ArticlePDF Available

A Status-Enhancement Account of Overconfidence

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

In explaining the prevalence of the overconfident belief that one is better than others, prior work has focused on the motive to maintain high self-esteem, abetted by biases in attention, memory, and cognition. An additional possibility is that overconfidence enhances the person's social status. We tested this status-enhancing account of overconfidence in 6 studies. Studies 1-3 found that overconfidence leads to higher social status in both short- and longer-term groups, using naturalistic and experimental designs. Study 4 applied a Brunswikian lens analysis (Brunswik, 1956) and found that overconfidence leads to a behavioral signature that makes the individual appear competent to others. Studies 5 and 6 measured and experimentally manipulated the desire for status and found that the status motive promotes overconfidence. Together, these studies suggest that people might so often believe they are better than others because it helps them achieve higher social status. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: STATUS-ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT OF OVERCONFIDENCE
Astatus‐enhancementaccountofoverconfidence
CameronAnderson
UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley
SebastienBrion
UniversityofNavarra
DonA.MooreandJessicaA.Kennedy
UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley
PUBLISHEDINTHEJOURNALOFPERSONALITYANDSOCIALPSYCHOLOGY
AuthorNote
CameronAnderson,HaasSchoolofBusiness,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley;
SebastienBrion,IESEBusinessSchool,UniversityofNavarra;DonA.Moore,HaasSchoolof
Business,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley;JessicaA.Kennedy,HaasSchoolofBusiness,
UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.
CorrespondenceshouldbesenttoCameronAnderson,HaasSchoolofBusiness,
UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,545StudentServicesBuilding#1900,Berkeley,CA
94720‐1900.Email:anderson@haas.berkeley.edu
STATUS-ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT OF OVERCONFIDENCE
Abstract
Inexplainingtheprevalenceoftheoverconfidentbeliefthatoneisbetterthanothers,prior
workhasfocusedonthemotivetomaintainhighself‐esteem,abettedbybiasesin
attention,memory,andcognition.Anadditionalpossibilityisthatoverconfidenceenhances
theperson’ssocialstatus.Wetestedthisstatus‐enhancingaccountofoverconfidenceinsix
studies.Studies1through3foundoverconfidenceleadstohighersocialstatusinboth
shortandlonger‐termgroups,usingnaturalisticandexperimentaldesigns.Study4applied
aBrunswikian(1956)lensanalysisandfoundthatoverconfidenceleadstoabehavioral
signaturethatmakestheindividualappearcompetenttoothers.Studies5and6measured
andexperimentallymanipulatedthedesireforstatusandfoundthatthestatusmotive
promotesoverconfidence.Together,thesestudiessuggestthatpeoplemightsooften
believetheyarebetterthanothersbecauseithelpsthemachievehighersocialstatus.
Keywords:overconfidence,self‐perception,status,power,groups,person‐perception
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
1
AStatus‐EnhancementAccountofOverconfidence
Thepervasivenessofoverconfidenceissomewhatpuzzling.Individualsnot
onlytendtohavepositiveself‐perceptions,theyoftenbelievetheyaremore
talentedandcompetentthanothers,evenwhentheyarenot(forreviews,seeAlicke
&Govorun,2005;Dunning,Heath,&Suls,2004).Tomentionjustafewexamples,
individualstendtooverplacetheiroccupationalabilities(Haun,Zeringue,Leach,&
Foley,2000),socialskills(Swann&Gill,1997),andphysicaltalentsrelativetothose
ofothers(Dunning,Meyerowitz,&Holzberg,1989;forexceptions,seeKruger&
Burrus,2004;Moore&Small,2007).Thepropensityforoverconfidenceispuzzling
becausebeingabletoaccuratelyplaceone’sabilitiesrelativetothoseofothersis
clearlyuseful(e.g.,Alicke,1985;Dunningetal.,2004;Larrick,Burson,&Soll,2007).
Recognizingone’slimitationswouldhelppeoplesetmorerealisticgoals(Ehrlinger
&Dunning,2003),avoidcontestsonewilllose(Camerer&Lovallo,1999),andselect
strategiesthatfacilitatesuccess(Neale&Bazerman,1985),forexample.
Sowhywouldindividualsformoverlypositivejudgmentsoftheirabilities?
Scholarshavemostlyofferedtwoexplanations.Thefirstexplanationpositsa
motivatedbias:Individualsaredriventobeconfidentbecauseitprovidesthemwith
psychologicalbenefits(Dunning,Leuenberger,&Sherman,1995;Kunda,1987).For
example,self‐confidencecanimproveself‐esteem(Alicke,1985),mentalhealth
(Taylor&Brown,1988),andtaskmotivationandpersistence(Pajares,1996).The
secondexplanationhighlightsthecognitiveprocessesthatmaysometimesproduce
directionalbiases.Peoplemightsimplybeunabletoaccuratelyassesstheirown
competenceandarriveatbiasedself‐viewsfromfairlymundanejudgment
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
2
processes.Forexample,biasedself‐viewscanarisesimplybecausepeoplearemore
likelytoattendtosuccessthanfailure(Miller&Ross,1975),becausetheymaylack
thecompetencetounderstandtheirownincompetence(Kruger&Dunning,1999),
andbecausetheymayholdidiosyncraticdefinitionsofsuccessorability(Dunninget
al.,1989;Santos‐Pinto&Sobel,2005).
Athirdpossibility,whichhasreceivedlittleempiricalattention,isthat
overconfidenceprovidestheindividualwithsocialbenefits.Anumberofscholars
havetheorizedthatbiasedself‐perceptionsmayhelptheindividualsucceedsocially
(Alexander,1987;Krebs&Denton,1997;Leary,2007;Trivers,1985;vonHippel&
Trivers,2011;Waldman,1994).Morespecifically,thesetheoriesproposethat
overlypositiveself‐viewshelpindividualsconvinceothersthattheyaremore
capablethantheyactuallyare.Therefore,thisaccountpositsoverconfidencetobea
motivatedbias.However,unlikeprevioustheories,itproposesthatoverconfidence
ismotivatedbythedesireforsocialsuccessinadditiontothedesirefor
psychologicalbenefitssuchashigherself‐esteem.
Consistentwiththisaccount,weofferandtestaseriesofhypotheses
regardingoverconfidenceandtheattainmentofsocialstatus.Specifically,we
proposethatoverconfidencepervadeshumanself‐judgmentbecauseithelps
individualsattainhighersocialstatus.Socialstatusistherespect,prominence,and
influenceindividualsenjoyintheeyesofothers(Anderson,John,Keltner,&Kring,
2001;Berger,Cohen,&Zelditch,1972;Goldhamer&Shils,1939).Highersocial
statuscomeswithahostofbenefitsincludingcontrolovergroupdecisions,access
toscarceresources,andreproductivesuccess(Bergeretal.,1972;Blau,1964;Ellis,
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
3
1994;Griskevicius,Tybur,&VandenBergh,2010;Keltner,Gruenfeld,&Anderson,
2003;Savin‐Williams,1979).Thedesireforhighstatusiswidelyconsidereda
universalhumanmotive(Buss,1999;Maslow,1943;Tay&Diener,2011).
Weconductedsixstudiesthattestedthreemainhypotheses.Thefirst
hypothesisisthatoverconfidencehelpsindividualsachievehigherstatusinsocial
groups.Thesecondhypothesisisthatoverconfidenceleadstostatusbecauseit
makesindividualsappearcompetenttoothers,evenwhentheylackcompetence.
Studies1through3testedthesetwohypothesesbyexaminingtaskdyadsand
groups,usingbothnaturalisticandexperimentaldesigns.Study4useda
Brunswikian(1956)lensanalysistoexaminevideorecordingsofoverconfident
individuals’behavior.Thethirdhypothesisisthatthedriveforsocialstatus
promotesoverconfidence.Studies5and6testedthishypothesisbymeasuringand
experimentallymanipulatingthedesireforstatusandobservingitseffecton
overconfidence.
DefiningandConceptualizingOverconfidence
 Generally,overconfidenceisdefinedasinaccurate,overlypositive
perceptionsofone’sabilitiesorknowledge(forareview,seeMoore&Healy,2008).
Individualscanbeoverconfidentinanumberofways.Forinstance,peoplecan
overestimatetheirabilitiesorperformancerelativetoobjective,operationalcriteria
(e.g.,Buehler,Griffin,&Ross,1994;Krueger&Wright,2011;).Alternatively,people
canbeoverconfidentbyoverplacingthemselvesrelativetoothers–thatis,when
theybelievetheyarebetterthanothers,evenwhentheyarenot(e.g.,Krueger&
Mueller,2002;Kruger&Dunning,1999;Larricketal.,2007).Individualsare
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
4
overconfidentwhentheybelievetheyaremorecompetentthanobjectivemeasures
indicate,orwhentheythinktheyarebetterthanotherstoagreaterextentthanthey
actuallyare.
Overconfidenceisthereforedifferentfromself‐presentationandimpression
management,whichinvolvedeliberateattemptstopresentoneselfinapositivelight
(Baumeister,1982;Goffman,1959;Leary&Kowalski,1990;Paulhus,1984).Self‐
presentationandimpressionmanagementinvolvemodifyingone’sovertsocial
behaviors,oftenconsciouslyanddeliberately.Individualswhomanagetheir
impressionsmightormightnotbelievetheimpressiontheyaretryingtoconveyto
others.Incontrast,overconfidenceisagenuineyetflawedperceptionofone’sown
abilities(seevonHippel&Trivers,2011).Overconfidencecanpersistevenwhenthe
stakesarehighandalignedtorewardaccuracy(Ehrlinger,Johnson,Banner,
Dunning,&Kruger,2008;Hoelzl&Rustichini,2005;Williams&Gilovich,2008).
