2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.03.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Testing four explanations for the better/worse-than-average effect: Single- and multi-item entities as comparison targets and referents

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
20
2
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
1
20
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The pattern was reversed for absolute judgments regarding the acquaintance ( M = 0.26 and M = 0.52, for self-to-acquaintance and acquaintance-toself comparisons, respectively; F 1, 78 = 6.07, p < .05, η 2 p = 0.07). This fi nding is consistent with results of prior studies showing that in comparative judgments what is known about the target contributes to the judgment more than what is known about the referent ( Kruger, 1999 ;Eiser, Pahl, & Prins, 2001 ;Kruger & Burns, 2004 ;Pahl, Eiser, & White, 2009 ;Suls, Chambers, Krizan, Mortensen, Koestner, & Bruchmann, 2010 ). What follows from this is that absolute judgments regarding target should correlate with comparative judgments stronger than absolute judgments regarding the referent, the pattern of results found in the present experiment.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 93%
“…The pattern was reversed for absolute judgments regarding the acquaintance ( M = 0.26 and M = 0.52, for self-to-acquaintance and acquaintance-toself comparisons, respectively; F 1, 78 = 6.07, p < .05, η 2 p = 0.07). This fi nding is consistent with results of prior studies showing that in comparative judgments what is known about the target contributes to the judgment more than what is known about the referent ( Kruger, 1999 ;Eiser, Pahl, & Prins, 2001 ;Kruger & Burns, 2004 ;Pahl, Eiser, & White, 2009 ;Suls, Chambers, Krizan, Mortensen, Koestner, & Bruchmann, 2010 ). What follows from this is that absolute judgments regarding target should correlate with comparative judgments stronger than absolute judgments regarding the referent, the pattern of results found in the present experiment.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 93%
“…The nonselective superiority bias (NSSB) is the phenomenon where participants consistently judge individual members of a positive set of items (e.g., five attractive vacation spots, five pleasant smelling soaps) as superior to most other members in the set (Bruchmann et al, 2013;Giladi & Klar, 2002;Klar, 2002;Krizan & Suls, 2008;Suls et al, 2010;Windschitl, Conybeare, et al, 2008). This systematic judgment of all items in a set as superior to each other violates elementary logic, as some members cannot be better unless others are worse.…”
Section: The Nonselective Superiority Biasmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Die Selbstkonzeptwerte im sozialen Bezugsrahmen liegen unter den Werten in den anderen Bezugsrahmen. Nach dem Better-than-Average-Effekt (BTA-Effekt) wäre ein höherer Wert erwartbar gewesen, da Personen dazu tendieren, sich selbst in Bezug auf verschiedene Eigenschaften im Vergleich zu anderen positiver zu bewerten (Suls et al, 2010). Allerdings konnte gerade bei Studierenden mit dem Worse-than-Average-Effekt (WTA-Effekt) ein antagonistischer Mechanismus nachgewiesen werden, demzufolge sich Studierende angesichts schwieriger Aufgaben im Studium schlechter als ihre Bezugsgruppe einschätzen (Kruger, 1999).…”
Section: Bezugsrahmeneffekteunclassified