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

@article{Moore2007ErrorAB,
  title={Error and bias in comparative judgment: on being both better and worse than we think we are.},
  author={Don A. Moore and Deborah A. Small},
  journal={Journal of personality and social psychology},
  year={2007},
  volume={92 6},
  pages={
          972-89
        }
}
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… 

Figures and Tables from this paper

Social comparison and confidence: When thinking you’re better than average predicts overconfidence (and when it does not)
Abstract A common social comparison bias—the better-than-average-effect—is frequently described as psychologically equivalent to the individual-level judgment bias known as overconfidence. However,
When good = better than average
People report themselves to be above average on simple tasks and below average on difficult tasks. This paper proposes an explanation for this effect that is simpler than prior explanations. The new
Use of absolute and comparative performance feedback in absolute and comparative judgments and decisions
Abstract Which matters more—beliefs about absolute ability or ability relative to others? This study set out to compare the effects of such beliefs on satisfaction with performance, self-evaluations,
Deconstructing the better-than-average effect.
TLDR
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.
Are people excessive or judicious in their egocentrism? A modeling approach to understanding bias and accuracy in people's optimism.
TLDR
A general theory of probability called extended support theory was used to conceptualize and assess the role of egocentrism and its consequences for the accuracy of people's optimism in competitions and the advantages of using the EST framework for studying optimism and other types of judgments are discussed.
Is Overconfidence a Motivated Bias? Experimental Evidence
TLDR
The results suggest motivation’s effect on better-than-average BTA beliefs is driven more by idiosyncratic construals of assessment than by self-enhancing delusion, and suggest that by focusing on vague measures and vague traits, prior research may have exaggerated the role of motivation in overconfidence.
Do people really believe they are above average
Abstract A question that has plagued self-enhancement research is whether participants truly believe the overly positive self-assessments they report, or whether better-than-average effects reflect
On the genesis of inflated (and deflated) judgments of responsibility
Prior research has found that people tend to overestimate their relative contribution to joint tasks [e.g., Ross, M., & Sicoly, F. (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. Journal
The contribution of judgment scale to the unskilled-and-unaware phenomenon: How evaluating others can exaggerate over- (and under-) confidence
TLDR
Differences in the accuracy of percentile-rank judgments across skill levels do not always represent differences in self-awareness, but rather they may arise from difficulties that performers have at evaluating how well others are performing.
Author ' s personal copy Do people really believe they are above average ? q
A question that has plagued self-enhancement research is whether participants truly believe the overly positive self-assessments they report, or whether better-than-average effects reflect mere hopes
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 92 REFERENCES
Judgments of Performance: The Relative, the Absolute, and the In-Between
People often evaluate how their abilities or their achievements compare to those of others. Such judgments tend to show asymmetric weighting: They are more influenced by impressions of one's own
Social comparison and confidence: When thinking you’re better than average predicts overconfidence (and when it does not)
Abstract A common social comparison bias—the better-than-average-effect—is frequently described as psychologically equivalent to the individual-level judgment bias known as overconfidence. However,
Skilled or unskilled, but still unaware of it: how perceptions of difficulty drive miscalibration in relative comparisons.
TLDR
It is proposed that a noise-plus-bias model of judgment is sufficient to explain the relation between skill level and accuracy of judgments of relative standing, and that judges at all skill levels are subject to similar degrees of error.
Overconfidence and Underconfidence: When and Why People Underestimate (and Overestimate) the Competition
It is commonly held that, especially for outcomes under their control, people believe themselves to be better than others. However, such overconfidence is not universal. This paper presents evidence
When good = better than average
People report themselves to be above average on simple tasks and below average on difficult tasks. This paper proposes an explanation for this effect that is simpler than prior explanations. The new
Objective Standards Matter Too Much: The Use and Abuse of Absolute and Comparative Performance Feedback in Absolute and Comparative Judgments and Decisions
Which matters more - beliefs about absolute ability or ability relative to others? This study set out compare their effects on self-evaluations, decisions under uncertainty, performance attribution,
Unskilled, unaware, or both? The better-than-average heuristic and statistical regression predict errors in estimates of own performance.
TLDR
High rather than low performers were more error prone in that they were more likely to neglect their own estimates of the performance of others when predicting how they themselves performed relative to the group.
Do those who know more also know more about how much they know?*1
Effects of Standards on Self-Enhancing Interpretations of Ambiguous Social Comparison Information
When people receive feedback about how they and others have performed on a task-feedback that should be interpreted as implying equivalent performance-they only seem to exhibit a self-enhancement
...
1
2
3
4
5
...