TheEffectsofOverconfidenceonStatus
Priorresearch.Totesttheargumentthatoverconfidencepervadesself‐
judgmentbecauseithelpsindividualsattainstatus,itwascriticaltofirstexamine
whetheroverconfidenceindeedhelpsindividualsattainsocialstatus.Thoughan
abundanceofresearchhasexaminedoverlypositiveself‐perceptions,studieshave
notadequatelytestedwhetheroverconfidenceleadstohigherpeer‐perceived
competenceandstatus(vonHippel&Trivers,2011).Moreover,theevidence
relevanttothisquestionhasprovidedhighlymixedresults.
Intheoverconfidenceliterature,scholarshavefocusedlargelyonmistakesin
decision‐makingandtheirimplicationsforperformanceoreconomicoutcomes
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
5
(Barber&Odean,2000;Cheng,2007;Camerer&Lovallo,1999;Koellinger,Minniti,
&Schade,2007;Malmendier&Tate,2005;Odean,1998;Odean,1999).Littlework
hasaddressedtheinterpersonalconsequencesofoverconfidence,suchasthe
impactofoverconfidenceonpeer‐ratedcompetenceorstatus(vonHippel&Trivers,
2011).
OtherworkhasexaminedoverlypositiveperceptionsusingwhatKwanand
colleaguescalledasocialcomparisonapproach,whichcomparesindividuals’self‐
perceptionstotheirperceptionsofothers(cf.Bonanno,Field,Kovacevic,Kaltman,
2002;Kwan,John,Kenny,Bond,&Robbins,2004;;Taylor&Brown,1988;Taylor,
Lerner,Sherman,Sage,&McDowell,2003).Accordingtothisapproach,individuals
possessoverlypositiveviewsiftheybelievetheyarebetterthanothers.However,
thosestudieshavenotoftendistinguishedinaccurate,overlypositiveself‐
perceptionsfromthosethatarejustifiablypositive(cf.Kwanetal.,2004;Tayloret
al.,2003).Therefore,peopleinthosestudieswhobelievedtheywerebetterthan
othersmighthaveinfactbeenbetterthanothers.Itiscriticaltoassesswhether
inaccurateself‐perceptionsperseleadtothosebenefits.
Stillotherscholarshaveexaminedoverlypositiveself‐perceptionsusing
whatKwanandcolleaguescalledaselfinsightapproach,whichcompares
individuals’self‐perceptionstoothers’perceptionsofthem(Anderson,Srivastava,
Beer,Spataro,&Chatman,2006;Colvin,Block,&Funder,1995;John&Robins,
1994;Paulhus,1998;Robins&Beer,2001).Inthisapproach,individualswhoseself‐
perceptionsareloftierthanothers’perceptionsofthemareconsideredtopossess
overlypositiveself‐views.Yetthosestudiesaddressedadifferentphenomenonthan
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
6
theoneinwhichweareinterested.Namely,theyfocusedontheconsequencesof
possessingself‐perceptionsthataremorepositivethanothers’impressions.In
contrast,weareinterestedininaccurate,overlypositiveself‐perceptionsofability
andhowtheyimpactothers’impressions.
Totestourhypotheses,overconfidencewouldideallybemeasuredby
comparingself‐perceptionstooperationalcriteria–thatis,unambiguous,concrete
indicesofability.Forexample,anidealmeasureoftaskabilitywouldinvolvetest
scores,andameasureofscholasticabilitywouldinvolvegrades(cf.Paulhus,Harms,
Bruce,&Lysy,2003).Theuseofoperationalcriteriadirectlyassessestheaccuracy
ofself‐perceptionsofcompetenceandthusisstandardpracticeinthe
overconfidenceliterature(e.g.,Krueger&Mueller,2002;Kruger&Dunning,1999;
Larricketal.,2007;Moore&Healy,2008).Operationalindicesalsohelpavoidsome
ofthecomplicationsofusingpeer‐ratingsasbothabenchmarkofrealityandasa
dependentvariable,suchasthepossibilityofspuriouscorrelationsdrivenby
commonmethodvariance(seeZuckerman&Knee,1996).
Overconfidence,peerratedcompetence,andsocialstatus.We
hypothesizedthatoverconfidencehelpsindividualsattainhighersocialstatus
becauseithelpsthemappearmorecompetentintheeyesofothers,evenwhenthey
lackcompetence.Howmightthiseffectoccur?Individuals’competenceresides
withinthemandishiddenfromothers.Peoplearethusoftenforcedtojudgeothers’
abilitiesbasedonsuperficialcuessuchasnonverbalbehavior,appearance,orstyle
ofspeaking.Forexample,individualsareperceivedasmorecompetentwhenthey
expresstheirideasmore,appearmoreconfidentintheiranswers,andexhibita
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
7
calmerandmorerelaxeddemeanor(Anderson&Kilduff,2009;Carli,LaFleur,&
Loeber,1995;Driskell,Olmstead,&Salas,1993;Imada&Hakel,1977;Radzevick&
Moore,2011;Reynolds&Gifford,2001;Ridgeway,1987;Tiedens&Fragale,2003).
Priorworksuggestsindividualswithhigherself‐perceptionsofcompetence
shoulddisplaymoreofthese“competencecues”intheirinteractionswithothers
(Baumeister,Campbell,Krueger,&Vohs,2003).Self‐perceptionsareapowerful
driverofsocialbehavior(e.g.,Swann,2005)andindividualswhobelievetheyare
competentshouldexhibitmorecompetencecues.
Moreover,evenoverlypositiveself‐perceptionsofability,oroverconfidence,
shouldleadindividualstodisplaymorecompetencecues.Self‐perceivedabilities
candetermineone’sbehavioraboveandbeyondone’sactualabilities(Bugental&
Lewis,1999;Campbell,Goodie,&Foster,2004;McNulty&Swann,1994;vonHippel
&Trivers,2011).Thissuggeststhatwhenindividualsperceivethemselvesashighly
competent–eveniftheylackcompetence–theyarelikelytoexhibitmore
competencecueswheninteractingwithothers.Therefore,insituationswherethere
isambiguityabouttheindividual’scompetence(whicharetypical;Moore&Healy,
2008),holdingactualcompetenceconstant,overconfidentindividualsshouldbe
perceivedasmorecompetentbyothers,comparedtoindividualswithmore
accurateself‐perceptionsofcompetence.
Tobeclear,wedonotarguethatthereisanythinguniqueabout
overconfidencepersethatleadsindividualstobeperceivedasmorecompetentby
others.Ahighlevelofunjustifiedconfidence(i.e.,overconfidence)shouldleadthe
individualtoexhibitmorecompetencecues,justasahighlevelofjustified
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
8
confidencedoes.Intheeyesoftheobserver,itisdifficulttodifferentiatejustified
fromunjustifiedconfidence.
Inturn,onceindividualsareperceivedtopossesshighercompetence,they
arelikelytobeaffordedhigherstatus.Althoughthecharacteristicsthatcanleadto
higherstatusaremultifaceted,aprimaryandconsistentpredictorofstatusin
groupsisperceivedcompetence(e.g.,Bergeretal.,1972;Driskell&Mullen,1990;
Lord,DeVader,&Alliger,1986).Ingeneral,groupsgivehigherstatustoindividuals
whoexhibitabilitiesthatwillhelpthegroupsucceed(Bergeretal.,1972;Eibl‐
Eibesfeldt,1989;Emerson,1962;Goldhamer&Shils,1939).Becausecompetent
individualscanprovideimportantcontributionstothegroup’ssuccess,theyare
givenhigherstatus.
Insum,wehypothesizethatoverconfidentindividualswillbeperceivedby
othersasmorecompetent,andinturnwillachievehigherstatusingroups,than
individualswithaccurateself‐perceptionsofability.Stateddifferently,ifPersonsA
andBhaveequallevelsofactualability,butPersonAhashigherconfidencethan
PersonB,PersonAwillbeseenasmorecompetentandwillattainhigherstatus
thanPersonB,evenifPersonA’sconfidenceisunjustified.
TheDesireforStatusasaPredictorofOverconfidence
Theargumentthatoverconfidencebiasesself‐judgmentbecauseithelpsthe
individualattainsocialstatusimpliesthatthehumandriveforstatuspromotes
overconfidence.Totestthisidea,weexaminedwhetherthedesireforstatusleadsto
higherlevelsofoverconfidence.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
9
Asmentionedearlier,statuscomeswithahostofsocialbenefits,including
respect,influence,andsocialsupport(Bergeretal.,1972;Blau,1964;Ellis,1994;
Griskeviciusetal.,2011;Gruenfeld&Tiedens,2010).Correspondingly,many
theoristshavearguedthatthedesireforhigherstatusisafundamentaldriverof
humanbehavior(Barkow,1975;Buss,1999;Hogan,1983;Maslow,1943).However,
evenifthedesireforstatusispervasive,therearealsodifferencesacross
individualsinthedegreetowhichtheywanthigherstatus(Jackson,1999;Josephs,
Sellers,Newman,&Mehta,2006;SchmidMast,Hall,&Schmid,2010;Smith,
Wigboldus,&Dijksterhuis,2008).Someindividualsdesirestatusmorethanothers.
