONE 10(9): e0139193. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139193
  28. Silverman, A., Gwinn, J., and Van Boven, L. (2015). Stumbling in their shoes: Brief experience simulations reduce judged competency of the disabled. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 464–471.
  29. Van Boven, L., & Caruso, E. (2015). The tripartite foundations of temporal psychological distance: metaphors, ecology, and teleology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass.
  30. Westfall, J., Van Boven, L., Chambers, J., & Judd, C. J. (2015). Perceiving political polarization in the United States: Party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 145–158.
  31. Chan, C., Van Boven, L., Andrade, E., Ariely, D. (2014). Moral violations reduce oral consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24, 381–386.
  32. Campell, T., O’Brien, E., Van Boven, L., Schwarz, N., & Ubel, P. (2014). Too much experience: A desensitization bias in emotional perspective taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 272–285.
  33. Tixier, A., Albert, A., Hallowel, M., & Van Boven, L, & Kleiner, B. (2014). Psychological antecedents of risk-taking behavior in construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 04014052-1–04014052-10.
  34. Travers, M. W., Van Boven., L, & Judd, C. J. (2014). The secrecy heuristic: Inferring quality from secrecy in foreign policy contexts. Political Psychology, 35, 97–111.
  35. Caruso, E., Van Boven, L., Chin, M., & Ward, A. (2013). The temporal Doppler effect: When the future feels closer than the past. Psychological Science, 24, 530–536.
  36. Chan, C., Berger, J., & Van Boven, L. (2012). Identifiable but not identical: Combining social identity and uniqueness motives in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 561-573.
  37. Kane, J., Van Boven, L., & McGraw, A. P. (2012). Prototypical prospection: Future events are more prototypically represented and simulated than past events. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 354–362.
  38. Van Boven, L., Judd, C., & Sherman, D. (2012). Political polarization projection: Social projection of partisan attitude extremity and attitudinal processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 84–100.
  39. Van Boven, L., Loewenstein, G., Welch, E., & Dunning, D. (2012). The illusion of courage in self-predictions: Mis-predicting one’s own behavior in embarrassing situations. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25, 1–12.
  40. Van Boven, L., & Robinson, M. (2012). Boys don’t cry: Stereotype accessibility and stereotypic sex differences in emotion memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 303–309.
  41. White, K., & Van Boven, L. (2012). Immediacy bias in social emotional comparisons. Emotion, 12, 737–747.
  42. Geeraert, N., Van Boven, L., & Yzerbyt, V. (2011). Similarity on the rebound: Inhibition of similarity assessment leads to an ironic post-suppression rebound. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1788-1796.
  43. Huber, M., Van Boven, L., McGraw, A. P., Johnson-Graham, L. (2011). Whom to help? Immediacy bias in judgments and decisions about humanitarian aid allocation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 283–293.
  44. Warren, C., McGraw, A. P., & Van Boven, L. (2011). Values and preferences: Defining preference construction. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2, 193–205.
  45. Andrade, E., & Van Boven, L. (2010). Feelings not foregone: When people underestimate the affective impact of inaction. Psychological Science, 21, 706–711.
  46. Van Boven, L., & Campbell, M., & Gilovich, T. (2010). Stigmatizing materialism: On stereotypes and impressions of materialistic versus experiential pursuits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 551-563.
  47. Van Boven, L., Kane, J., McGraw, A. P., & Dale, J. (2010). Feeling close: Emotional intensity reduces perceived psychological distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 872–885.
  48. Oskarsson, A., Van Boven, L., Hastie, R., & McClelland, G. (2009). What’s next? Judging sequences of binary events. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 262–285.
  49. Van Boven, L., White, K., & Huber, M. (2009). Immediacy bias in emotion perception: Current emotions seem more intense than previous emotions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 368–382.
  50. Van Boven, L., & Johnson-Graham, L. (2007). Varieties of happiness experience: Review of Gilbert’s “Stumbling on Happiness.” Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 269–270.
  51. Van Boven, L., & Ashworth, L. (2007). Looking forward, looking back: Anticipation is more evocative than retrospection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 289–300.
  52. Savitsky, K., Van Boven, L., Epley, N., & Wight, W. (2005). The unpacking effect in allocations of responsibility for group tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 447–457.
  53. Van Boven, L. (2005). Experientialism, materialism, and the hedonics of consumption. Review of General Psychology, 9, 132–142.
  54. Van Boven, L., Loewenstein, G., & Dunning, D. (2005). The illusion of courage in social predictions: Underestimating the impact of fear of embarrassment on other people. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 130–141.
  55. Epley, N., Keysar, B., Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 327–339.
  56. Epley, N., Van Boven, L., & Caruso, E. (2004). Balance where it really counts: What’s right about problem-seeking social psychology. Commentary on Krueger & Funder, “Toward a balanced social psychology: Causes, consequences, and cures for the problem-seeking approach to social behavior and cognition.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 333.
  57. Kruger, J., Wirtz, D., Van Boven, L., & Altermatt, W. (2004). The effort heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 91–98.
  58. Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2003). To do or to have? That is the question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1193–1202.
  59. Van Boven, L., & Thompson, L. (2003). A look into the mind of the negotiator: Mental models in negotiation. Group Processes and Interpersonal Relations, 6, 387–404.
  60. Nadler, J., Thomspon, L., & Van Boven, L. (2003). Learning negotiation skills: Four models of knowledge creation and transfer. Management Science, 49, 529–540.
  61. Van Boven, L., & Epley, N. (2003). The unpacking effect in evaluative judgments: When the whole is less than the sum of its parts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 263–269
  62. Van Boven, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Projection of transient drive states. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1159–1168.
  63. Van Boven, L., Gilovich, T., & Medvec, V. (2003). The illusion of transparency in negotiations. Negotiation Journal, 19, 117–131.
  64. Van Boven, L., Loewenstein, G., & Dunning, D. (2003). Mispredicting the endowment effect: Underestimation of owners’ selling prices by “buyer’s agents.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 51, 351–365.
  65. Van Boven, L., White, K., Kamada, A., & Gilovich, T. (2003). Intuitions about situational correction in self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 249–258.
  66. Gibbons, R. & Van Boven, L. (2001). Contingent social utility in the Prisoners’ Dilemma. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 45, 1–17.
  67. Van Boven, L. (2000). Political correctness and pluralistic ignorance: The case of affirmative action. Political Psychology, 21, 267–276.
  68. Van Boven, L., Dunning, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2000). Egocentric empathy gaps between owners and buyers: Misperceptions of the endowment effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 66–76.
  69. Van Boven, L., Kruger, J., Savitsky, K., & Gilovich, T. (2000). When social worlds collide: Overconfidence in the multiple audience dilemma. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 620–629.
  70. Van Boven, L., Kamada, A., & Gilovich, T. (1999). The perceiver as perceived: Everyday intuitions about the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1188–1199.

