You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
Media type:
E-Book
Title:
Objective Standards Matter Too Much
:
The Use and Abuse of Absolute and Comparative Performance Feedback in Absolute and Comparative Judgments and Decisions
Footnote:
Nach Informationen von SSRN wurde die ursprüngliche Fassung des Dokuments August 2005 erstellt
Description:
Which matters more - beliefs about absolute ability or ability relative to others? This study set out compare their effects on self-evaluations, decisions under uncertainty, performance attribution, and perceived relevance of the task to one's self-concept. 415 participants were told they had gotten 20% correct, 80% correct, or were not given then their scores on a practice test. Orthogonal to this manipulation, participants learned that their performance placed them in the 23rd percentile or 77th percentile, or they did not receive comparative feedback. They were then given a chance to place bets on two games - one in which they needed to get more than 50% right (absolute bet), and one in which they needed to beat more than 50% of other test-takers (comparative bet). Absolute feedback had strong and consistent influences on participants' bets, performance attributions, perceived task importance, satisfaction with performance, and state self-esteem. The effects of comparative feedback were weaker and less consistent. These findings suggest that information about one's absolute standing on a dimension may be more influential than information about comparative standing, supporting Festinger's (1954) assertion that social comparison was only necessary when objective information was unavailable