When Can Every Group Member be Above the Group's Average? The Weighted LOGE Theory of Social Comparison Biases

The Non Selective Superiority bias (NSSB) is defined as the tendency to judge each randomly chosen group member from a positive group as better than the other group members from the same group. While this is a reliable and robust bias, its origins are still debated. Internal explanations of the bias posit that NSSB is caused by some distortion in the internal comparisons between the focal group member and the other members of the same group. According to unique attribute theory (Chambers, 2010), NSSB occurs because each individual group member of a positive group is judged according to the dimension that positively distinguishes this individual member from the other members of the same positive group. According to focalism theories (e.g., Moore & Kim, 2003; Posavacet al., 2004), judges focus excessively on the standing of the focal member on the judged quality rather than the corresponding status of the others in the group on the same quality (i.e., "this candidate is highly curious" rather than "this candidate is curious more than other candidates in the short list").Giladi and Klar (2002) proposed an external explanation for the bias, meaning, suggested that the bias occurs due to a distortion that is not related to a comparison between the focal group members. Their approach, LOGE (Local comparisons- General Standards), suggested that in addition to the internal comparison between the judged group member and the others in the local group, a second, simultaneous comparison also takes place. This is a comparison between each judged group member and the general standard, which represents the judge's knowledge and experience about the range of qualities within the larger category that pertains to the judged local group. This external standard is logically irrelevant to the comparison process; however, cognitively, it cannot be avoided. According to LOGE, NSSB is due to the intrusive effect of the external comparison with the general stand pertaining to the judged quality. The original LOGE theory paid no special attention to the relative judgmental weights of the two components (i.e., internal and external; DIFFL and DIFFG) in the resulting comparative judgment. Therefore, it was impossible to draw experimental predictions from the original theory. This dissertation attempts to rectify this issue. This work proposed a better specified version of LOGE which is termed Weighted-LOGE (W-LOGE). In this version, the relative weights of DIFFL and DIFFG can vary. This enables me to test the main LOGE prediction: the greater the judgmental focus is ascribed to DIFFG (rather than to DIFFL), the greater the comparative bias should be. This prediction suggests that when the focus is on the internal commonalities (rather than differences) within the local group, judges are likely to be less preoccupied with within-group comparisons (i.e., DIFFL) and consequently, will be engaged to a greater extent in the external comparison (i.e., DIFFG). W-LOGE will predict that in this case, a greater NSSB will occur. In the first empirical section, we compared this prediction to unique attribute theory's predictions, Across three studies, we found support to the W-LOGE predictions, suggesting that NSSB increasing when group members are similar to each other. The next empirical section compared between W-LOGE and Focalism. This section employed a sequential comparative judgment method, in which each group member was judged in turn against the others in the group. Focalism approaches argued that the origin of NSSB is the neglect of the non-focal group members during the comparative judgment. Therefore, when the focal member role alternates in each comparative judgment from one group member to another, Focalism assume that NSSB should progressively diminish or even totally disappear. Here as well, across three studies, evidence supported W-LOGE theory.In the final experimental section of this work, the sequential method used to directly contrast W-LOGE with both Focalism and unique attribute approaches. If judges repeatedly consider how superior each local group member is compared to the general standard, as seen at the previous section, what will happen when they additionally focus on within-group similarities? W-LOGE predicts that when the focus is on within-group similarities, the pluses of each of the local group members versus the general standards might even bolster the judgments and thus NSSB could even gradually increase with successive judgments. Across three additional study, this prediction was supported. Across these nine studies, which utilized the W-LOGE model, I found support to the experimental predictions draw from the LOGE theory. These studies corroborate the claim that the logically irrelevant comparison of judged group members with an irrelevant general standard is the main cause of NSSB, since the relative judgmental weight assigned to this external comparison regulates the magnitude of the bias.

A Novel Method to Assign Weights to Decision Makers for each Criterion in Group Decision Making Under Multiple Criteria with Crisp and Interval Data

This article focuses on determining the weights of decision makers (DMs) in multi-criteria group decision making (MCGDM) environments with both crisp and interval data, in which the weights of DMs are derived from the decision matrices and DMs, have different weights for different criteria. In order to determine the optimal weights of DMs for each criterion, a new TOPSIS-based approach is introduced. In the proposed method, the DMs weight for each criterion is depends on the distances from each individual group member decision to the positive and negative ideal solution. In other words, the DM has a large weight if his/ her decision information is close (far) to the positive (negative) ideal solution, and has a small weight if his/ her decision information is far (close) from the positive (negative) ideal solution. Finally, a numerical example is given to demonstrate the feasibility of the developed methods.

Intergroup Contact

Contact between members of different groups has long been advocated as a productive means for reducing intergroup prejudice. The empirical evidence supports this notion, with hundreds of studies indicating that people (especially people from dominant groups) gain more positive attitudes towards other groups (typically non-dominant groups) by communicating with members of those groups. Generalization from the individual group member to the group as a whole is stronger when the target’s group membership is salient during the encounter, albeit that generalization might be positive or negative. Recent years have seen expanded definitions of intergroup contact, moving from direct face-to-face contact to broader realms such as imagining interaction with the outgroup, contacting the outgroup through interactive (e.g., computer) or non-interactive (e.g., broadcast) media, and becoming aware of or observing contact involving other ingroup and outgroup members. Several suggestions for the most effective content of contact have been supplied, but the most definitive recommendation is simply that the contact not be negative: contact involving extensive conflict and negative emotions do not reduce prejudice. The effects of contact can occur through a wide variety of mediators, but the most commonly studied have been anxiety and empathy: contact reduces anxiety and increases empathy, and those emotional responses translate into more positive intergroup attitudes. Counter-intuitively, some evidence suggests that contact is most effective for people with higher levels of pre-existing prejudice. Contact can have some ironic negative effects on progress towards societal equity. In particular, considerable evidence suggests that harmonious intergroup contact can reduce perceptions of inequality and suppress the motivation for social change for dominant and subordinate groups. For subordinate groups specifically, a positive intergroup experience with a dominant group member can reduce the drive to actively challenge the status quo.

A model for selecting project team members using multicriteria group decision making

Selecting a project team is a complex multi-criteria decision-making problem. For this reason, one appropriate way to tackle such problems involves the use of multi-criteria decision aid methods. However, most of the decisions taken regarding the selection of project teams are made by a group of people. It is this which changes the focus of the problem by moving from one decision-maker (DM) to a group of DMs. Analysis needs to be extended in order to consider the preference structure of each individual group member. In this paper, we present a group decision model for project team selection based on a multi-criteria evaluation of the preferences of a client's representatives. It could be applied to any decision problem since it involves a group of decision makers whose preferences diverge little. An application of the model in order to select consultants for a construction project is presented.