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 explanation is that people conflate relative with absolute evaluation, especially on subjective measures. The paper then presents a series of four studies that test this conflation explanation. These tests distinguish conflation from other explanations, such as differential weighting and selecting the wrong referent. The results suggest that conflation occurs at the response stage during which people attempt to disambiguate subjective response scales in order to choose an answer. This is because conflation has little effect on objective measures, which would be equally affected if the conflation occurred at encoding.
Volume (Year): 2 (2007)
Issue (Month): (October)
|Contact details of provider:|| |
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Terrance Odean, 1998. "Volume, Volatility, Price, and Profit When All Traders Are Above Average," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 53(6), pages 1887-1934, December.
- Klein, William M.P., 2002. "Comparative risk estimates relative to the average peer predict behavioral intentions and concern about absolute risk," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(02), pages 193-202, June.
- Ulrike Malmendier & Geoffrey Tate, 2004.
"CEO Overconfidence and Corporate Investment,"
NBER Working Papers
10807, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Terrance Odean, 1998. "Volume, Volatility, Price and Profit When All Traders Are Above Average," Finance 9803001, EconWPA.
- Baron, Jonathan, 1997. "Confusion of Relative and Absolute Risk in Valuation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 301-309, May-June.
- Klar, Yechiel & Medding, Aviva & Sarel, Dan, 1996. "Nonunique Invulnerability: Singular versus Distributional Probabilities and Unrealistic Optimism in Comparative Risk Judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 229-245, August.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:2:y:2007:i::p:277-291. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jonathan Baron)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.