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

In six experiments, we tested four explanations for the better/worse-than-average effect (B/WTA) by manipulating the number of items comprising the target or referent of direct comparison. A single-item target tended to be rated more extremely than a single-item or a multi-item referent (Experiments...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Organizational behavior and human decision processes 2010-09, Vol.113 (1), p.62-72
Main Authors: Suls, Jerry, Chambers, John, Krizan, Zlatan, Mortensen, Chad R., Koestner, Bryan, Bruchmann, Kathryn
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Better-than-average effect
Better-than-average effect Worse-than-average effect Comparative bias Social comparison Focalism
Bias
Biological and medical sciences
Cognition. Intelligence
Cohesiveness
Comparative analysis
Comparative bias
Decision making
Decision making. Choice
Effects
Experiments
Focalism
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
Referents
Social comparison
Studies
Viability
Worse-than-average effect
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In six experiments, we tested four explanations for the better/worse-than-average effect (B/WTA) by manipulating the number of items comprising the target or referent of direct comparison. A single-item target tended to be rated more extremely than a single-item or a multi-item referent (Experiments 1–3). No B/WTA was obtained, however, when a multi-item target was compared with either a single- or multi-item referent (Experiments 4 and 5). A bias favoring a multi-item target was found only if cohesiveness among the items was increased through instructions (Experiment 6). The Unique-Attributes Hypothesis generally provided the best explanation the findings; the focalism explanation also demonstrated some empirical viability. The results suggest that important preferential decision-making outcomes can be affected by both the number of items and whether items are strategically manipulated to serve as targets or referents of comparison.
ISSN:0749-5978
1095-9920
DOI:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.03.003