Thisinter‐individualvariationallowsfortestingtheassociationbetweenthedesire
forstatusandoverconfidence.Accordingly,wetestedwhetherindividual
differencesinthedesireforstatuspredictdifferencesinoverconfidence.
Priorworkhasnotyettestedtheassociationbetweenthedesireforstatus
andoverconfidence.Indeed,researchthathasexaminedlinksbetween
overconfidenceanddispositionalvariables,suchaspersonalitytraits,hasyielded
mixedresults.Somestudieshavefoundpositiverelationshipsbetweenpersonality
andoverconfidence(e.g.,Schaefer,Williams,Goodie,&Campbell,2004),while
othershavefoundnulleffects(e.g.,Stankov&Crawford,1997;Wright&Phillips,
1979).Moreover,toourknowledge,noonehasyetmanipulatedthedesirefor
statusandobserveditseffectsonoverconfidence.Thus,weexaminedtherelation
betweendesireforstatusandoverconfidenceusingbothnaturalisticand
experimentaldesigns.
Study1
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
10
Study1addressedwhetheroverconfidentindividualsareperceivedtobe
morecompetentbyothersandwhethertheyattainhigherstatus.Totestthese
hypotheses,weexamineddyadsthatworkedtogetheronalaboratorytask.We
measuredthethreeconstructsofinterest–overconfidence,peer‐perceived
competence,andstatus–usingestablishedmethodsfromtheliterature.
Basedonpreviousresearchonoverconfidence,weusedageography
knowledgetask(Ehrlinger&Dunning,2003).Wefirstmeasuredparticipants’
overconfidencebyhavingthemcompletethegeographytaskindividuallyand
comparedtheirself‐perceivedperformancetotheiractualperformance(e.g.,
Ackerman,Beier,&Bowen,2002;Ames&Kammrath,2004;Jones,Panda,&
Desbiens,2008;Krueger&Mueller,2002;Kruger&Dunning,1999;Larricketal.,
2007;Moore&Small,2007).Wethenpairedparticipantsindyads,whereinthey
workedonthesamegeographytasktogether.Basedonthestatusliterature,we
collectedpeer‐assessmentsofcompetenceandstatusafterthedyadicinteraction
(e.g.,Anderson&Kilduff,2009;Bales,Strodtbeck,Mills,&Roseborough,1951;
Bergeretal.,1972;Driskell&Mullen,1990;Ridgeway,1987).
Method
Participants.Participantswere76undergraduatestudentsataWestCoast
universitywhoweredividedinto38dyads.Theyreceived$15fortheir
participation.
Procedure.Inthefirstphaseofthesession,participantswerepresented
withablankmapofNorthAmerica.Thismapcontainedasmallamountof
topographicalinformation(e.g.,riversandlakes),butcontainednoinformation
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
11
aboutstateornationalborders.Participantsweregivenalistof15U.S.citiesand
askedtoindicatethelocationofeachcitybyplacingadotonthemap.Participants
weretoldthatadotthatlieswithin150miles(2.1cmtoscale)oftheactuallocation
ofacitywouldbeconsideredcorrect.Aftercompletingthetest,participantsrated
theirownperformanceonthetaskandU.S.geographicknowledgemoregenerally.
Participantswerenevertoldtheiractualperformanceonthetest.Inthesecond
phaseofthestudy,participantsworkedindyads.Theywererandomlypairedand
askedtocompletethesametaskasadyad.Morethantwoparticipantswere
scheduledforeachlaboratorysession,allowingustopairunacquaintedparticipants
together.Aftercompletingthedyadictask,participantsprivatelyratedtheir
partner’scompetenceandstatusinthedyad.
Overconfidence.Wemeasuredoverplacement,theoverestimationofone’s
abilityrelativetothatofothers.1Intheindividualtask,participantswereasked(a)
howtheycomparedtotheotherparticipantsinthestudyontheirgeneral
knowledgeofU.S.geography,and(b)howtheirtaskscorescomparedtothoseof
otherparticipants.Bothquestionswereratedonascalefrom1(I’matthevery
bottom;worsethan99%ofthepeopleinthisstudy)to100(I’mattheverytop;
betterthan99%ofthepeopleinthisstudy).”Thesetwoitemscorrelated,r(74)=
.92,p<.01,andwerecombinedtomeasureself‐perceivedpercentilerank.
Wescoredactualperformanceasdescribedabove.Thisdataforone
participantwerelost,leaving75participants’datafortheanalyses.Participants
showedreliabilityintheirperformanceacrossthecities,α=.66(M=6.84,SD=
2.85).Wetransformedtheirscoresintopercentilerankingstocomparetheirself‐
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
12
perceivedrankstotheiractualranks(whichcorrelatedwitheachother,r[73]=.56,
p<.001).
Asmanyscholarsrecommend,wemeasuredoverconfidencebyregressing
participants’actualperformanceontotheirself‐evaluationsandretainingthe
residualsoftheself‐evaluations(Cohenetal.,2003;Cronbach&Furby,1970;
DuBois,1957;John&Robins,1994).2Theresidualscorecapturesthevariabilityin
self‐perceivedrankafterthevariancepredictedbyactualrankhasbeenremoved.
Partnerratedcompetence.Afterparticipantsworkedindyads,they
rankedtheirpartner’sU.S.geographicknowledgerelativetootherparticipants’
(usingthesamepercentilerankscale).Participantsalsoratedtheaccuracyoftheir
partner'sknowledgeofU.S.GeographyonaLikert‐styleitem,onascalefrom1(Not
atallaccurate)to7(Veryaccurate).Thesetwoitemscorrelatedwitheachotherr
(74)=.52,p<.001,α=.69,andwerestandardizedandcombinedtoformameasure
ofpartner‐ratedtaskcompetence.
Status.Previoustheoreticalconceptionsofstatusingroupshaveidentified
statusasinvolvingrespect,influence,leadership,andperceivedcontributionstothe
group’sdecisions(e.g.,Andersonetal.,2006;Balesetal.,1951;Bergeretal.,1972;
Cohen&Zhou,1991).Whilethesecomponentscanbeconceptuallydistinguished
fromeachother(e.g.,Goldhamer&Shils,1939;Magee&Galinsky,2008),theytend
tocorrelatesohighlyingroupsthattheyarebestunderstoodascomprisingone
overarchingstatusconstruct(e.g.,Andersonetal.,2001;Anderson&Kilduff,2009;
Balesetal.,1951;Berger,Rosenholtz,&Zelditch,1980;Blau,1964;Ridgeway,
1987).Therefore,inthisstudy,eachparticipantratedthedegreetowhichhisorher
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
13
partnerdeservedrespectandadmiration,hadinfluenceoverthedecisions,ledthe
decision‐makingprocess,andcontributedtothedecisions.Eachofthesefouritems
wasratedonascalefrom1(Disagreestrongly)to7(Agreestrongly).Thesefour
itemscorrelatedtogether(α=.87)sowecombinedthemintoonemeasureofstatus,
M=4.88,SD=1.36.
ResultsandDiscussion
Becausedatacollectedindyadscanviolateassumptionsofindependence,we
testedourhypotheseswithastatisticaltechniqueoutlinedbyGonzalezandGriffin
(1997).Thisinvolvescalculatingthecorrelationbetweenthevariablesand
translatingthecorrelationintoaz‐scorethataccountsfordependenceinthedata
(alsoseeGriffin&Gonzalez,1995).
Partnerratedcompetence.Asexpected,overconfidencepredictedpartner‐
ratedcompetence,r(73)=.36(z=3.07,p<.01).Thissuggeststhatmore
overconfidentindividualswereperceivedasmorecompetentbytheirpartners,as
comparedtoindividualswithmoreaccurateself‐perceptions.Infact,
overconfidencehadasstrongarelationshipwithpartner‐ratedcompetenceasdid
actualability,r(73)=.39(z=3.44,p<.01).Itisimportanttonotethattheindexof
overconfidenceweemployedreflectsbiasinself‐perceptions.Consequently,the
observedcorrelationreflectstherelationshipbetweenpositivebiasinself‐
perceptionandothers’ratingsofone’sabilities.
Status.Overconfidencealsopredictedstatusinthedyad,r(73)=.26(z=
2.10,p<.05),suggestingthatoverconfidentindividualsachievedhigherstatusthan
individualswithmoreaccurateself‐perceptions.Again,therelationshipbetween
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
14
overconfidenceandstatuswasalmostasstrongasthatbetweenactualabilityand
status,r(73)=.33(z=2.71,p<.05).
Wethusexaminedwhethertherelationbetweenoverconfidenceandstatus
wasmediatedbypartners’ratingsofcompetence.Thismediationanalysisis
illustratedinFigure1.WeusedPreacherandHayes’(2008)bootstrapping
procedure.Weused1000resampleswithreplacementtoderivea95%confidence
bias‐correctedconfidenceintervalfortheindirecteffectofoverconfidenceonstatus
astransmittedviapartner‐ratedcompetence.Thisanalysisrevealedanindirect
effectof.018witha95%confidenceintervalrangingfrom.007–.032.Becausethe
intervalexcludeszero,thisindicatedastatisticallysignificantindirecteffect
(Preacher&Hayes,2008).Further,therelationbetweenoverconfidenceandstatus
wasreducedtozero(b*=.00,t=.025,ns)aftercontrollingforpartner‐rated
competence.Thissuggeststhattherelationbetweenoverconfidenceandstatusin
thedyadwasfullymediatedbypartner‐ratingsofcompetence.
Summary.Consistentwithourhypotheses,overconfidentindividualswere
perceivedasmorecompetentbytheirpartners.Moreover,thishigherpeer‐rated
competenceledoverconfidentindividualstoattainhigherstatusinthedyadictask.
