Numerical Feedback Roundness Affects the Choice of the Self vs. Others as a Reference Point

Abstract

People can use social or personal information as a reference point against which they compare their performance. While previous research has shown that reference point choice can be affected by individual characteristics, situational factors, and goals, we suggest that properties of the performance feedback itself can also play a role in this choice. We focus on the effects of round vs. precise numerical feedback on reference point preferences. In three studies, we show that people are more likely to use themselves as a reference point to evaluate their performance following a feedback in the form of a round score (e.g., a score of 70 in a task) and to use others as a reference point following a precise score (e.g., a score of 71). Study 1 shows decreased interest in comparisons with others following round rather than precise feedback. Study 2 shows that round (vs. precise) feedback also increases actual choice of the self (vs. others) as a reference point. Study 3 demonstrates that the effect of the numerical feedback on reference point preferences extends to the choice of a benchmark for future comparisons. We discuss the implications of our results for the literature and practice, including how this can be used to encourage desirable behaviors.

A New Grey Target Evaluation Method of Science and Technology Talents Considering ‘Dominant-Implicit’ Reference Points

“…There are two ways to express interval grey numbers, one being the conventional data range expression (see the data on the left of each column in the table) and the other being the combination expression of a kernel and the degree of greyness (see the data on the right of each column in the table). [15,20] 17.5 0.25 [9,10] 9.5 0.08 [4,6] 5.0 0.33 [22,30] 26.0 0.13 [10,15] 12.5 0.17 S 2 [20,22] 21.0 0.10 [12,14] 13.0 0.15 [4,7] 5.5 0.50 [30,35] 32.5 0.08 [25,32] 28.5 0.24 S 3 [16,30] 23.0 0.70 [11,13] 12.0 0.15 [5,8] 6.5 0.50 [40,50] 45.0 0.17 [18,28] 23.0 0.34 S 4 [25,30] 27.5 0.25 [13,18] 15.5 0.38 [7,9] 8.0 0.33 [60,65] 62.5 0.08 [20,35] 27.5 0.52 S 5 [22,24] 23.0 0.10 [10, 13] 11.5 0.23 [4,6] 5.0 0.33 [45,50] 47.5 0.08 …”

“…Hashidate et al examined how context dependence affects social image concerns, and in particular, how decision makers exhibit a variety of social emotions stemming from their intrinsic reference points that may not be manifested through conformity to social norms [27]. Shoham et al proposed that the choice of reference points can be influenced not only by personal characteristics, situational factors and goals, but also by the attributes of the decision maker's performance feedback itself, and that one can use social or personal information as a reference point for comparison [28]. Siebold argued that an organization's key stakeholders-beneficiaries, donors, customers, employees, partners, competitors and governments-can be reference points upon which an organization innovates its business model to increase its social impact [29].…”

The effects of pseudo‐relevant 100% claims

“…Future research could identify other conditions, beyond claim relevance, under which the effects of roundness (i.e., perfection) versus precision (i.e., quality, credibility, informativeness, or distinctiveness) come into play. For instance, the value of round numbers, which are perceived as goals (Pope & Simonsohn, 2011), may increase when people engage in self‐temporal comparisons (comparisons of one's own achievements over time) rather than social comparisons (Shoham & Munichor, 2021). Future research could also examine the downstream consequences of roundness versus precision in a product claim.…”