Positive Illusions Part 1

Presentation Transcript

Constructive Illusions Part 1

The Better-Than-Average Effect Tendency for individuals to rate themselves higher than the normal associate on positive characteristics and lower than the normal companion on negative attributes.

Desirability, Control and the BTA Effect Alicke (1985) Created rundown of 154 quality modifiers, which were normed for allure and controllability. Members appraised self and normal understudy on every quality.

Example attribute words (Alicke, 1985)

Results

Predicting Future Events Weinstein (1980): P's appraised the relative probability of 42 occasions transpiring. P's additionally appraised every attribute for likelihood, controllability, attractive quality, individual experience, and striking nature of a high shot gathering.

Results (Weinstein, 1980) Evidence for improbable positive thinking (otherwise known as hopeful inclination, relative idealism). For positive occasions, forecasts were decidedly identified with attractive quality and likelihood. For adverse occasions, forecasts were emphatically identified with individual experience, yet contrarily identified with controllability and generalization remarkable quality.

Moderators of the BTA impact (Alicke & Govorun, 2005) Direct versus roundabout technique Nature of judgment measurement Comparison target Individual contrasts

Nature of the Judgment Dimension Dunning et al. (1989): %ile appraisals on the accompanying characteristics.

Results (Dunning et al., 1989)

Comparison Target Alicke et al. (1995): Participants rate themselves (on a rundown of 40 attribute words) in respect to the normal understudy or the understudy sitting by them in the room. BTA impact happened on all qualities in both conditions. In any case, the BTA impact was more grounded in the normal understudy condition.

Explaining the BTA impact Selective enlistment. Egocentrism. Focalism. Self versus Total correlation. BTA heuristic.

Egocentrism in Comparative Evaluation Kruger (1999) Self, normal associate, and percentile appraisals of: Using a PC mouse Driving Riding a bike Saving cash Telling jokes Playing chess Juggling Computer programming

Egocentrism in Comparative Evaluation Kruger (1999) Ability Difficulty %ile Using mouse 3.1 58.8** Driving 3.6 65.4** Riding a bicycle 3.9 64.0** Saving money 4.3 61.5** Telling jokes 6.1 46.4 Playing chess 7.1 27.8** Juggling 8.3 26.5** PC programming 8.7 24.8** *p<.05, **p<.01

Egocentrism in Comparative Evaluation Kruger (1999) Judgmental weight of Ability Difficulty %ile self-rating other-rating Using mouse 3.1 58.8** .21 .06 Driving 3.6 65.4** .89** -.25* Riding a bicycle 3.9 64.0** .61** -.02 Saving money 4.3 61.5** .90** -.25** Telling jokes 6.1 46.4 .91** -.03 Playing chess 7.1 27.8** .96** -.22** Juggling 8.3 26.5** .89** -.16 PC programming 8.7 24.8** .85** -.10 *p<.05, **p<.01

Egocentrism versus Focalism (Moore & Kim, 2003) IV: Easy versus troublesome trivia test. DV: $ wager (up to $3) on beating an arbitrarily chose other member. Result: Participants in the simple condition wager altogether more (M = $1.95) than did those in the troublesome condition (M = $1.29).

Moore & Kim (2003)