KidzSearch Wiki

Superiority bias

Superiority bias is when people think too much of themselves without good reason. They overrate their positive qualities and abilities, and underrate their negative qualities (relative to others). Other phrases for this are: illusory superiority, the above average effect, leniency error, sense of relative superiority, the primus inter pares effect,[1] and the Lake Wobegon effect. This was named after Garrison Keillor's fictional town where "all the children are above average".

Overview

Illusory superiority has been found in education (such as class performance, exams and overall intelligence), at work (for example in job performance), and in social settings (for example in estimating one's popularity, or the extent to which one possesses desirable personality traits, such as honesty or confidence), as well as everyday abilities requiring particular skill.[1]

One problem is the ambiguity of the word "average". It is logically possible for nearly all of the set to be above the mean if the distribution of abilities is highly skewed. For example, the mean number of human legs is slightly lower than two, because of a small number of people have only one or no legs. Experiments usually compare subjects to the median of the peer group, since by definition it is impossible for a majority to exceed the median.

A second problem is that people interpret a question in different ways, so maybe most are better than the rest of the group each on their own understanding.[2] This interpretation is confirmed by experiments which varied the amount of interpretive freedom subjects were given. As people evaluate themselves on a specific, well-defined attribute, illusory superiority remains.[3]

Cognitive tasks

see also Dunning–Kruger effect

In Kruger and Dunning's experiments people were given specific tasks such as solving problems in logic, analyzing grammar questions, and deciding whether or not jokes were funny. They were asked to evaluate their performance on these tasks relative to the rest of the group. This gave a direct comparison of their actual and perceived performance.[4]

Results were divided into four groups depending on actual performance and it was found that all four groups evaluated their performance as above average, meaning that the lowest-scoring group (the bottom 25%) showed a very large illusory superiority bias. The researchers attributed this to the fact that the people who were worst at performing the tasks were also worst at recognizing skill in those tasks. This was supported by the fact that, given training, the worst subjects improved their estimate of their rank as well as getting better at the tasks.[4]

Academic ability and job performance

In a survey of faculty at the University of Nebraska, 68% rated themselves in the top 25% for teaching ability.[5] In a similar survey, 87% of MBA students at Stanford University rated their academic performance as above the median.[6]

Findings of illusory superiority in research have also explained phenomena such as the large amount of stock market trading (as each trader thinks they are the best, and most likely to succeed),[7] and the number of lawsuits that go to trial (because, due to illusory superiority, many lawyers have an inflated belief that they will win a case).[8]

In team science contexts, superiority bias has been mathematically modeled as a reluctance to adopt solutions used by others unless they are significantly better than one's current solution. This bias can increase the diversity of solutions within a team, potentially leading to higher-quality outcomes for complex problems, albeit with increased time and resource investment.[9]

Self, friends and peers

One of the first studies that found the effect of illusory superiority was carried out in 1976 by the College Board in the USA.[10] A survey was attached to the SAT exams (taken by approximately one million students per year), asking the students to rate themselves relative to the median of the sample (rather than the average peer) on a number of vague positive characteristics. In ratings of leadership ability, 70% of the students put themselves above the median. In ability to get on well with others, 85% put themselves above the median, and 25% rated themselves in the top 1%.

Research also showed subjects rated friends higher than other peers.[11][12][13]

Popularity

In Zuckerman and Jost's study, people were given detailed questionnaires about their friendships and asked to assess their own popularity. They showed that they generally had exaggerated perceptions of their own popularity, particularly in comparison to their own friends.[14]

Relationship happiness

Researchers have also found the effects of illusory superiority in studies into relationship satisfaction. For example, one study found that people thought their own relationships were better than others' relationships on average. They also thought that most people were happy with their relationships. This study found evidence that the higher the participants rated their own relationship happiness, the more superior they believed their relationship was.

In men, satisfaction was also related to the perception that one's own relationship was superior. Women's satisfaction was particularly related to the assumption that most others were happy with their relationship.[15]

Health

Illusory superiority effects have been found in a study of health behaviors. The study involved asking people to estimate how often they, and their peers, carried out healthy and unhealthy behaviors. They reported that they carried out healthy behaviors more often than the average peer, and unhealthy behaviors less often, as would be expected given the effect of illusory superiority. These findings were for both past self-report of behaviors and expected future behaviors.[16]

Driving ability

Svenson (1981) surveyed 161 students in Sweden and the United States, asking them to compare their driving safety and skill to the other people in the experiment. For driving skill, 93% of the US sample and 69% of the Swedish sample put themselves in the top 50% (above the median). For safety, 88% of the US group and 77% of the Swedish sample put themselves in the top 50%.[17]

