Which business will succeed? Which team will win? Am I better or worse than others? Comparative judgments like these inform some of the most important decisions people make, including decisions to start a company, apply for a job, or enter a competition. This research project investigates the causes behind systematic errors in these judgments: People tend to rate themselves better than average on simple tasks (even though the task is simple for everyone). Conversely, on difficult tasks people rate themselves below average. The goals of the research are (1) understanding the way people make comparative decisions and (2) teaching people to make better decisions.
This research will advance our understanding of comparative judgment by testing two theories about exactly how people form comparative judgments: regression and conflation. The regression explanation can account for better-than-average and worse-than-average effects using only the fact that people have better information about themselves than they do about others. The conflation explanation posits that people conflate relative with absolute evaluation; when asked to compare A with B, A's absolute standing unduly influences the comparative judgment. The proposed studies would test key predictions of each of these two theories, as well as differentiate regression and conflation from other viable alternative explanations for these biases in comparative judgment.
