Article

How long will it take? Power biases time predictions

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (Impact Factor: 2.22). 07/2010; DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.005

ABSTRACT People tend to underestimate the time it takes to accomplish tasks. This bias known as the planning fallacy derives from the tendency to focus attention too narrowly on the envisaged goal and to ignore additional information that could make predictions more accurate and less biased. Drawing on recent research showing that power induces attentional focus, four studies tested the hypothesis that power strengthens the tendency to underestimate future task completion time. Across a range of task domains, and using multiple operationalizations of power, including actual control over outcomes (Study 1), priming (Studies 2 and 3), and individual differences (Study 4), power consistently led to more optimistic and less accurate time predictions. Support was found for the role of attentional focus as an underlying mechanism for those effects. Differences in optimism, self-efficacy, and mood did not contribute to the greater bias in powerful individuals’ forecasts. We discuss the implications of these findings for institutional decision processes and occupational health.

3 Followers
 · 
953 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is a common time management problem that people underestimate the duration of tasks, which has been termed the “planning fallacy.” To overcome this, it has been suggested that people should be informed about how long they previously worked on the same task. This study, however, tests whether previous misestimation also affects the duration estimation of a novel task, even if the feedback is only self-generated. To test this, two groups of participants performed two unrelated, laboratory-based tasks in succession. Learning was manipulated by permitting only the experimental group to retrospectively estimate the duration of the first task before predicting the duration of the second task. Results showed that the experimental group underestimated the duration of the second task less than the control group, which indicates a general kind of learning from previous misestimation. The findings imply that people could be trained to carefully observe how much they misestimate task duration in order to stimulate learning. The findings are discussed in relation to the anchoring account of task duration misestimation and the memory-bias account of the planning fallacy.
    Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) 03/2015; 34:1-13. DOI:10.1007/s12144-014-9236-3 · 0.45 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: a b s t r a c t Introduction. – According to Planning Fallacy, people underestimate the time required to complete a task. A review of the social, cognitive, and motivational factors that moderate Planning Fallacy suggests that variability in Web searching tasks would lead to an overestimation of retrieval time, at least when the task duration is short (about 10 minutes). Objective. – The goals of this pilot study are twofold: to check the accuracy of forecasts when users estimate the time required to retrieve information on the Web, and to understand users' strategies for dealing with the Web for multipurpose documentation. Method. – Participants (n = 32) were asked how long it would take to answer four encyclopedic questions on the Web; questions were in various fields with two levels of difficulty and two types of answers (qua-litative vs quantitative). We compared estimations of the time required to retrieve specific information on the Web with the actual retrieval time. Forecasts were made before and after the effective retrieval task (within-subjects design). Results. – A significant and large overestimation of the anticipated time was observed, especially for questions with a qualitative answer. The overestimation range was between 195% and 473% for mean search durations between 4.5 and 10.3 min. Task perceived difficulty was the best predictor of time anticipation (r 2 < 0.32). Web search self-efficacy and experience contributed slightly to the overestimation but only for easy questions. Conclusion. – Overestimation of the time required to complete a Web searching task (i.e. pessimistic Planning Fallacy) results from a combination of factors: short length of tasks, variability in task difficulty, and the qualitative or quantitative nature of the correct answer. Search time forecast could be used as a benchmark to improve Web usability. © 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved. Mots clés : Recherche d'information sur le Web Planification fallacieuse Estimation de temps Optimisme Pessimisme Auto-efficacité r é s u m é La planification fallacieuse désigne le fait de sous-estimer le temps nécessaire pour accomplir une tâche. La recherche d'informations sur le Web est-elle une activité qui fait exception à la plan-ification fallacieuse? Une revue des facteurs cognitifs, sociaux et motivationnels qui modèrent la planification fallacieuse suggère que la variabilité des tâches d'interrogation du Web conduirait à une surestimation du temps pour trouver une information en ligne, à tout le moins concer-nant des tâches de durée courte (environ dix minutes). Dans la présente étude, on relève les estimations des temps pour rechercher plusieurs informations sur le Web, avant et après la réa-lisation de la tâche. Ces mesures sont comparées avec les temps réels d'accomplissement des recherches en ligne (mesures intra-sujets). Les informations à rechercher sur le Web impliquent quatre questions de type encyclopédique selon deux niveaux de difficulté et deux types de réponses (qualitatives vs quantitatives). Les résultats (n = 32) indiquent une surestimation des temps anticipés pour obtenir la réponse correcte (estimations avant la tâche) spécialement pour des
    Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée 04/2012; Volume 62(Issue 2):Pages 103-109. DOI:10.1016/j.erap.2011.12.004 · 0.52 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Optimal distinctiveness theory [Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: on being the same and different at the same time. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482] proposes that individuals have two fundamental and competing human needs—the need for inclusion and the need for differentiation—that can be met by membership in moderately inclusive (optimally distinct) groups. In this chapter, the optimal distinctiveness model and its origins are summarized, and theoretical extensions and empirical tests of the model are discussed. In particular, the empirical review summarizes the model's consequences for social identification, social cognition, and intergroup relations. The evidence strongly supports the notion that the needs for inclusion and differentiation influence self-categorization resulting in a curvilinear relation between group inclusiveness and group identification. The existing evidence also indicates that the two needs influence perceptions and judgments of the self and others and the nature of intragroup and intergroup relations. The chapter concludes by discussing the interplay of the needs for inclusion and differentiation across levels of the self and how the needs for inclusion and differentiation influence which level of self (individual or collective) is motivationally primary.
    Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · 4.89 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
33 Downloads
Available from