McCormick, Walkey and Green (1986) found similar results in their study, asking 178 drivers to evaluate their position on eight different dimensions relating to driving skill (examples include the "dangerous-safe" dimension and the "considerate-inconsiderate" dimension). Only a small minority rated themselves as below average (the midpoint of the dimension scale) at any point, and when all eight dimensions were considered together it was found that almost 80% of participants had evaluated themselves as being above the average driver.[18]

Immunity to bias

Subjects describe themselves in positive terms compared to other people, and this includes describing themselves as less susceptible to bias than other people. This effect is called the "bias blind spot".[19]

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Hoorens, Vera (1993). "Self-enhancement and superiority biases in social comparison". European Review of Social Psychology. 4 (1): 113–139. doi:10.1080/14792779343000040.
  2. ↑ Colvin, C. Randall; Jack Block, David C. Funder (1995). "Overly positive self-evaluations and personality: negative implications for mental health". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 68 (6): 1152–1162. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1152. PMID 7608859.
  3. ↑ Dunning, David; Judith A. Meyerowitz, Amy D. Holzberg (1989). "Ambiguity and self-evaluation: the role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving assessments of ability". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57 (6): 1082–1090. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1082. ISSN 1939-1315.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Kruger, Justin; David Dunning (1999). "Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 77 (6): 1121–34. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121. PMID 10626367. S2CID 2109278.
  5. ↑ Cross, P. (1977). "Not can but will college teachers be improved?". New Directions for Higher Education. 1977 (17): 1–15. doi:10.1002/he.36919771703.
  6. ↑ "It's Academic." 2000. Stanford GSB Reporter, April 24, pp.14–5. via Zuckerman, Ezra W.; John T. Jost (2001). "What makes you think you're so popular? Self evaluation maintenance and the subjective side of the "Friendship Paradox"" (PDF). Social Psychology Quarterly. 64 (3): 207–223. doi:10.2307/3090112. JSTOR 3090112. Retrieved 2009-08-29.
  7. ↑ Odean, T (1998). "Volume, volatility, price, and profit when all traders are above average". Journal of Finance. 53 (6): 1887–1934. doi:10.1111/0022-1082.00078.
  8. ↑ Neale, M.A. & Bazerman M.H. 1985. The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviours and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 34–49.
  9. ↑ Boroomand, Amin; Smaldino, Paul (2023). "Superiority Bias and Communication Noise Can Enhance Collective Problem Solving". Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. 26 (3). doi:10.18564/jasss.5154.
  10. ↑ Alicke, Mark D.; Olesya Govorun (2005). "The better-than-average effect". In Mark D. Alicke, David A. Dunning, Joachim I. Krueger (ed.). The self in social judgment. Studies in Self and Identity. Psychology Press. pp. 85–106. ISBN 978-1-84169-418-4. OCLC 58054791.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
  11. ↑ Perloff, L.S; Fetzer B.K. (1986). "Self-other judgments and perceived vulnerability to victimization". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50 (3): 502–510. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.502.
  12. ↑ Brown, J.D (1986). "Evaluations of self and others: self-enhancement biases in social judgments". Social Cognition. 4 (4): 353–376. doi:10.1521/soco.1986.4.4.353.
  13. ↑ Tajfel, H; Turner J.C (1978). "The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour". In Worchel S. & Austin W.G (ed.). Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.). European Association of Experimental Social Psychology by Academic Press. pp. 7–24. ISBN 0-12-682550-5.
  14. ↑ Zuckerman, Ezra W. & Jost, John T (2001). "What makes you think you're so popular? Self evaluation maintenance and the subjective side of the "Friendship Paradox"" (PDF). Social Psychology Quarterly. American Sociological Association. 64 (3): 207–223. doi:10.2307/3090112. JSTOR 3090112. Retrieved 2009-08-29.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  15. ↑ Buunk, B.P (2001). "Perceived superiority of one's own relationship and perceived prevalence of happy and unhappy relationships". British Journal of Social Psychology. 40 (4): 565–574. doi:10.1348/014466601164984. PMID 11795068.
  16. ↑ Hoorens, V.; P. Harris (1998). "Distortions in reports of health behaviours: The time span effect and illusory superiority". Psychology and Health. 13 (3): 451–466. doi:10.1080/08870449808407303.
  17. ↑ Svenson, O (1981). "Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers?". Acta Psychologica. 47 (2): 143–148. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(81)90005-6.
  18. ↑ McCormick, Iain A.; Walkey, Frank H. & Green, Dianne E (1986). "Comparative perceptions of driver ability: a confirmation and expansion". Accident Analysis & Prevention. 18 (3): 205–208. doi:10.1016/0001-4575(86)90004-7. PMID 3730094.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  19. ↑ Pronin, Emily & Kugler, Matthew B. 2007. Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: the introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 43 (4): 565–578. [1]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.kidzsearch.com/w/index.php?title=Superiority_bias&oldid=5681325"