• English
    • Norsk
  • English 
    • English
    • Norsk
  • Administration
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Øvrige samlinger
  • Høstingsarkiver
  • CRIStin høstingsarkiv
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Øvrige samlinger
  • Høstingsarkiver
  • CRIStin høstingsarkiv
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Everybody Will Win, and All Must Be Hired: Comparing Additivity Neglect with the Nonselective Superiority Bias

Riege, Anine Cecilie; Teigen, Karl Halvor
Journal article; AcceptedVersion; Peer reviewed
View/Open
Revised_Manuscript+%23+BDM-15-0053.pdf (167.9Kb)
Year
2017
Permanent link
http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-65572

CRIStin
1307367

Metadata
Show metadata
Appears in the following Collection
  • Psykologisk institutt [2984]
  • CRIStin høstingsarkiv [16886]
Original version
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2017, 30 (1), 95-106, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1924
Abstract
Two streams of research looking at referent‐dependent judgments from slightly different angles are subadditivity research and research on the nonselective superiority bias. Both biases violate basic formal constraints: the probabilities of a set of exclusive events cannot add up to more than 100%, and a set of attractive candidates cannot all be rated as superior to the group mean. We examine in three experiments how these two biases are related, by asking the same participants to perform both kinds of tasks on the same material. Both biases appear to be widespread, even for sets where all alternatives are presented together, but they differ in the way they are affected by response format and experimental setup. Thus, presenting participants with an unbiased set of ratings will reduce but not normalize their probability estimates of the same alternatives; while presenting them with an unbiased (additive) set of probabilities will make most alternatives appear inferior to the group mean, inverting the superiority bias. Self‐reports reveal that additivity neglect and the nonselective superiority bias can be based on two main response‐strategies: (i) considering each alternative independently or (ii) comparing alternatives, while neglecting their complementarity. In both cases, assessments will be the outcome of a compromise between the perceived “absolute” merits of each alternative, its standing relative to referents, and properties of the response scale. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 
Responsible for this website 
University of Oslo Library


Contact Us 
duo-hjelp@ub.uio.no


Privacy policy
 

 

For students / employeesSubmit master thesisAccess to restricted material

Browse

All of DUOCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitles

For library staff

Login
RSS Feeds
 
Responsible for this website 
University of Oslo Library


Contact Us 
duo-hjelp@ub.uio.no


Privacy policy