Why leading is (almost) as important as winning

Competitions in sports, business, or politics often provide perceivers with cumulative standings over time. Recent research suggests that people fail to accurately update their impressions from cumulative observations as they are influenced by previous standings. This cumulative redundancy bias (CRB) implies that competitors that are leading during a competition will receive more favorable evaluations, over and beyond their eventual success or failure. While the CRB has far-reaching implications, its underlying mechanisms are not fully understood. We present data from four experiments in which we modified the standard CRB task by adding a step-by-step procedure to track the dynamics of perceivers' impressions during the competition. We also manipulated the length of the competition and tested different possible explanations for the CRB. Results suggest that the CRB is a robust phenomenon that constitutes an actual bias and that is best explained by an additive effect of cumulative redundancy.

Automated summary

Competitors that are leading in sports, business, or politics tend to receive more favorable evaluations, regardless of their eventual success or failure. This phenomenon, known as the cumulative redundancy bias (CRB), can be explained by the additive effect of cumulative redundancy.