Biases in Social Comparative Judgments: The Role of Nonmotivated Factors in Above-Average and Comparative-Optimism Effects.

Chambers, John R.; Windschitl, Paul D.

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.813

Cited by 477 publications

(543 citation statements)

References 134 publications

(332 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

485

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hertzog & Hultsch, 2000), or follow a self-serving bias by expecting themselves to be above-average (cf. Chambers & Windschitl, 2004), as indicated by the middlepoint of the scale. If the objective difficulty of the PM task is then quite high and thus the PM performance rather low, as in our first experiment, these ill-calibrated performance-predictions are likely to result in an overestimation of the actual PM-performance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance predictions affect attentional processes of event-based prospective memory

Rummel

Kuhlmann

Touron

2013

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:To investigate whether making performance predictions affects prospective memory (PM) processing, we asked one group of participants to predict their performance in a PM task embedded in an ongoing task and compared their performance with a control group that made no predictions. A third group gave not only PM predictions but also ongoing-task predictions. Exclusive PM predictions resulted in slower ongoing-task responding both in a nonfocal (Experiment 1) and in a focal (Experiment 2) PM task. Only in the nonfocal task was the additional slowing accompanied by improved PM performance. Even in the nonfocal task, however, was the correlation between ongoing-task speed and PM performance reduced after predictions, suggesting that the slowing was not completely functional for PM. Predictioninduced changes could be avoided by asking participants to additionally predict their performance in the ongoing task. In sum, the present findings substantiate a role of metamemory for attention-allocation strategies of PM.Keywords: prospective memory | metamemory | performance predictions | reactive effects | cognition | memory | psychology Article:

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance predictions affect attentional processes of event-based prospective memory

Rummel

Kuhlmann

Touron

2013

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first alternative theoretical account suggests that the desirability bias evidenced in studies that examine optimism about the likelihood of future life events is the result of nonmotivational factors (see Chambers & Windschitl, 2004, for a review), and thus affective reactions are unlikely to be the cause of the desirability bias in judgments about future life events. According to these nonmotivational accounts, the desirability bias results from methodological factors in the studies themselves and biases in how people consider others while making judgments.…”

Section: Related Theoretical Accountsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The lack of studies that manipulate the desirability of future events has meant that there is no evidence that desire creates biases in judgments about real life events. Further, there is empirical evidence that methodological factors and psychological factors related to the way people process comparative questions can alone create undue optimism or pessimism in judgments (e.g., Chambers & Windschitl, 2004;Kruger & Burrus, 2004). Study 1 thus manipulated positive, negative, and neutral affective reactions to an initially neutral potential future life event, and participants judged their chances relative to a peer's.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic optimism: The affective basis of judgments about the likelihood of future events.

Lench

2009

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People generally judge that the future will be consistent with their desires, but the reason for this desirability bias is unclear. This investigation examined whether affective reactions associated with future events are the mechanism through which desires influence likelihood judgments. In 4 studies, affective reactions were manipulated for initially neutral events. Compared with a neutral condition, events associated with positive reactions were judged as likely to occur, and events associated with negative reactions were judged as unlikely to occur. Desirability biases were reduced when participants could misattribute affective reactions to a source other than future events, and the relationship between affective reactions and judgments was influenced when approach and avoidance motivations were independently manipulated. Together, these findings demonstrate that positive and negative affective reactions to potential events cause the desirability bias in likelihood judgments and suggest that this effect occurs because of a tendency to approach positive possibilities and avoid negative possibilities.

show abstract

“…For instance, social networking sites provide opportunities for self-presentation (Manago et al 2008) by offering a gateway via favourable self-descriptions and photos (Buffardi and Cambell 2008). People engage in self-enhancing concerns (Chambers and Windschitl 2004;Schlosser 2011) to give others a positive impression about themselves (Vohs, Baumeister and Ciarocco 2005). People generate positive WOM of their own experiences due to self-enhancement motives (De Angelis et al 2012).…”

Section: Self-enhancementmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Self-Enhancement and Regulatory Focus On Word of Mouth

Akpınar¹

2016

isarder

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Word of mouth is one of the main drivers that shapes consumers' decisions. With the advent of social media, consumer reviews, opinions about brands propagate at a higher spread and reach masses. Thus, giving the rising interest in word of mouth, many brands are interested in understanding what makes consumers talk favorably about their products. Existing research suggests that one of the psychological motivations to engage in positive word of mouth is self-enhancement. Consumers like to provide positive information, which makes them look good to others. Yet, it is not so much known how self-enhancement affects sharing. Do consumers also provide positive recommendations when they already feel good about themselves? Our research shows that self enhancement boosts the likelihood of giving positive recommendations. Yet, this pattern does not always hold and can be moderated with regulatory focus. We show that when consumers are under high prevention focus, higher self-enhancement, in fact, decreases the likelihood of giving positive recommendations. This framework shed lights on how companies can encourage positive word of mouth, by understanding selfenhancement and regulatory focus mechanisms.

show abstract

Biases in Social Comparative Judgments: The Role of Nonmotivated Factors in Above-Average and Comparative-Optimism Effects.

Cited by 477 publications

References 134 publications

Performance predictions affect attentional processes of event-based prospective memory

Performance predictions affect attentional processes of event-based prospective memory

Automatic optimism: The affective basis of judgments about the likelihood of future events.

The Effect of Self-Enhancement and Regulatory Focus On Word of Mouth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About