James A. Shepperd

Do Moderators of the Optimistic Bias Affect Personal or Target Risk Estimates? A Review of the Literature

The optimistic bias is defined as judging ones own risk as less than the risk of others. Researchers have identified numerous personal and situational factors that moderate the extent to which people display the bias. It is unclear, however, whether these moderators affect the bias by influencing peoples personal risk estimates or their risk estimates for a target. A review of moderators of the optimistic bias reveals evidence for both influences. Moderators associated with negative affect (negative mood, dysphoria, trait and state anxiety, event severity, and proximity of feedback) and control related moderators (perceived control and prior experience) appear primarily to affect personal risk estimates. Positive mood affects target risk estimates. Finally, moderators that surround the comparison process appear to have different effects. Specifically, the type of comparison target appears to affect target risk estimates, whereas attention to personal risk-related behaviors affects personal risk estimates.

Productivity loss in performance groups : a motivation analysis

This article presents a framework derived from expectancy theory for organizing the research on productivity loss among individuals combining their efforts into a common pool (i.e., the research on social loafing, free riding, and the sucker effect). Lost productivity is characterized as a problem of low motivation arising when individuals perceive no value to contributing, perceive no contingency between their contributions and achieving a desirable outcome, or perceive the costs of contributing to be excessive. Three broad categories of solutions, corresponding to each of the 3 sources of low productivity, are discussed: (a) providing incentives for contributing, (b) making contributions indispensable, and (c) decreasing the cost of contributing. Each of these solutions is examined, and directions for future research and the application of this framework to social dilemmas are discussed. For close to a century, psychologists and other social scientists have been interested in performance in groups. Traditionally, the topic of group performance has been dominated by social facilitation: the process whereby the presence of others enhances the performance of well-learned, dominant behaviors yet impairs the performance of novel, nondominant behaviors (Zajonc, 1965). The study of social facilitation can be traced back to an investigation by Triplett in 1898. Triplett demonstrated that children turned a fishing reel faster if they worked against a live competitor than if they worked alone. In the 9 decades since the initial demonstration by Triplett, hundreds of studies have investigated social facilitation, and numerous theories have been proposed to account for the phe

Abandoning Unrealistic Optimism: Performance Estimates and the Temporal Proximity of Self-Relevant Feedback

Although evidence for unrealistic optimism is considerable, there is reason to believe that individuals will abandon their optimism and may even become pessimistic in anticipation of self-relevant feedback. The authors propose and provide preliminary test of a model of the temporal transition from o

Information avoidance: Who, what, when, and why.

Although acquiring information can provide numerous benefits, people often opt to remain ignorant. We define information avoidance as any behavior designed to prevent or delay the acquisition of available but potentially unwanted information. We review the various literatures that examine information avoidance and provide a unique framework to integrate the contributions of these disparate areas of research. We first define information avoidance and distinguish it from related phenomena. We then discuss the motivations that prompt information avoidance and the factors that moderate the likelihood of avoidance. Finally, we discuss individual differences that predict preferences for information avoidance. We conclude by evaluating the current state of research on information avoidance and discussing directions for future research.

The Affective Consequences of Expected and Unexpected Outcomes

How do people feel about unexpected positive and negative outcomes? Decision affect theory (DAT) proposes that people feel displeasure when their outcomes fall short of the counterfactual alternative and elated when their outcomes exceed the counterfactual alternative. Because disconfirmed expectations provide a counterfactual alternative, DAT predicts that bad outcomes feel worse when unexpected than when expected, yet good outcomes feel better when unexpected than when expected. Consistency theories propose that people experience displeasure when their expectations are disconfirmed because the disconfirmation suggests an inability to predict. According to consistency theories, both good and bad outcomes feel worse when unexpected than when expected. These two theoretical approaches were tested in three studies. The results consistently support DAT.

Evaluating the Electronic Textbook: Is It Time to Dispense With the Paper Text?

We examined the perceptions and performance of students who used an electronic versus a traditional paper textbook. Introductory psychology students (N = 392) who chose between the 2 formats did not differ in course grades. However, students using the electronic text reported spending less time reading for class compared to students using the paper text and generally evaluated the electronic text unfavorably. No student who purchased an electronic text in a prior class chose to purchase it for introductory psychology. These findings suggest that it may be premature to abandon the paper text in favor of the electronic text.

Taking Stock of Unrealistic Optimism

Researchers have used terms such as unrealistic optimism and optimistic bias to refer to concepts that are similar but not synonymous. Drawing from 3 decades of research, we discuss critically how researchers define unrealistic optimism, and we identify four types that reflect different measurement approaches: unrealistic absolute optimism at the individual and group levels and unrealistic comparative optimism at the individual and group levels. In addition, we discuss methodological criticisms leveled against research on unrealistic optimism and note that the criticisms are primarily relevant to only one type: the group form of unrealistic comparative optimism. We further clarify how the criticisms are not nearly as problematic as they might seem, even for unrealistic comparative optimism. Finally, we note boundary conditions on the different types of unrealistic optimism and reflect on five broad questions that deserve further attention.

Is Optimism Always Best? Future Outlooks and Preparedness

Although people generally appear optimistic about the future, they shift from optimism under certain circumstances. Drawing from a recent review of the literature, we describe how both optimism and shifts from optimism serve the common goal of preparedness, which includes a readiness to deal with setbacks and a readiness to take advantage of opportunities. Shifts from optimism occur in response to available information and to the possibility that things may not turn out as hoped. People tend to shift from optimism when feedback is anticipated in the near future, when the outcome is important, when negative outcomes are easily imagined, and when the outcomes are uncontrollable. In addition, people with low self-esteem shift from optimism more readily than do people with high self-esteem. Finally, both optimism and shifts from optimism have unique benefits in terms of preparedness.

Social Loafing and Expectancy-Value Theory

Expectancy value theory holds that goal-directed behavior is a function of (a) expectations—the belief that performance depends on effort, (b) instrumentality—the belief that outcome depends on performance, and (c) outcome value—the value attached to achieving the outcome. The present research provides a direct test of two factors involved in the instrumentality component: the contingency between individual performance and group performance and the contingency between group performance and group outcome. Experiment 1 revealed that collective participants worked hard when they perceived a contingency between individual performance and group performance. Experiment 2 revealed that collective participants worked hard when they perceived a contingency between group performance and the group outcome. Taken together, the results confirm the importance of high instrumentality in eliminating social loafing.

Self-Handicapping The Moderating Roles of Public Self-Consciousness and Task Importance

A study was conducted to explore the role of individual differences in self-presentational concerns on a public form of self-handicapping. Male and female introductory psychology students, high and low in public self-consciousness, chose either facilitating or interfering music prior to taking a test described either as a valid predictor of academic success or as having unknown predictive ability. In addition, in an attempt to induce protective and acquisitive self-presentational styles, hay the subjects were given instructions that emphasized the likelihood of failure, while the remainder were given instructions that underscored the likelihood of success. Males handicapped more than females. High public self-conscious individuals handicapped more than their low public self-conscious counterparts, but only when they confronted a test characterized as valid. The success-versus failure-oriented instructions had no effect in the present study.