Study2
Study2extendedthefindingsfromStudy1inseveralways.First,some
theoristshavesuggestedthattheinterpersonalbenefitsofoverlypositiveself‐
perceptionsarelimitedtoshort‐terminteractionsandthattheydisappearover
time,asindividualsgettoknoweachotherandobtainenoughevidencetoassess
whethereachperson’sconfidenceisjustified(Colvinetal.,1995;Tenney,Spellman,
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
15
&MacCoun,2008).However,priorevidenceinsupportofthisargumentused
personalitytraitsandselfinsightmeasuresdescribedintheintroduction(Paulhus,
1998).Weexpectedthestatus‐relatedbenefitsofoverconfidencetoendureover
time.Otherwise,thestatus‐relatedbenefitsofoverconfidencewouldbesomewhat
limited,giventhelargeproportionoftimeindividualsspendinteractingwith
friends,colleagues,andcoworkers(i.e.,individualswithwhomoneisfamiliar).In
Study2,weassessedprojectteamsthatworkedcloselytogetherover7weeks.
Second,tofurthertesttherobustnessofourfinding,weusedadifferent
measureofoverconfidence–Paulhusandcolleagues’well‐validatedandwidely
usedOverClaimingQuestionnaire(OCQ;Paulhusetal.,2003).TheOCQisaclever
waytomeasureoverconfidenceinone’sbodyofknowledge.Itasksrespondentsto
ratetheirfamiliaritywithalistofitemssuchasfamousnames,events,orclothing
brands.Someoftheitemsarefoils,inthattheydonotactuallyexist.Themeasure
gaugestheextenttowhichindividualsoverclaim,orclaimknowledgeaboutnon‐
existentitems,andthusexhibitoverconfidenceintheirknowledge(Paulhusetal.,
2003).TheOCQwasidealforourpurposesbecauseitassessesoverconfidenceusing
operationalcriteria.Individualswhoclaimfamiliaritywithnonexistentitemsare
exhibitingadeparturefromreality,andoverconfidence.Indeed,theOCQcorrelates
withoverplacement(Paulhusetal.,2003).
Third,wewantedtoruleoutthepossibilitythatindividualdifferencesacted
asthirdvariables.Inparticular,confidencehasbeenassociatedwithhigherlevelsof
optimism(Wolfe&Grosch,1990),traitdominance(Gough,McClosky,&Meehl,,
1951),andextraversion(Schaeferetal.,2004),andlowerlevelsofneuroticism
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
16
(Costa&McCrae,1992).Eachofthesefourindividualdifferenceshasalsobeen
linkedtotheattainmentofstatus(Andersonetal.,2001;Lordetal.,1986;Stogdill,
1948).Therefore,wemeasuredeachoftheseindividualdifferences.
Fourth,wewantedtodemonstratethatgrantingstatustooverconfident
individualsisa“real”effect,inthatgroupmemberstrulybelievedthemtobe
worthy.Wethusutilized“life‐outcome”datainStudy2inadditiontopeer‐rated
status.Inthesestudentteams,partoftheirfinalgradeintheclasswasdetermined
bythegradegiventothembytheirteammates.Wetestedwhetheroverconfidence
wouldhelpindividualsachievehigherpeer‐assignedgradesaswellashigherstatus.
Method
Participants.Thestudy’sparticipantswerethe243membersofthefirst‐
yearMastersofBusinessAdministration(MBA)classataWestCoastbusiness
school(69%men).Participantsinthesamplehadbeenassignedtooneof48
groupsoffiveorsixpeoplebytheschoolatthebeginningoftheyear,withthegoal
ofmaximizingthediversityofeachgroupintermsofgender,race,culture,
disciplinarytraining,andworkexperience.
Procedure.Priortothefirstdayofclass,participantswereaskedviaemail
tocompleteanonlinesurveywithindividualdifferencemeasures.Overthecourse
oftheseven‐weekclass,studentsworkedintenselytogetherintheirgroupsto
completeacourseprojectthatwassubmittedonthefinaldayofclass.Thefinal
projectwasapaperonwhichthegroupcollaborated.Studentsworkedinthese
samegroupsforallfouroftheclassestheyweretakingatthatsametime.Twodays
afterthefinalclasssession,participantsreceivedalinktoanonlinesurveythat
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
17
askedthemtorateeachgroupmember.Wewereunabletomeasurepeer‐rated
competenceandthusfocusedonstatusintheteam.
Overconfidence.Priortothefirstdayofclass,participantscompleteda60‐
itemversionoftheOver‐ClaimingQuestionnaire(OCQ;Paulhusetal.,2003),which
askedthemtoratetheirfamiliaritywith60itemsinfourdifferentdomainsona
scalerangingfrom0(neverheardofit)to4(knowitverywell).Oneoutofeveryfive
itemswasafoil,inthatitwasbogus.WeusedPaulhusandcolleagues’(2003)
recommendedstrategyofscoringoverclaimingwithsignaldetectionanalysis.The
scoringroughlytranslatestothemeanofthehitrate(i.e.,theproportionoftimes
thepersoncorrectlyidentifiedanitemthatactuallyexists)andthefalse‐alarmrate
(i.e.,theproportionoftimesthepersonincorrectlyidentifiedanonexistentitemas
real),thuscapturingthetendencytosay“Yes,Irecognizethatitem”versus“No,I
don’trecognizethatitem.”Theover‐claimingindexwasreliable(α=.70).4
Toexaminetheeffectofactualknowledge,wealsoscoredparticipants’
accuracyontheOCQusingPaulhusetal.’s(2003)recommendedstrategythatalso
involvessignaldetectionanalysis.Accuracyisindexedbythenumberofhitsrelative
tothenumberoffalsealarms;individualsreceivepointsforaccuratehitsand
penaltiesforfalsealarms.Anaccurateindividual,then,isnottheonescoringthe
mosthitsbuttheoneshowingthebestabilitytodiscriminatebetweenexistentand
nonexistentitems.TheOCQaccuracyindexwasalsoreliable(α=.60).
Optimism.WemeasuredoptimismwithScheier,Carver,andBridges’s
(1994)six‐itemLifeOrientationTest‐Revised(α=.78).
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
18
Dominance.Participantsratedtheirtraitdominancewiththe16itemsfrom
thedominanceandsubmissivenessscalesfromtheRevisedInterpersonalAdjective
Scales(IAS‐R;Wiggins,Trapnell,&Phillips,1988),α=.80.
BigFivepersonalitydimensions.Extraversioninvolvestraitssuchas
sociability,activity,andpositiveemotionality(John&Srivastava,1999).
Neuroticismreflectsindividualdifferencesinnegativeemotionality(Costa&
McCrae,1992).Tomeasurethesedimensions,weusedtheBigFiveInventory(BFI;
John&Srivastava,1999).Thereliabilitiesweresatisfactoryforextraversion(α=
.85)andneuroticism(α=.73).
Status.Duetospacelimitations,weaskedonestatusquestionattheendof
thesevenweeks:“Pleaseindicatehowmucheachgroupmemberinfluencedthe
group’sdecisions”ona1(verylittle)to7(agreatdeal)scale.Influenceisacore
componentofstatushierarchiesor“power‐prestige”ordersingroups;further,
individualsmustachieverespectandadmirationintheeyesofothers,ortheywill
notbegrantedinfluence(Blau,1964;Homans,1950;Ridgeway&Diekema,1989).
Thegroupmembers’ratingsofeachotherconstitutedaroundrobindesign,
soweusedthesoftwareprogramSOREMO(Kenny,1994)toimplementtheSocial
RelationsModel(SRM)analysesofthesepeerratings(Kenny&LaVoie,1984).We
foundsignificantpeeragreementinthesejudgments(relativetargetvariance=.74).
SOREMOcalculatesatargetscoreforeachparticipantoneachpeer‐rated
dimension.Thistargetscoreisessentiallytheaverageoftheratingsgiventothe
persononthatdimension,butSOREMOremovesgroupdifferencesfromtarget
scores,makingthemstatisticallyindependentofgroupmembership.Inaddition,we
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
19
centeredallotherindividualdifferencevariablesaroundtheirgroupmeanto
controlforgroupeffects.(Wealsorantheanalyseswithnon‐centeredvariables;no
findingchangedfromstatisticallysignificanttonon‐significantorvice‐versa).
Peerassignedgrade.Eachindividualassignedagrade(AthroughF)toeach
othergroupmember.Gradeswerethencodedusinggradepoints(0‐4).
ResultsandDiscussion
AsshowninTable1,overconfidence(i.e.,over‐claiming)predictedinfluence
inthegroup,supportingourhypothesisthatoverconfidentindividualswouldhave
higherstatus,evenafterthegrouphadworkedtogetherforsevenweeks.Table1
presentscoefficientsfromamultipleregressionanalysisinwhichwepredicted
statuswithoverconfidenceandaccuracyontheOCQaswellastheaforementioned
fourindividualdifferencevariables.Thisfindinglendssomereassurancethatthe
relationbetweenoverconfidenceandstatuswasnotdrivenbyanyoftheseother
variables.Wealsotestedforapossiblecurvilineareffect,butthequadratictermina
multipleregressionwasagainnotsignificant,B=‐.04(SE=.03,n.s.).Asshownin
Table1,overconfidencealsopredictedthegradethatteammatesassignedtothe
individual,suggestingthatoverconfidentindividualsnotonlyattainedhigherstatus
butwerealsoassignedhighergradesbypeers.Theseresultsalsohelpfurther
establishthatoverconfidencehasconsequencesforoutcomesforwhichindividuals
careagreatdeal.