Book Chapters

  1. Van Boven, L., Loewenstein, G., Dunning, D., & Norgren, L. (2013). Changing places: A dual judgment model of empathy gaps in emotional perspective taking. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.48, 118–171. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  2. Van Boven, L., Westfall, J. A., & Travers, M. W., & McClelland, G. (2013). Judgment and Decision Making. In D. E. Carlston (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition (pp. 375–401). New York: Oxford University Press.
  3. Westfall, J., & Van Boven, L. (2013). Endowment effect. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Mind. SAGE Publications Inc.
  4. Judd, C. M., Van Boven, D., Huber, M., & Nunes, A. (2012). Measuring everyday perceptions of the distribution of the American Electorate. In J. Aldrich & K. McGraw (Eds.), Improving Public Opinion Surveys: Interdisciplinary Innovation and the American National Election Studies (pp. 195–219). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  5. Huber, M., Van Boven, L., & McGraw, A. P. (2011). Donate different: External and internal influences on emotion based donation decisions. In D. M. Oppenheimer & C. Y. Olivola (Eds.), The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charity (pp. 179–199). New York: Psychology Press.
  6. Van Boven, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2005). Cross-situational projection. In M. Alicke, J. Krueger, & D. Dunning (Eds.), Self and Social Judgment (pp. 43–64). Psychology Press.
  7. Van Boven, L., & Loewenstein, D. (2005). Empathy gaps in emotional perspective taking. In S. Hodges, & B. Malle (Eds.), Other minds: How humans bridge the divide between self and others (pp. 284–297). Guilford Press.
  8. Van Boven, L. (2009). Perspective taking. In D. Sander & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), Oxford Companion to Affective Sciences (pp. 305–306). New York: Oxford University Press.
  9. Van Boven, L., Kane, J., & McGraw, A. P. (2008). Temporally asymmetric constraints on mental simulation: Retrospection is more constrained than prospection. In K. Markman, W. Klein, & S. Shur (Eds.), The Handbook of Imagination and Mental Simulation (pp. 131–149). Psychology Press
  10. Van Boven, L. (2007). Availability. In R. F. Baumeister and K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  11. Van Boven, L. (2007). Naïve realism. In R. F. Baumeister and K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  12. Van Boven, L., & Kane, J. (2006). Predicting feelings versus choices. In E. C. Chang & L. J. Sanna (Eds.), Judgment over time: The interplay of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (pp. 67–81). Oxford University Press.
  13. Dunning, D., Van Boven, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2001). Egocentric empathy gaps in social interaction and exchange. In E. Lawler, M. Macey, S. Thye, & H. Walker (Eds.), Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 18 (pp. 65–97).

Other (Popular Press Articles and Commentaries)

  1. Van Boven, L., Montal-Rosenberg, R., & Sherman, D. (January 22, 2020). The bipartisan misuse of facts: Liberals and conservatives both misuse facts. But there are ways to stop that impulse. Los Angeles Times, A-9.
  2. Van Boven, L., & Sherman, D. (July 29, 2018). Polarizing climate policy: Republicans and Democrats differ considerably less than people think. The New York Times: Grey Matter, p. SR2.
  3. Van Boven, L., & Slovic, P. (January 28, 2018). The psychological trick behind Trump’s misleading terror statistics. Politico Magazine.
  4. Sherman, D., & Van Boven, L. (25 September 2014). Similarities between Democrats, Republicans make them so different. Los Angeles Times.
  5. Van Boven, L., & Sherman, D. (4 November 2014). Election 2014: Only the polarized are actually polarized. The New York Times.
  6. Van Boven, L., Judd, C. M., & Travers, M. (30 June 2013). Do you wanna know a secret? The New York Times, p. SR12.
  7. Colorado Matters (Friday 17 February 2012). Why do people chicken out? Colorado Public Radio. [Radio interview.]
  8. Van Boven, L. (May 16, 2012). Political polarization. Academic minute. Northeast Public Radio. [Radio interview]
  9. Van Boven, L. (Sunday, 11 March 2012). Who says we’re polarized? In general Americans are closer politically than we think. Denver Post: Perspective.
  10. Van Boven, L. (2009). The Professor and the Situation: How B-School and Psychology cultures shape research questions and practice. SPSP Dialogue, Fall 2009.