Men typically predict women's sexual intentions to be higher than women say they are (Haselton & Buss, 2000). It is debated whether this cross-sex bias is because of men overestimating women's intentions (Murray et al., 2017), women underreporting their own intentions (Perilloux & Kurzban, 2015, 2017), or both. To unify the current debate, we decompose the part of the bias attributable to women underreporting versus men overestimating by using a survey method intervention to reduce underreporting of sensitive information: eliciting estimates about others before sensitive self-reports. First, we calibrate the current measurement instrument to assess the overall size of the misprediction bias (Study 1). Then, we manipulate the order-of-elicitation of self- and other-reports (Studies 2 and 3): Women report significantly higher own sexual intentions when they are asked about other targets' intentions before their own, suggesting that 48 to 69% of the overestimation bias is attributable to women underreporting their own sexual intentions. Analogous analyses for the misprediction bias about men suggest that women's overestimation bias of men's sexual intentions is entirely because of men underreporting their own sexual intentions. The findings have important implications for the current debate in the literature on cross-sex misprediction biases and the literature on asking sensitive survey questions. (PsycINFO Database Record

Consumers use brands in many combinations, from mixing-and-matching multiple brands (e.g., Nike shoes, Puma shirt, and Asics shorts) to using products primarily or solely from one brand (e.g., Nike shoes, shirt, and shorts). This work explores how such combinations affect observers’ trust in another consumer’s recommendations. Comparing two combination types—mixed-brand combinations (where all/most branded products are from different brands) and dominant-brand combinations (where all/most branded products are from the same brand)—nine studies establish that observers tend to have less trust in recommendations from those who use dominant-brand combinations (studies 1A-1C). This is driven by inferences about how the products were chosen: observers believe others who use dominant-brand combinations placed relatively greater importance on the brand—a feature that often serves as a mental shortcut for choices—and therefore infer these consumers made quicker, less thoughtful decisions (studies 2A and 2B). While the effect diminishes when observers hold particularly favorable attitudes toward the focal brand (study 3), it can alter observers’ own downstream behaviors (e.g., social media following intentions, information seeking, and recommendation taking; studies 4A–4C). Together, the findings confirm that brand combinations elicit responses distinct from single brands, offering fruitful avenues for future research.

When people predict their performance, they can be miscalibrated in two ways-they may mispredict how they will perform relative to others (misplacement) and how they will perform in absolute terms (misestimation). Prior work has yielded contradictory conclusions about the relative direction of these two types of miscalibration. Some research found that they occur in opposite directions-that is, that people who believe they are better than average (BTA) tend to underestimate their absolute performance, whereas those who believe they are worse than average (WTA) tend to overestimate their performance. Other studies found that the two types of miscalibration occur in the same direction-that is, that people with BTA beliefs tend to overestimate their performance. We reconcile these apparently conflicting findings by disentangling placement beliefs that are correct from those that are erroneous and focusing on the latter as only these represent instances of misplacement. Two field studies reveal a key asymmetry-erroneous BTA beliefs are primarily driven by misestimation of one's own absolute performance, whereas erroneous WTA beliefs tend to be driven by misestimation of others' absolute performance. A reexamination of data from Moore and Small (2007) supports this insight about the sources of misplacement beliefs. The findings suggest that the conflicting conclusions from prior work might have been attributable to differences in the extent to which results were based on observations with erroneous (as opposed to correct) placement beliefs. This research provides novel insights into the psychology of miscalibration in performance predictions and helps unify seemingly contradictory prior findings.