11

Positive IllusionsPositive IllusionsPart 1Part 1

22

The Better-Than-Average EffectThe Better-Than-Average Effect

Tendency for people to rate themselves Tendency for people to rate themselves higher than the average peer on positive higher than the average peer on positive traits and lower than the average peer on traits and lower than the average peer on negative traits.negative traits.

33

Desirability, Control and the BTA Desirability, Control and the BTA EffectEffect

Alicke (1985)Alicke (1985)

Created list of 154 trait adjectives, which Created list of 154 trait adjectives, which were normed for desirability and were normed for desirability and controllability.controllability.

Participants rated self and average Participants rated self and average student on each trait.student on each trait.

44

Example trait words (Alicke, 1985)Example trait words (Alicke, 1985)High controlHigh control Low controlLow control

High High desirabilitydesirability

Cooperative Cooperative Considerate Considerate ResponsibleResponsible

CreativeCreative

BrightBright

ImaginativeImaginative

Moderate-high Moderate-high desirabilitydesirability

NeatNeat

BoldBold

Self-SatisfiedSelf-Satisfied

ReservedReserved

CunningCunning

FearlessFearless

Moderate-low Moderate-low desirabilitydesirability

TroubledTroubled

BoastfulBoastful

UnpoisedUnpoised

ForgetfulForgetful

UnculturedUncultured

DiscontentedDiscontented

Low Low desirabilitydesirability

UnforgivingUnforgiving

DisobedientDisobedient

DeceptiveDeceptive

InsecureInsecure

BelligerentBelligerent

HumorlessHumorless

55

ResultsResults

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

High Mod-High Mod-Low Low

Desirability

Sel

f m

inu

s av

erag

e st

ud

ent

rati

ng

High Control

Low Control

66

77

Predicting Future EventsPredicting Future Events

Weinstein (1980):Weinstein (1980):

P’s rated the relative likelihood of 42 P’s rated the relative likelihood of 42 events happening to them.events happening to them.

P’s also rated each trait for probability, P’s also rated each trait for probability, controllability, desirability, personal controllability, desirability, personal experience, and salience of a high chance experience, and salience of a high chance group.group.

88

Results (Weinstein, 1980)Results (Weinstein, 1980)

Evidence for unrealistic optimism (aka Evidence for unrealistic optimism (aka optimistic bias, comparative optimism).optimistic bias, comparative optimism).For positive events, predictions were For positive events, predictions were positively related to desirability and positively related to desirability and probability.probability.For negative events, predictions were For negative events, predictions were positively related to personal experience, positively related to personal experience, but negatively related to controllability and but negatively related to controllability and stereotype salience.stereotype salience.

99

Moderators of the BTA effect Moderators of the BTA effect (Alicke & (Alicke &

Govorun, 2005)Govorun, 2005)

DirectDirect vs. indirect method vs. indirect method

Nature of judgment dimensionNature of judgment dimension

Comparison targetComparison target

Individual differencesIndividual differences

1010

Nature of the Judgment DimensionNature of the Judgment Dimension

Dunning et al. (1989): %ile ratings on the following traits.Dunning et al. (1989): %ile ratings on the following traits.

PositivePositive NegativeNegative

High ambiguityHigh ambiguity Sensitive, quick,Sensitive, quick,

sophisticated, sophisticated, idealistic, disciplined, idealistic, disciplined, sensible, ingenious. sensible, ingenious.

Neurotic, naïve Neurotic, naïve inconsistent, inconsistent, impractical, impractical, submissive, submissive, compulsive, insecure.compulsive, insecure.

Low ambiguityLow ambiguity Neat, well read, Neat, well read, mathematical, thrifty, mathematical, thrifty, athletic, studious, athletic, studious, punctual.punctual.

Sarcastic, wordy, Sarcastic, wordy, sloppy, clumsy, sloppy, clumsy, gullible, gossipy, gullible, gossipy, bragging.bragging.

1111

Results (Dunning et al., 1989)Results (Dunning et al., 1989)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Positive Negative

Per

cent

ile r

atin

g

Ambiguous

Unambiguous

1212

Comparison TargetComparison Target

Alicke et al. (1995):

Participants rate themselves (on a list of 40 trait words) relative to the average student or the student sitting next to them in the room.

BTA effect occurred on almost all traits in both conditions.

But, the BTA effect was stronger in the average student condition.

1313

Explaining the BTA effectExplaining the BTA effect

Selective recruitment.Selective recruitment.

Egocentrism.Egocentrism.

Focalism.Focalism.

Self vs. Aggregate comparison.Self vs. Aggregate comparison.

BTA heuristic.BTA heuristic.

1414

Egocentrism in Comparative EvaluationEgocentrism in Comparative EvaluationKruger (1999)Kruger (1999)

Self, average peer, and percentile ratings of:Self, average peer, and percentile ratings of:

Using a computer mouseUsing a computer mouse

DrivingDriving

Riding a bicycleRiding a bicycle

Saving moneySaving money

Telling jokesTelling jokes

Playing chessPlaying chess

JugglingJuggling

Computer programmingComputer programming

1515

Egocentrism in Comparative EvaluationEgocentrism in Comparative EvaluationKruger (1999)Kruger (1999)

AbilityAbility DifficultyDifficulty %ile%ile

Using mouseUsing mouse 3.13.1 58.8**58.8**

DrivingDriving 3.63.6 65.4**65.4**

Riding a bicycleRiding a bicycle 3.93.9 64.0**64.0**

Saving moneySaving money 4.34.3 61.5**61.5**

Telling jokesTelling jokes 6.16.1 46.446.4

Playing chessPlaying chess 7.17.1 27.8**27.8**

JugglingJuggling 8.38.3 26.5**26.5**

PC programmingPC programming 8.78.7 24.8**24.8**

*p<.05, **p<.01*p<.05, **p<.01

1616

Egocentrism in Comparative EvaluationEgocentrism in Comparative EvaluationKruger (1999)Kruger (1999)

Judgmental weight ofJudgmental weight of

AbilityAbility DifficultyDifficulty %ile%ile self-rating other-ratingself-rating other-rating

Using mouseUsing mouse 3.13.1 58.8**58.8** .21.21 .06 .06

DrivingDriving 3.63.6 65.4**65.4** .89**.89** -.25*-.25*

Riding a bicycleRiding a bicycle 3.93.9 64.0**64.0** .61**.61** -.02-.02

Saving moneySaving money 4.34.3 61.5**61.5** .90**.90** -.25**-.25**

Telling jokesTelling jokes 6.16.1 46.446.4 .91**.91** -.03-.03

Playing chessPlaying chess 7.17.1 27.8**27.8** .96**.96** -.22**-.22**

JugglingJuggling 8.38.3 26.5**26.5** .89**.89** -.16-.16

PC programmingPC programming 8.78.7 24.8**24.8** .85**.85** -.10-.10

*p<.05, **p<.01*p<.05, **p<.01

1717

Egocentrism vs. FocalismEgocentrism vs. Focalism(Moore & Kim, 2003)(Moore & Kim, 2003)

IV: Easy vs. difficult trivia quiz.IV: Easy vs. difficult trivia quiz.

DV: $ bet (up to $3) on beating a randomly DV: $ bet (up to $3) on beating a randomly selected other participant.selected other participant.

Result: Participants in the easy condition Result: Participants in the easy condition bet significantly more (M = $1.95) than did bet significantly more (M = $1.95) than did those in the difficult condition (M = $1.29).those in the difficult condition (M = $1.29).

1818

Moore & Kim (2003)Moore & Kim (2003)

00.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.61.8

2

Self Person A

Simple

Difficult