Not so above average after all: When people believe they are worse than average and its implications for theories of bias in social comparison

Moore, Don A.

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.005

Cited by 140 publications

(130 citation statements)

References 125 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

122

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Subjective, verbally anchored scales (such when performance is rated on a scale that ranges from poor to excellent) promote conflation between individual evaluation and relative evaluation (Biernat et al, 1997;Mussweiler & Strack, 2000). And this conflation can contribute to findings of differential weighting (Moore, 2007). Third, we examined our participants' comparative and individual judgments on the same issue-test scores-and we found consistency between the two.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 88%

Error and bias in comparative judgment: On being both better and worse than we think we are.

Moore¹,

Small²

2007

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

251

206

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People believe that they are better than others on easy tasks and worse than others on difficult tasks. In previous attempts to explain these better-than-average and worse-than-average effects, researchers have invoked bias and motivation as causes. In this article, the authors develop a more parsimonious account, the differential information explanation, in which it is assumed only that people typically have better information about themselves than they do about others. When one's own performance is exceptional (either good or bad), it is often reasonable to assume others' will be less so. Consequently, people estimate the performance of others as less extreme (more regressive) than their own. The result is that people believe they are above average on easy tasks and below average on difficult tasks. These effects are exacerbated when people have accurate information about their performances, increasing the natural discrepancy between knowledge of the self and knowledge of others. The effects are attenuated when people obtain accurate information about the performances of others.Keywords: egocentrism, social comparison, overconfidence, comparative judgment, differential information How good are people at assessing themselves? Evidence suggests that people are not particularly good, or at least not as good as they think they are. People routinely overestimate themselves relative to others. People believe that they are fairer, luckier, more virtuous, better drivers, and better investors than their peers

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 88%

Error and bias in comparative judgment: On being both better and worse than we think we are.

Moore¹,

Small²

2007

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

251

206

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it is also possible for underconfidence to result from error. That is, as long as people's beliefs about their relative placement is not perfectly correlated with their actual percentile rankings, then some people will erroneously believe that they are worse than they actually are (Moore, 2007). Even the greatest motivation toward overconfidence will not be able to eliminate error in people's sense of their relative placement.…”

Section: Status Enhancement Account Of Overconfidencementioning

confidence: 99%

A status-enhancement account of overconfidence.

Anderson¹,

Brion²,

Moore³

et al. 2012

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

371

382

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In explaining the prevalence of the overconfident belief that one is better than others, prior work has focused on the motive to maintain high self esteem, abetted by biases in attention, memory, and cognition. An additional possibility is that overconfidence enhances the person's social status. We tested this status enhancing account of overconfidence in six studies. Studies 1 through 3 found overconfidence leads to higher social status in both short and longer term groups, using naturalistic and experimental designs. Study 4 applied a Brunswikian (1956) lens analysis and found that overconfidence leads to a behavioral signature that makes the individual appear competent to others. Studies 5 and 6 measured and experimentally manipulated the desire for status and found that the status motive promotes overconfidence. Together, these studies suggest that people might so often believe they are better than others because it helps them achieve higher social status.Keywords: overconfidence, self perception, status, power, groups, person perception 3STATUS ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT OF OVERCONFIDENCE A Status Enhancement Account of OverconfidenceThe pervasiveness of overconfidence is somewhat puzzling. Individuals not only tend to have positive self perceptions, they often believe they are more talented and competent than others, even when they are not (for reviews, see Alicke & Govorun, 2005; Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004). To mention just a few examples, individuals tend to overplace their occupational abilities (Haun, Zeringue, Leach, & Foley, 2000), social skills (Swann & Gill, 1997), and physical talents relative to those of others (Dunning, Meyerowitz, & Holzberg, 1989; for exceptions, see Kruger & Burrus, 2004;Moore & Small, 2007). The propensity for overconfidence is puzzling because being able to accurately place one's abilities relative to those of others is clearly useful (e.g., Alicke, 1985; Dunning et al., 2004;. Recognizing one's limitations would help people set more realistic goals (Ehrlinger & Dunning, 2003), avoid contests one will lose (Camerer & Lovallo, 1999), and select strategies that facilitate success (Neale & Bazerman, 1985), for example. So why would individuals form overly positive judgments of their abilities?Scholars have mostly offered two explanations. The first explanation posits a motivated bias: Individuals are driven to be confident because it provides them with psychological benefits (Dunning, Leuenberger, & Sherman, 1995; Kunda, 1987). For example, self confidence can improve self esteem (Alicke, 1985), mental health (Taylor & Brown, 1988), and task motivation and persistence (Pajares, 1996). The second explanation highlights the cognitive processes that may sometimes produce directional biases. People might simply be unable to accurately assess their own competence and arrive at biased self views from fairly mundane judgment processes. For example, biased self views can 4STATUS ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT OF OVERCONFIDENCE arise simply because people are more likely to intend success ...

show abstract

“…First, prior research has found that people often exhibit overconfidence-that is, they routinely believe that they are better than others, even when they are not (for reviews, see Alicke &Govorun, 2005 andDunning et al, 2004). For example, many people overestimate the superiority of their work performance (Cross, 1977;Haun, Zeringue, Leach, & Foley, 2000;Zenger, 1992), social skills (College Board, 1976-1977Lewinsohn, Mischel, Chaplin, & Barton, 1980;Swann & Gill, 1997), and physical talents (Dunning, Meyerowitz, & Holzberg, 1989;Svenson, 1981; for exceptions, see Kruger, 1999;Moore, 2007). Such overconfidence persists even when the stakes are high and individuals have incentives to estimate their relative abilities accurately (Ehrlinger, Johnson, Banner, Dunning, & Kruger, 2008;Hoelzl & Rustichini, 2005;Williams & Gilovich, 2008).…”

Section: The Origins Of Overconfidencementioning

confidence: 99%

When overconfidence is revealed to others: Testing the status-enhancement theory of overconfidence

Kennedy

Anderson

Moore

2013

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Self Cite

133

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Not so above average after all: When people believe they are worse than average and its implications for theories of bias in social comparison

Cited by 140 publications

References 125 publications

Error and bias in comparative judgment: On being both better and worse than we think we are.

Error and bias in comparative judgment: On being both better and worse than we think we are.

A status-enhancement account of overconfidence.

When overconfidence is revealed to others: Testing the status-enhancement theory of overconfidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About