Study3
AlthoughStudy2addressedanumberofpossiblethird‐variable
explanations,inStudy3,wetooktheadditionalstepofusinganexperimentaldesign
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
20
thatmanipulatedoverconfidence.Oneobviouswaytomanipulateoverconfidence
wouldbetopresentparticipantswithvignettesofindividualswhoexhibit
overconfidence(e.g.,Jones&Shrauger,1970;Powers&Zuroff,1986).However,this
methodmightsufferfromlowerexternalvalidity,asstudiessuggestthatconfident
individualsrarelydirectlyboastaboutthemselves(Anderson&Kilduff,2009).We
thusaimedtomanipulateoverconfidencemorerealistically,inactualindividuals
whothenworkedwithothersonjointtasks.
Previousresearchhasusedfalsefeedbackmanipulationstoshapethe
positivityofparticipants’self‐concept(e.g.,Harmon‐Jonesetal.,1997).Though
muchofthatworkprovidedfocusedonself‐esteem,wethusprovidedmorespecific
feedbackaboutabilitiesonaspecifictasktoinfluenceoverconfidenceonly.
Tomanipulateoverconfidence,weneededtofocusonself‐perceptionsof
abilitythatwouldbepossibletomanipulateinthelaboratory.Onesuchabilityis
personperception.Priorresearchsuggeststhatindividualstendtobelargely
unawareoftheirpersonperceptionaccuracy(e.g.,Ames&Kammrath,2004;
DePaulo,Charlton,Cooper,Lindsay,&Muhlenbruck,1997;Swann&Gill,1997).We
exploitedthisbygivingrandomlyselectedparticipantsoverlypositivefeedback
abouttheirpersonperceptionskills.Othersreceivedaccuratefeedback.
Method
Participants.Participantswereundergraduatestudents(N=80,53%
women)ataWestCoastuniversitywhoreceivedcoursecredit.Theparticipants
wereonaverage21yearsold(SD=1.0).Thesamplewas70%Asian‐American,
20%Caucasian,and10%whoreportedothertheirethnicities.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
21
Procedureanddesign.Thelaboratorysessionhadthreephases.Inthefirst
phase,participantsprivatelyviewedstillimagesof10individualsviacomputerand
judgedeachindividual’spersonalityon10items(Gosling,Rentfrow,&Swann,
2003).3Afterjudgingeachtarget,participantsestimatedtheirownperformance.
Tomanipulateself‐perceivedability,afterparticipantsjudgedthefirstfive
targets,thoserandomlyassignedtotheoverconfidentconditionreceivedoverly
positivefeedbackabouttheirperformanceuptothatpoint,whereasthoserandomly
assignedtotheaccurateconditionreceivedaccurateperformancefeedback.(We
administeredthisfeedbackhalfwaythroughtheindividualtasksowecouldcheck
itseffectivenessintheremainderoftheindividualtask.)
Inthesecondphaseofthesession,participantsintheoverconfidentcondition
wererandomlypairedindyadswithparticipantsintheaccurateconditionandthey
completedasimilarpersonperceptiontasktogether.Finally,dyadpartnerswere
separatedandprivatelyprovidedvariouspeer‐ratings.
Overconfidencemanipulation.FollowingSwannandGill(1997),
participantsweretoldthateachanswerwasconsideredcorrectifitwaswithin0.5
aboveorbelowthetarget’struescore.Participantsintheoverconfidentcondition
weretoldthattheyanswered37outof50responsescorrectlyonthefirstfive
targets.5Intheaccuratecondition,participantsweretoldtheactualnumberofitems
theyansweredcorrectlyforthefirstfivetargets,whichonaveragewas8.8outof50
(SD=3.03).Asuspicioncheckattheendofthestudyshowedthatnoparticipantin
eitherconditionsuspectedtheperformancefeedbacktobefalse.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
22
Toensurethatparticipantsinbothconditionsinterpretedtheirscoresusing
thesamemetric,wealsotoldthemthatattaining8correctanswerswasperforming
“aswellaschance(thesameasguessingrandomly),”andthatattaining32correct
answerswasperforming“extremelywell.”Toavoidthepossibilitythatdyad
partnerswouldsimplyexchangetheirfeedbackscores,participantswereinstructed
nottosharetheirscoreswiththeirpartner.Anexperimenterwaspresentwhile
dyadsworkedtogethertoensurenopartnersexchangedthisinformation.
Selfperceivedcompetence.AsinStudy1,intheindividualtask,
participantsestimatedtheirpercentilerankrelativetootherstudentsattheir
university.Beforeparticipantsweregivenperformancefeedback,theirestimatesof
theirownabilitieswerereliableacrossthefirstfivetargets(α=.93),andthus
combined.Aftertheyreceivedthefeedback,participants’estimatesoftheirown
abilitieswereagainreliableacrossthesecondsetoffivetargets(α=.96),andthus
combined.
Actualperformance.Wescoredparticipants’actualperformanceonthe
taskusingthemethoddescribedtothem.Participantsshowedreliabilityintheir
actualaccuracyacrosstargets,α=.71.Wethuscombinedtheirscoresacrossthe
targetstoformanoverallindexofactualability,andthentransformedtheir
performancescoresintopercentilerankingstoallowustoscoreoverplacement.
Partnerratedcompetence.Inthepeer‐ratingsphase,participants
estimatedtheirpartner’scompetenceonthetaskwithfouritems.First,theyused
thesamepercentile‐rankitemonwhichtheyassessedtheirownability.Toincrease
thereliabilityofthispeer‐rating,theyalsoratedtheirpartnerusingthreeitems
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
23
fromtheMind‐ReadingBeliefScale(Realoetal.,2003):“Astranger’scharacteris
revealedtomypartneratfirstsight,”“Itishardformypartnertotellaperson’s
thoughtsbytheirlooks,”and“Idonotthinkmypartnerisgoodatknowinghuman
nature/judgingpeople.”Thesethreeitemswereratedonascalefrom1(Disagree
strongly)to7(Agreestrongly).Afterstandardizingallitemsandreverse‐scoringthe
lattertwo,theycorrelatedtogether(α=.63)andthuscombined.
Statusinthedyad.Participantsratedtheirpartner’sstatusinthedyadwith
thesamefouritemsasinStudy1.Theitemmeasuringrespectandadmirationhada
lowitem‐totalcorrelation(.13)andwasexcludedfromthemeasure.Theremaining
threeitemsshowedsufficientreliability(α=.62)andthuscombined.
Stateselfesteem.Providingindividualswithpositivefeedbackaboutthe
selfcanboostself‐esteem(e.g.,Harmon‐Jonesetal.,1997).Toalleviatetheconcern
thatanyeffectsofthemanipulationmightbeduetoself‐esteemratherthanto
overconfidence,wemeasuredstateself‐esteeminthepeer‐ratingsphaseusing
HeathertonandPolivy’s(1991)20‐itemmeasure(α=.87).
ResultsandDiscussion
Manipulationcheck.Asexpected,arepeated‐measuresANOVAshowedthat
beforetheperformancefeedbackwasadministered,self‐perceivedrankingsin
competencedidnotdifferbetweenparticipantsintheoverconfidentcondition(M=
61.61,SD=14.84)andintheaccuratecondition(M=61.23,SD=14.76),F(1,39)=
.02,ns.Thusparticipantsinthetwoconditionsdidnotdifferinoverconfidence
beforethefeedbackwasadministered.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
24
However,afterthefeedbackwasadministered,arepeated‐measuresANOVA
showedthatparticipantsintheoverconfidentconditionhadhigherself‐perceptions
oftheircompetencerelativetoothers’(M=62.82,SD=15.82)thandidparticipants
intheaccuratecondition(M=57.14,SD=15.25),F(1,39)=3.92,p=.05.Further,a
within‐subjectsANOVAshowedthatparticipantsintheoverconfidentcondition
overestimatedtheirranks,F(1,39)=17.37,p<.01,whereasparticipantsinthe
accurateconditiondidnot,F(1,39)=1.70,ns.Therefore,thefeedbackmanipulation
waseffective.Itisinterestingtonote,however,thattheoverconfidencecondition
didnotboostparticipants’overconfidence,butrather,allowedthemtoremain
overconfident.Theaccuracyconditionreducedparticipants’overconfidenceto
makethemmoreaccurate.
Finally,abetween‐subjectsANOVAshowedthatparticipantsinthe
overconfidentcondition(M=3.76,SD=0.58)reportedthesamelevelofstateself‐
esteemasparticipantsintheaccuratecondition(M=3.76,SD=.49),F(1,39)=.00,
ns.Thus,themanipulationhadthetargetedeffectonoverconfidencebutdidnot
affectstateself‐esteem.
Partnerratedcompetence.Arepeated‐measuresANOVAshowedthat
participantsintheoverconfidentconditionwereperceivedbytheirpartnersasmore
competentatthetask(M=.23,SD=0.63)thanparticipantsintheaccurate
condition(M=‐.25,SD=0.68),F(1,39)=13.20,p<.01.Thisprovidessomecausal
evidencethatoverconfidenceledtobeingperceivedasmoretaskcompetent.To
illustratethiseffectinamoreintuitiveway,wefocusedononeoftheitemsofthe
partner‐ratedcompetenceindex—thepartner’sratingoftheparticipant’spercentile
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
25
rank.WepresentthecomparisonacrossconditiononthisiteminFigure2.This
differencewassignificant,F(1,39)=4.85,p<.05,eventhoughparticipantsinthe
twoconditionsdidnotdifferinactualabilities,F(1,39)=.48,ns.
