Biases in social comparative judgments: the role of nonmotivated factors in above-average and comparative-optimism effects.

  title={Biases in social comparative judgments: the role of nonmotivated factors in above-average and comparative-optimism effects.},
  author={John R. Chambers and Paul D. Windschitl},
  journal={Psychological bulletin},
  volume={130 5},
Biases in social comparative judgments, such as those illustrated by above-average and comparative-optimism effects, are often regarded as products of motivated reasoning (e.g., self-enhancement). These effects, however, can also be produced by information-processing limitations or aspects of judgment processes that are not necessarily biased by motivational factors. In this article, the authors briefly review motivational accounts of biased comparative judgments, introduce a 3-stage model for… 

Figures and Tables from this paper

Optimistic and pessimistic biases and comparative judgmental processes in Japan: Do people really compare themselves to their peers?

Studies on above-average and unrealistic-optimism effects have recently claimed that they are the consequence of an over-utilization of self-relevant and under-utilization of peer-relevant

Deconstructing the better-than-average effect.

This work provides direct experimental evidence that self versus average-peer judgments are made relationally rather than independently and, further, that self-ratings anchor these relational judgments, and shows that for dimensions on which the self is positively evaluated, enhancement motives restrict the extent to which average- peer assimilation occurs.

Direct-comparison judgments: when and why above- and below-average effects reverse.

A novel account is supported, which describes how the timing of the denotation of the to-be-judged item influences attention and ultimately affects the size or direction of comparative biases.

On the Genesis of Inflated (and Deflated) Judgments of Responsibility: Egocentrism Revisited

Prior research has found that people tend to overestimate their relative contributions to joint tasks (e.g., Ross & Sicoly, 1979). In the present research we investigate one of the causes of this

Social Comparison and Confidence: When Thinking You're Better than Average Predicts Overconfidence

A common social comparison bias -the better-than-average-effect- is frequently described as psychologically equivalent to the individual judgment bias known as overconfidence. However, research has

The influence of outcome desirability on optimism.

It is argued that despite the prevalence of the idea that desires bias optimism, the empirical evidence regarding this possibility is limited, and the potential for desires to depress rather than enhance optimism is discussed.



Turning up the contrast: self-enhancement motives prompt egocentric contrast effects in social judgments.

A motivational account suggesting that these effects arise because people tailor their judgments of others to affirm their own self-worth was tested, suggesting that high-self-esteem individuals displayed more judgmental contrast overall than did their low-esteem counterparts.

When standards are wide of the mark: nonselective superiority and inferiority biases in comparative judgments of objects and concepts.

In 6 experiments, nonselective biases were found in perceptual, affective, and cognitive judgments of nonhuman targets, objects, and concepts, thus supporting a cognitive rather than a social account.

Exploring the causes of comparative optimism.

We review explanations offered by researchers for optimism in comparative risk judgments – the belief that one is at lower risk than other people for negative events. Our review organizes the

Objective standards are not enough: affective, self-evaluative, and behavioral responses to social comparison information.

  • W. Klein
  • Psychology
    Journal of personality and social psychology
  • 1997
Three studies examined affective, self-evaluative, and behavioral responses to objective and social comparison information and demonstrated that attention to comparative feedback hinges on its desirability.

Context effects in the measurement of optimism in probability judgment

Examined the role of contextual information such as comparison standard on self-other probability judgments regarding the occurrence of negative life events, which tend to be characterized by

Evaluating others : The role of who we are versus what we think traits mean

Three studies explored the relative roles of the self and self-serving definitions of social traits in social judgment. In Study 1, participants evaluated the applications of prospective college

Idiosyncratic trait definitions: implications for self-description and social judgment.

Five studies revealed that participants who differed in their self-ratings along trait dimensions also tended to associate different behaviors and performances with those traits.

Optimism, Pessimism, and the Direction of Self–Other Comparisons

Abstract Two studies (Ns = 234 and 179) are reported in which students made comparative assessments of their own and others' prospects of future examination performance, either by rating themselves

Evaluations of Self and Others: Self-Enhancement Biases in Social Judgments

Three investigations are reported that examined the relation between self-appraisals and appraisals of others. In Experiment 1, subjects rated a series of valenced trait adjectives according to how

Pessimistic Bias in Comparative Evaluations: A Case of Perceived Vulnerability to the Effects of Negative Life Events

This study tested the hypothesis that unrealistic pessimism characterizes comparative estimates of coping ability. Participants rated their ability to adjust to a range of negative life events in