Do others value objective or subjective attributes more? Misprediction about others’ experiences

To make satisfactory decisions for others, people must accurately predict the difference in others’ experiences with different options. Options differ in objective and subjective attributes. Objective attributes are more likely to be measured by an unequivocal, well-accepted criterion, while the evaluation of subjective attributes is more likely to be based on personal tastes. We term the option superior on objective attributes but inferior on subjective attributes as an objectively better option and the option superior on subjective attributes but inferior on objective attributes as a subjectively better option. The current research focuses on how people predict others’ experience with objectively better and subjectively better options, and proposes a misprediction: people overpredict the relative advantage of a subjectively better option versus an objectively better option in experience of others. This is because people undervalue how others are rational. Four studies demonstrated the proposed misprediction and tested its mechanism and consequences. Study 1 revealed the misprediction. Participants were randomly assigned to either the experiencer or the predictor condition. The experiencers did an objectively better task or a subjectively better task and reported their experience in this task. The predictors learned the experiencers’ task and predicted the experiencers’ experience. The results showed that people exaggerated the difference between the subjectively better task and the objectively better task in experience of others. Study 2 manipulated the predictors’ belief about others’ lay rationalism level to examine the mechanism. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: experiencer, predictor−control, predictor− rational, and predictor−irrational. Participants in the predictor-rational and predictor-irrational conditions were imposed a belief that others were rational and irrational, respectively. Replicating the results of Study 1, participants in the predictor−control and the predictor−rational conditions mistakenly predicted the difference in others’ experiences with the two options. However, participants in the predictor−rational made accurate predictions. Study 3 revealed that the misprediction cause excessive decisions of subjectively better options for others. We revealed this consequence in gift giving. The results indicated that givers were more likely to give a subjectively better gift, while receivers were more likely to receive an objectively better gift. Study 4 investigated another consequence that the misprediction cause financial losses for oneself. We told the predictors that they would gain bonus payments that equaled their paired experiencers’ experience ratings. The predictors learned that their paired experiencers were assigned to the objectively better task and they could pay to change the task from objectively better to subjectively better to gain more money. The results showed that due to the misprediction, predictors overpaid for the change and gained less. We reveal that people overpredict the relative advantage of a subjectively better option versus an objectively better option in experience of others due to the belief that others are irrational. Consequently, predictors over-select subjectively better options for others and cause financial loss for themselves. Our research contributes to misprediction, self-other difference, and lay rationalism, offering insights for decision-makers and marketers on how to improve the quality of decisions made for others and gain positive consumer reviews.