Status.Arepeated‐measuresANOVAshowedthatparticipantsinthe
overconfidentcondition(M=4.74,SD=0.85)alsoattainedhigherstatusinthedyad
thanparticipantsintheaccuratecondition(M=4.10,SD=0.88),F(1,39)=7.80,p<
.01.Therefore,thisprovidesevidencethatoverconfidenceledtoachievinghigher
status.
Wenextexaminedwhetherpartner‐ratedabilitymediatedtheeffectof
overconfidenceonstatususingamethodsuggestedbyJudd,Kenny,andMcClelland
(2001).Theregressioncoefficientofthedifferencescoreforthemediatorwas
significant(b=.44,SE=.26,b*=.26,p=.05),whichindicatespartner‐rated
competencemediatedtheeffectofoverconfidenceonstatus.Theinterceptwasalso
significant(b=.43,SE=.26,p=.05),indicatingtheeffectofoverconfidenceon
statuswasstillsignificant,controllingforthemediatingeffectofpartner‐rated
competence(Juddetal.,2001).Therefore,thissuggestsoverconfidenceledtostatus
inpartbecauseitledtobeingperceivedasmorecompetent.
Summary.Thepartnersofindividualsinducedtobeoverconfident
perceivedthemasmoretaskcompetentandaccordedthemhigherstatusthan
individualsintheaccuratecondition,whoweremoreaccurateintheirself‐
perceptionsofability.Study3usedanexperimentaldesignandthusprovidedmore
directevidencethatoverconfidenceledtohigherpeer‐perceptionsofcompetence,
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
26
andinturn,higherstatus.Amediationanalysisconfirmedthattheeffectof
overconfidenceonstatuswaspartiallyexplainedbypeer‐perceptionsofability.
Study4
Studies1through3foundthatoverconfidentindividualsattainedhigher
statusbecausetheywereperceivedbyotherstobecompetent,evenwhenthe
impressionwasartifice.Butwhatexactlydooverconfidentindividualsdothat
makesthemappearcompetent?Study4examinedthebehavioraldisplaysof
overconfidentindividuals.
Inthisanalysis,weutilizedBrunswik’s(1956)lensmodelofhuman
perception.AccordingtoBrunswik’smodel,behavioralcuesdisplayedbyatarget
canserveasakindoflensthroughwhichobserversindirectlyperceivethetarget’s
innercharacteristics(seeFigure3).Forexample,someone’ssmilecouldserveasthe
lensthroughwhichanobserverinfersatarget’shighlevelofagreeableness.In
Brunswik’smodel,cueutilizationreferstothelinkbetweentheobservablecue(e.g.,
smile)andanobserver’sjudgment(e.g.,ofagreeableness).Ontheleftsideofthe
lens,wewillusethetermcuedisplaytorefertothelinkbetweenthetarget’sinner
characteristicandthebehavioralcue.Acorrelationbetweenaninnercharacteristic
(e.g.,agreeableness)andthedisplayofacue(e.g.,smile)indicatesthattheinner
characteristicpredictsthedisplayofthatcue(e.g.,thathigherlevelsof
agreeablenesspredictmoresmiles).
Wehypothesizedthatthebehavioralcuesdisplayedbyoverconfident
individualswouldmatchthebehavioralcuesobserversusetoinfercompetence.
Therefore,wewereprimarilyinterestedintwoquestions—whichbehavioralcues
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
27
areusedbyobserverstoinfercompetenceinothers,andwhichbehavioralcues
overconfidentpeopledisplay.Alonganexploratoryvein,wewerealsointerestedin
thebehavioralcuesdisplayedbyindividualswhoareactuallycompetent.Previous
researchhasshownthatobserversarenothighlyaccurateinperceivingothers’
competence(e.g.,Minson,Liberman,&Ross,2011).Onepossibilityisthatsuchlow
accuracyisduetolowcue‐displaycorrelationsforactualcompetence;inother
words,individualswhoareactuallycompetentmightnotdisplaythecuesthat
othersutilizetoinfercompetence.
Basedonasurveyofrelevantresearch(e.g.,Anderson&Kilduff,2009;Carli
etal.,1995;DePauloetal.,2003;Driskelletal.,1993;Imada&Hakel,1977;
Ridgeway,1987;Scherer,London,&Wolf,1973;Tracy&Robins,2004),we
hypothesizedthatobserverswouldutilizethedegreetowhichindividuals
contributedtothegroupdiscussion(e.g.,theamounttheyspoke,providedanswers
andopinions)andtheirnonverbaldemeanor(e.g.,confidentandfactualvocaltone,
relaxeddemeanor)toinfercompetence,andthatoverconfidentindividualswould
displaythesebehavioralcues.
Asanopenresearchquestion,wealsoexaminedexplicitstatementsof
confidence(e.g.,“Iamreallygoodatthis”).Previousresearchhasshownthatsuch
explicitstatementsleadtheindividualtobeperceivedasmorecompetentbyothers
(Jones&Shrauger,1970;Powers&Zuroff,1988).Therefore,weexpectedexplicit
statementsofconfidencetobeutilizedbyobserverstoinfercompetence.However,
explicitstatementsofconfidencealsomakeapersonseemunlikeable(Jones&
Shrauger,1970;Powers&Zuroff,1988).Moreover,toattainstatus,onecannotbe
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
28
disliked(Homans,1950;Roethlisberger&Dickson,1938;Whyte,1943).Therefore,
itwaspossiblethatoverconfidentindividualswouldnotdisplaythosebehaviors,as
theywouldbebestservedavoidingsuchexplicitstatements.
Finally,wewantedtoruleoutapossiblealternativeexplanationforour
findings.Ifweweretofindthatgroupsperceivedoverconfidentindividualsasmore
competent,itispossiblethattheseperceptionsmightreflectmotivatedperceptual
biases.Forexample,priortheoristshavesuggestedthatwithingroups,members
tendtodefertomoreassertiveindividuals,andthenconstructoverlypositive
perceptionsofthoseindividuals’competencetorationalizetheirownpassivity(Lee
&Ofshe,1981).Inasmuchasoverconfidencerelatestoassertiveness(Goughetal.,
1951),wethoughitimportanttoaddressthisalternativeexplanation.Wethus
askedindependent,outsideobserverstorateparticipants’competenceaswell,to
helpestablishthatoverconfidentindividualsactuallyappearedcompetenttoothers.
Outsideobserversshouldfeelnoneedtorationalizeanyofthegroupmembers’
passivity,andthustheirperceptionsshouldnotsufferfromanyrelatedbiases.
Therefore,weexpectedoverconfidentindividualstobeperceivedasmore
competentbyoutsideobserversinadditiontogroupmembers.
Methods
Participants.Participantswere120studentsandstaff(56%women)ata
WestCoastuniversitythatparticipatedaspartofabroaderstudyofsmallgroups
(seeKennedy,Anderson,&Moore,2011).Themeanagewas20years(SD=4.1).
Thesamplewasapproximately60%Asian,28%Caucasian,5%Hispanic,1%
AfricanAmerican,and6%otherracialbackgrounds.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
29
Procedure.Uponarrivalatthelaboratory,participantswereassignedto
groupsoffour.Inthefirstphaseofthestudy,groupswerepresentedwithtenfull‐
bodyphotographsofindividualsandaskedtoestimateeachindividual’sweight
separately,usingtheirownanswersheet.Thistaskhasbeenusedinprevious
researchonoverconfidence(Moore&Klein,2008).Duringthisfirstphase,
participantswereinstructednottospeaktoeachotheruntileveryonehadfinished
withtheir10estimates.Thepresenceofanexperimenterensuredcompliancewith
thisinstruction.Inthesecondphaseofthestudy,groupmembersworkedtogether,
whilebeingvideotaped,toestimatetheweightsoftheindividualsinthe
photographs.Inthethirdphaseofthestudy,aftercompletingall10estimatesasa
group,participantsprivatelyratedeachother’srelativecompetenceatthetask.
Overconfidence.Sofarwehavemeasuredoverconfidence–specifically
overplacement–byfocusingonindividuals’self‐perceivedrankrelativetoallother
participantsinthestudy.Yetindividualsattainhigherstatusinagroupwhenthey
areperceivedasmorecompetentthanothergroupmembers(Bergeretal.,1972).
Forexample,arelativelyincompetentpersonislikelytoattainhighstatusina
groupofindividualswhoareevenlesscompetentthanhim.Wethusmeasured
overplacementbyassessingself‐perceivedperformancerelativetoothergroup
members.Participantsprivatelyreportedtheirperceptionsoftheirownabilitiesat
thetaskbyansweringtheitem,“Pleaserankthefourmembersofyourgroupwith
respecttotheirabilitytocorrectlyestimatepeople’sweights.”FollowingMooreand
Klein(2008),wemeasuredparticipants’actualperformanceintheindividualtask
bycalculatinghowclosetheirweightestimatesweretothecorrectweightforeach
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
30
photograph.Theparticipantwiththehighestaccuracyinestimatesreceivedthe
rankof“1,”thenextsmallest,“2,”etc.Onlytwogroupshadmemberswhotied,and
bothweretiedfor3rdrank.AsinStudy1,weregressedparticipants’self‐perceived
rankontheiractualrankandretainedtheresidual.
