Is It All Relative?

Abstract

We argue that various types of evaluative social judgments about the self or others (e.g., employee job performance ratings, self-reported attitudes, ratings of others' traits) may be obtained more accurately using comparative ratings rather than absolute ratings. Comparative ratings involve relative judgments of a target in comparison with other individuals or groups, whereas absolute ratings involve judgments of a target on scales that do not explicitly reference other people. In industrial-organizational, social, and personality psychology research that has compared the validity of comparative and absolute ratings, we have found evidence of more valid measurement as a result of comparative judgmental ratings, despite the nearly exclusive reliance on absolute judgmental ratings in these areas. We offer a social cognitive and evolutionary explanation in support of the hypothesis that humans may often be able to make more accurate ratings using comparative measures. We also recommend an agenda for greater exploitation and understanding of relative judgments in psychological research and practice.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 110 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.