↓ Skip to main content

Biases in Social Comparative Judgments: The Role of Nonmotivated Factors in Above-Average and Comparative-Optimism Effects

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Bulletin, January 2004
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
367 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Biases in Social Comparative Judgments: The Role of Nonmotivated Factors in Above-Average and Comparative-Optimism Effects
Published in
Psychological Bulletin, January 2004
DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.813
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Biases in social comparative judgments, such as those illustrated by above-average and comparative-optimism effects, are often regarded as products of motivated reasoning (e.g., self-enhancement). These effects, however, can also be produced by information-processing limitations or aspects of judgment processes that are not necessarily biased by motivational factors. In this article, the authors briefly review motivational accounts of biased comparative judgments, introduce a 3-stage model for understanding how people make comparative judgments, and then describe how various nonmotivational factors can influence the 3 stages of the comparative judgment process. Finally, the authors discuss several unresolved issues highlighted by their analysis, such as the interrelation between motivated and nonmotivated sources of bias and the influence of nonmotivated sources of bias on behavior.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 367 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 11 3%
United Kingdom 7 2%
France 3 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 338 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 79 22%
Student > Master 45 12%
Researcher 39 11%
Student > Bachelor 38 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 31 8%
Other 86 23%
Unknown 49 13%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 188 51%
Business, Management and Accounting 44 12%
Social Sciences 24 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 12 3%
Computer Science 6 2%
Other 34 9%
Unknown 59 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 May 2018.
All research outputs
#8,535,684
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Bulletin
#1,370
of 2,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,568
of 143,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Bulletin
#25
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,245 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.7. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 143,821 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.