Peerrankedcompetence.Participantsprivatelyrankedeachgroup
member’scompetence.AsinStudy3,weconductedasocialrelationsmodelanalysis
oftheseround‐robinpeer‐perceptions.Groupmembersagreedaboutoneanother’s
taskability,inthatthevarianceattributabletothepersonratedwassignificant(the
relativetargetvariancewas.42;Kenny&LaVoie,1984).SOREMOalsocalculateda
targetscoreforeachparticipant,whichwasessentiallyhisorheraveragepeer‐
perceivedcompetence.Wethenreverse‐scoredtheserankingmeasuressothat
higherrankingsindicatedhigherpeer‐perceivedcompetence.
Ratingsofcompetencemadebyoutsidejudges.Inselectingoutside
observerswhowouldratethegroupmembers,wewantedtoavoidconfounding
groupmembership(i.e.,beingagroupmembervs.anoutsideobserver)withthe
judges’characteristics.Forexample,ifoutsideobserverswereolderormore
educatedthangroupmembers,theymightperceivegroupmembersdifferentlythan
groupmembersperceiveeachother.Toavoidthispotentialconfound,outside
observerswereselectedwhowereassimilartothegroupmembersaspossible.
Specifically,120undergraduatestudents,recruitedfromthesamesubjectpoolas
thetargetparticipants,wereusedasindependentpeerjudgesofcompetence.Four
separateindependentpeerjudgeswereassignedtoeachvideotape.Eachjudge
watchedasinglegroup’sinteractioninitsentiretyandratedallfourgroupmembers
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
31
intheirassignedgrouponthesamepeer‐rankedcompetencemeasureonwhich
groupmembersrankedeachother.
Recruitingoutsideobserversfromasubjectpoolgeneratedanadditional
concern,however–namely,thatthesejudgesmightstillbemotivatedtorationalize
thehierarchiestheyobservedinthegroups.Thatis,ifgroupmembersmightbe
motivatedtorationalizetheirownpassivity(Lee&Ofshe,1981),thensubjectpool
judgesmightalsobesimilarlymotivated,becausetheymightidentifywiththe
participantsinthevideotape.Toaddressthisconcern,werecruitedasecondsetof
judgesusingAmazon.com’sMechanicalTurk(MTurk),anonlineservicethat
matches”workers”with”requesters”whopostjobstobecompleted.Weuploaded
thevideorecordingstoallowonlineviewingandrecruited300MTurkjudgesin
total,or10separateindependentjudgespervideotape.Eachjudgewatchedasingle
group’sinteractioninitsentiretyandrankedeachofthefourgroupmembersin
theirassignedgrouponthesamecompetencemeasure.
Thecompetencerankingsmadebybothsetsofoutsidejudgescorrelated
highlywiththosemadebythegroupmembers,α=.71,indicatingthatgroup
members’perceptionsofeachother’scompetencecorrespondedtooutsidejudges’
perceptionsoftheircompetence.Thiscross‐judgeconsensushelpsaddressthe
concernthatgroupmember’sjudgmentswerebiased.Inlightofthisagreement
acrossthethreesetsofjudges,weaveragedthemtoformanaggregatemeasureof
observerperceivedcompetence.
Codesofbehavioralcues.Researchassistantswhowereblindtothe
researchquestionscodedparticipants’behavioralcues.Wefocusedon10separate
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
32
behavioralcues(withinter‐raterreliabilityinparentheses).Codersratedthe
percentageoftimeparticipantsspokeinthegroupdiscussion(α=.89,M=24.98,SD
=6.63),countedthenumberoftimesparticipantsofferedananswerbeforeanyone
else(α=.91,M=2.87,SD=2.47)andafteratleastoneanswerhadalreadybeen
provided(α=.84,M=10.84,SD=5.18),andprovidedinformationrelevanttothe
problem(α=.92,M=9.12,SD=6.33).Codersalsoratedwhethertheparticipant
hadaconfidentandfactualvocaltone(vs.uncertainandwaveringvocaltone;α=
.60,M=4.48,SD=1.52),seemedcalmandrelaxedornervousandanxious(α=.60,
M=1.88,SD=1.16),andwhetherthepersonshowedconstrictedpostureandtook
uplittlespaceorshowedexpandedpostureandtookupalotofspace(α=.67,M=
4.08,SD=1.26).Inaddition,coderscountedthenumberoftimestheparticipant
madeanexplicitstatementabouthisorherability(α=.81,M=.33,SD=.65),the
easeordifficultyofthetask(α=.92,M=.48,SD=1.05),andhisorhercertaintyin
hisorherestimate(α=.83,M=1.58,SD=2.19).
Results
ConsistentwiththefindingsfromStudies1through3,overconfident
individualswereperceivedbyothersasmorecompetent,r(118)=.29,p=.002.
Again,itisworthnotingthatthisindexofoverconfidencereflectsbiasinself‐
perceptions.Consequently,thecorrelationreflectstherelationshipbetween
positivebiasinself‐perceptionandothers’ratingsofone’sabilities.Drawingonthe
logicofBrunswik’s(1956)lensmodel,wenextexaminedwhichbehavioralcues
observersutilizedtomakeinferencesaboutparticipants’competenceandthe
degreetowhichoverconfidentindividualsdisplayedthosecues.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
33
Cueutilization.Thecue‐utilizationcorrelationsintherightmostsideof
Table2reflecttherelationshipsbetweentheobservers’perceptionsofcompetence
andthebehavioralcuesparticipantsdisplayed.Thebehavioralcuesarepresented
indescendingorderofthemagnitudeoftheircue‐utilizationcorrelation.
Consistentwithexpectations,observersperceivedparticipantstobemore
competentwhenparticipantsspokemore,usedamoreconfidentandfactualvocal
tone,andprovidedmoreinformationrelevanttothegroup’sproblems.Infact,these
threecue‐utilizationcorrelationswerequitehigh,allabover=.50,suggesting
observersutilizethesecuesagreatdealwheninferringothers’competence.In
addition,observersperceivedparticipantstobecompetentwhenparticipants
exhibitedanexpandedposture,showedacalmandrelaxeddemeanor,offeredmore
answers(eitherfirstorafteranothergroupmemberhadalreadydoneso),and
mademorestatementsaboutthecertaintyoftheiranswers.Itisinterestingtonote
thatobserversdidnotutilizeatarget’sdirectstatementsofhisorherownabilityor
oftheeaseofthetask.Itseemsthatobserversreliedmoreheavilyonindirect
signalsofconfidence,suchasmorecontributionsandaconfidentnonverbal
demeanor,thanonexplicitstatementsofconfidence.
Cuedisplay.Thecorrelationsintheleft‐handsectionofTable2reflectthe
relationshipsbetweenparticipants’innercharacteristics–boththeir
overconfidenceandactualcompetence–andthebehavioralcuestheydisplayed.
Consistentwithourexpectations,overconfidentindividualstendedtodisplaymost
ofthebehavioralcuesutilizedbyobserverstoinfercompetence:Theyspokemore,
usedaconfidentandfactualvocaltone,providedmoreinformationrelevanttothe
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
34
problem,exhibitedacalmandrelaxeddemeanor,andofferedanswersfirst.
Althoughoverconfidentindividualsdidnotofferanswersafteranothergroup
memberhadalreadydoneso,thiswaslikelybecausetheyprovidedanswersfirst;
thosetwobehavioralcuescorrelatednegatively,r(128)=‐.33,p<.001.Theonly
surprisingnullcue‐displaycorrelationwasthusforexpandedposture.
Alonganexploratoryvein,wenextexaminedexplicitstatementsof
confidence.Overconfidentindividualsdidnotmakeexplicitstatementsabouttheir
ownabilities,theeaseofthetask,ortheircertaintyintheiranswers.Thesenon‐
significantfindingsareinteresting,givenpreviousfindingsthatsuggestsuchexplicit
statementscanleadtolowerlevelsofliking(Jones&Shrauger,1970).
Finally,itisinterestingtonotethatnoneofthecue‐displaycorrelationswere
significantforactualcompetence.Thissuggestscompetentindividualsdidnot
displaythebehavioralcuesthatsignalcompetencetoothersandmighthelpshed
lightonwhycompetenceissodifficulttodetectinothers(e.g.,Ames&Kammrath,
2004;Minsonetal.,2011).Ifindividualswhoareactuallycompetentdonotdisplay
thebehaviorsthatsignalcompetencetoothers,thenobserverswillhavedifficulty
recognizingtheircompetence.Infact,ouroverconfidenceindexpredictedthe
behavioralcuesmorestronglythandidtheindexofactualcompetence.
Overconfidentindividualsbehavedinwaysthatconveyedcompetencemore
convincinglythandidindividualswhoareactuallycompetent.
Summary.UsingaBrunswik(1956)lensmodelanalysis,wefoundthat
overconfidentindividualshaveabehavioralsignaturethat,toobservers,lookslike
actualcompetence.Thishelpsexplainwhyoverconfidentindividualsareseenby
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
35
othersascompetent,evenwhentheylackcompetence.Infact,overconfident
individualsmoreconvincinglydisplayedcompetencecuesthandidindividualswho
wereactuallycompetent.
Study5
Thusfar,wehaveprovidedevidencethatoverconfidentindividualsappear
morecompetenttoothersandattainhigherstatus.However,tosupportthe
argumentthatoverconfidencepervadesself‐perceptionbecauseofitsstatus
benefits,itisalsonecessarytoshowthatthedriveforstatusactuallypromotes
overconfidence.Study5thustestedwhetherindividualdifferencesinthedesirefor
statuspredictindividualdifferencesinoverconfidence.Ifsuchanassociationexists,
itwouldsuggestthatnotonlydoesoverconfidenceleadtosocialbenefits,butalso
thatthedesireforthosebenefitspromotesoverconfidence.
