Social Perception of Self-Enhancement Bias and Error
Abstract
Abstract. How do social observers perceive and judge individuals who self-enhance (vs. not)? Using a decision-theoretic framework, we distinguish between self-enhancement bias and error, where the former comprises both correct and incorrect self-perceptions of being better than average. The latter occurs when a claim to be better than others is found to be false. In two studies, we find that when judging people’s competence, observers are sensitive to the accuracy of self-perception. When judging their morality, however, they tend to respond negatively to any claims of being better than average. These findings are further modulated by the domain of performance (intelligence vs. moral aptitude). Implications for the strategic use of self-enhancement claims are discussed.
References
2008). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment. Special Issue of European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1063–1065. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.574
(2005).
(The better-than-average effect . In M. D. AlickeD. A. DunningJ. I. KruegerEds., The self in social judgment (pp. 85–106). New York, NY: Psychology Press.2011). Handbook of self-enhancement and self-protection. New York, NY: Guilford.
. (2008). Punishing hubris: The perils of overestimating one’s status in a group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 90–101. doi: 10.1177/0146167207307489
(2012). A status-enhancement account of overconfidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 718–735. doi: 10.1037/a0029395
(2012).
(Where do non-utilitarian moral rules come from? . In J. I. KruegerEd., Social judgment and decision-making (pp. 261–278). New York, NY: Psychology Press.1995). Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1030–1041. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1030
(2016, July 17). The Republican Ticket: Trump and Pence. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-trump-pence-republican-ticket/
. (1995). Overly positive self-evaluations and personality: Negative implications for mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1152–1162. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1152
(1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169–193. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.001125
(2013). Are actual and perceived intellectual self-enhancers evaluated differently by social perceivers? European Journal of Personality, 27, 621–633. doi: 10.1002/per.1934
(2014). Beyond the correlation coefficient in studies of self-assessment accuracy: Commentary on Zell & Krizan. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 126–130. doi: 10.1177/1745691614521244
(2015). Fast but not intuitive, slow but not reflective: Decision conflict drives reaction times in social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 951–966. doi: 10.1037/xge0000107
(2004). Perceptions of humility: A preliminary study. Self and Identity, 3, 95–114. doi: 10.1080/13576500342000077
(2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146
(2013). TurkGate (Version 0.4.0) [Software]. Retrieved from http://gideongoldin.github.com/TurkGate/
(2014). Moral character predominates in person perception and evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 148–168. doi: 10.1037/a0034726
(2016). Morality’s centrality to liking, respecting, and understanding others. Social Psychological and Personality Science, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/1948550616655359
(2015). Self-enhancement diminished. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 1003–1020. doi: 10.1037/xge0000105
(2014). What’s really in a name-letter effect? Name-letter preferences in indirect measures of self-esteem. European Review of Social Psychology, 25, 228–262. doi: 10.1080/10463283.2014.980085
(2012). The Hubris hypothesis: You can self-enhance, but you’d better not show it. Journal of Personality, 80, 1237–1274. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00759.x
(1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 206–219. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.206
(2013). When overconfidence is revealed to others: Testing the status-enhancement theory of overconfidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122, 266–279. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.08.005
(2016). Maybe holier, but definitely less evil, than you: Bounded self-righteousness in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 660–674. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000050
(2007). Perceptions of self and other in the prisoner’s dilemma: Outcome bias and evidential reasoning. American Journal of Psychology, 120, 593–618.
(2010). Perceptions of morality and competence in (non)interdependent games. Acta Psychologica, 134, 85–93. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.12.010
(2013). Comparisons in research and reasoning: Toward an integrative theory of social induction. New Ideas in Psychology, 31, 73–86. doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2012.11.002
(2008). A matter of trust: From social preferences to the strategic adherence to social norms. Negotiation & Conflict Management Research, 1, 31–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-4716.2007.00003.x
(2008). Is the allure of self-esteem a mirage after all? The American Psychologist, 63, 64–65. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.1.64
(1999). Lake Wobegon be gone! The “below-average effect” and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 221–232. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.221
(2004). Reconceptualizing individual differences in self-enhancement bias: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Review, 111, 94–110. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.94
(2015). On the perceived intentionality of self-enhancement. The Journal of Social Psychology, 156, 28–42. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2015.1041447
(2014). Self-deceived individuals are better at deceiving others. PLoS One, 9, e104562. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104562
(2000).
(The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory . In M. ZannaEd., Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 1–62). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.2003). Social approval and trait self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 23–40. doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00531-7
(2010). Self-deception as self-signaling: A model and experimental evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365, 227–240. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0218
(2007). Overconfidence and underconfidence: When and why people underestimate (and overestimate) the competition. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 197–213. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.002
(2003). Myopic social prediction and the solo comparison effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1121–1135. doi: 1037/0022-3514.85.6.1121
(2007). Error and bias in comparative judgment: On being both better and worse than we think we are. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 972–989. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.972
(1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
(1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1197–1208. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1197
(2013). [Survey software]. Provo, UT: Qualtrics.
. (1966). The game of chicken. American Behavioral Scientist, 10, 10–28. doi: 10.1177/000276426601000303
(1979). A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 86, 61–79. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.86.1.61
(2001). Positive illusions about the self: Short-term benefits and long-term costs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 340–352. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.340
(1990).
(The laws of sympathetic magic: A psychological analysis of similarity and contagion . In J. W. StiglerR. A. ShwederG. HerdtEds., Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 205–232). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.2015). Good enough for an affair: Self-enhancement of attractiveness, interest in potential mates and popularity as a mate. European Journal of Personality, 30, 12–18. doi: 10.1002/per.2029
(1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131–142. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131
(2014). The essential moral self. Cognition, 131, 159–171. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.005
(2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 1–26. doi: 10.1111/1529-1006.001
(2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MD: Pearson Education.
(1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193
(2003). Portrait of the self-enhancer: Well adjusted and well liked or maladjusted and friendless? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 165–176. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.165
(2011). Complex social consequences of self-knowledge. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 343–350. doi: 10.1177/1948550610390965
(2013). This examined life: The upside of self-knowledge for interpersonal relationships. PLoS One, 8, e69605. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069605
(1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 181–228.
(2016). Why self-enhancement provokes dislike: The hubris hypothesis and the aversiveness of explicit self-superiority claims. Self and Identity, 15, 173–190. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2015.1095232
(2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 125–140. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.003
(2011). The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 1–16. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10001354
(2005). Morality and competence in person-and self-perception. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 155–188. doi: 10.1080/10463280500229619
(2014). Do people have insight into their abilities? A metasynthesis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 111–125. doi: 10.1177/1745691613518075
(