Fortunately,thereexistsawell‐establishedandwidelyusedself‐report
measurethatisappropriateforourneeds:Jackson’sneedfordominancemeasure
fromthePersonalityResearchForm(PRF;1999).Theneedfordominancerefersto
individualdifferencesinthedesiretooccupyrolesofprestige,influence,and
authority(Murray,1938);itemsonthemeasureaskindividualshowmuchthey
desiretobeinpositionsofhighstatus,andwishtohavecontrolandinfluencein
socialsituations.Wehypothesizedtheneedfordominancepredictsoverconfidence.
Wealsowantedtoruleoutanalternativeexplanation.Ifweweretofindan
associationbetweentheneedfordominanceandoverconfidence,itispossiblethat
thereisnothingspecialabouttheneedfordominanceorstatusperse;individuals
whoaremoremotivatedtosucceedingeneralmighttendtobemoreoverconfident.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
36
Toruleoutthispossibility,wetestedwhethertheneedfordominanceuniquely
predictsoverconfidence,amongotherpotentiallyrelevantpsychologicalneeds.
Specifically,wefocusedontwoothermeasuresfromthePRF:theneedfor
affiliationandtheneedforachievement(Jackson,1999).Theneedforaffiliation
assessesthedegreetowhichindividualsdesiretoengageinsocialactivitiessuchas
partiesorcollaborativehobbies,havefriends,andmeetnewpeople.Theneedfor
achievementfocusesonhowmuchindividualsaspiretoachieveintheirfieldand
workhardtowardaccomplishingdifficultgoals.Wedidnotexpectthattheneedfor
affiliationwouldpredictoverconfidencebecause,accordingtocircumplexmodelsof
humanbehavior,statusandaffiliationconcernsareorthogonal(e.g.,Wiggins,1979).
Thedesiretoconnectwithothersshouldthusbeuncorrelatedwithself‐perceptions
ofexpertiseortaskcompetence.Wealsodidnotexpectthattheneedfor
achievementwouldpredictoverconfidence.Priorresearchsuggeststhatoverly
positiveself‐perceptionsmightnotfacilitateachievement(e.g.,Robins&Beer,
2001).Therefore,thosewhoseektoachievemightnotbemotivatedtoengagein
overconfidence;suchapracticewouldnotfurthertheirgoals.
Method
Participants.Oursampleincluded77individualsfromaroundtheUnited
States(60%male).Thedatawerecollectedonline,usingMTurk.Theaverageage
was36years(SD=11.39).Participantswereaskedtoselectallcategoriesthat
comprisedtheirethnicbackground;81.8%selectedWhite,6.5%selectedAfrican‐
American,3.9%selectedLatino,6.5%selectedAsian‐American,and1.3%selected
“other.”
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
37
Procedure.Participantsfirstcompletedmeasuresofdemographicand
individualdifferencevariables.Theywerethentoldtheywouldbeworkingwith
threeotherpeople,viaanon‐linechatroom,whowerealsocurrentlyparticipating
inthestudy.Beforeparticipantsweretojointhisostensiblegroup,however,they
completedaversionofthetaskindividually.Theindividualtaskinvolved10trials.
Foreachtrial,theyestimatedtheaverageoftheseventwo‐digitnumbers
simultaneouslydisplayedfortwoseconds.Aftercompletingalltentrials,they
estimatedtheirabilitiesonthetask.Finally,participantsweretoldtherewould
actuallybenogrouptask,thanked,anddebriefed.
Theneedsfordominance,affiliation,andachievement.Jackson’s
PersonalResearchForm(PRF;Jackson,1999)includesavarietyofneedsscales,
eachcontaining20statementsthatareratedaseither“true”or“false.”Wecoded
answersindicatingweakerorstrongerdesireas1and2,respectively.Theneedfor
dominancescaleshowedhighinternalreliability(α=.90,M=1.52,SD=0.31),as
didtheneedforaffiliation(α=.86,M=1.41,SD=0.28)andneedforachievement(α
=.76,M=1.63,SD=0.22)measures.
BigFivepersonalitydimensions.AsinStudy2,wecontrolledfor
extraversionandneuroticismbecausethesevariableshavebothbeenlinkedto
overconfidence(Schaeferetal.,2004)andtotheattainmentofstatus(Andersonet
al.,2001).Weagainusedthe44‐itemBigFiveInventory(BFI;Benet‐Martinez&
John,1998;John&Srivastava,1999).AllfiveBFIscalesshowedinternal
consistency,includingextraversion(α=.88,M=2.83,SD=0.85),agreeableness(α=
.85,M=3.77,SD=0.64),conscientiousness(α=.88,M=3.70,SD=0.72),
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
38
neuroticism(α=.87,M=2.85,SD=0.80),andopenness(α=.80,M=3.70,SD=
0.60).
Overconfidence.Afterparticipantscompleted10trialsofthenumberstask,
theylearnedthatananswerwouldcountascorrectifitfellwithinfivepointsofthe
actualanswer.Theywereaskedtoestimatetheirpercentilerankrelativetothe
otherparticipantsinthestudy,usingthesamescalefromStudies1and2(M=
54.18,SD=25.02).Wealsoaskedthemwheretheythoughttheywouldrank(in
termsofhowmanyquestionstheyansweredcorrectly)amongthefour‐person
groupinwhichtheywereabouttowork.Theyansweredusingascaleof1(thebest
inmygroup)to4(theworstinmygroup),M=2.56,SD=0.79.Wethenreverse‐
scoredthismeasuresuchthathigherscoresindicatedbetterrelativeperformance.
Asexpected,thesetwoself‐perceptionsofrelativeabilitycorrelatedhighlywith
eachother,r(75)=.70,p<.001.
Wescoredparticipants’actualperformanceonthetaskusingthemethod
describedtothem(M=4.79,SD=2.10).Wethentransformedtheirperformance
scoresintopercentilerankingstoallowustoscoreoverplacement.Inaddition,
althoughwedidnotactuallyassignparticipantstogroups,wewantedtoestimate
whatparticipants’rankwouldhavebeeniftheyhadbeenassignedtogroups.We
thusbrokeallparticipantsupintogroupsoffour,accordingtothetimeinwhich
theyparticipated,andrankedthemwithineachgroup.Thetwomeasuresofactual
rankinrelativeperformancecorrelatedhighlywitheachother,r(75)=.77,p<.001.
AsinStudies1and2,weregressedparticipants’self‐perceivedrankontheir
actualrank,andthenretainedtheresidual–forboththeirself‐perceivedpercentile
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
39
rankrelativetoallotherparticipants,andtheirself‐perceivedrankrelativeto
participantswithwhomtheywouldhavebeenassignedtoagroup.Thesetwo
measuresofoverconfidencecorrelatedhighlywitheachother,α=.81,r(75)=.68,p
<.001,andthuswecombinedthem.
ResultsandDiscussion
Asimultaneousregressionequationwiththeeightpredictors,includingthe
threeneedmeasuresandallBigFivedimensions,appearsinTable3.Asshown,out
ofalltheindependentvariables,theneedfordominancewastheonlysignificant
predictorofoverconfidenceandthelinkbetweentheneedfordominanceand
overconfidencewassubstantial,withastandardizedbetaof.42.Thissuggeststhat
individualswhomorestronglydesiredpositionsofhigherstatusandinfluence
tendedtobemoreoverconfidentintheirtaskabilities.
Incontrast,theneedforaffiliationdidnotpredictoverconfidence.Therefore,
desiringstrongerconnectionswithothersdidnotleadtoastrongertendencyto
engageinoverconfidence.Perhapsmorenoteworthy,themotivationtoachievealso
didnotpredictoverconfidenceinone’staskabilities.Itseemsthatthedesirefor
socialsuccess,butnotnecessarilythedesirefortasksuccessperse,predicted
overconfidence.Finally,itisalsoimportanttonotethattherelationbetweenthe
needfordominanceandoverconfidenceremainedsignificantaftercontrollingforall
otherdimensions,includingpersonalitydimensions.
Study6
Study6furthertestedtheideathatthedesireforstatusdrives
overconfidence,andmakestwokeycontributionsoverandabovetheotherfive
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
40
studieswereport.First,Study6employedanexperimentaldesignandmanipulated
thedesireforstatus.Itusedanestablishedprocedurethatasksparticipantsto
imagineworkingforaprestigiouscompanyandaspiringtomoveupthehierarchy
(Griskeviciusetal.,2009).Wethenaskedparticipantstheirself‐perceived
percentilerankingonahostofdimensionsrelatedtoattainingstatusinabusiness
context.Wereasonedthatthroughrandomassignment,participantsineach
experimentalconditionwouldnotdifferfromeachotherinactualskillsandabilities
relevanttobusinesscontexts.Therefore,anydifferencesinself‐perceivedabilities
wouldbeduetothestatusmanipulation,ratherthandifferencesinactualabilities.
Second,althoughthereisconsistencyacrosscontextsinthepersonal
characteristicsthatleadtohigherstatus(Lordetal.,1986),thosecharacteristicscan
varymarkedlyfromonegrouptoanother(Anderson,Spataro,&Flynn,2008).For
example,quantitativeskillswilllikelybemoreimportanttoattainingstatusina
groupofengineersthaninafraternity.Thissuggeststhatbeingoverconfidenton
dimensionsthatleadtostatusinonecontextwillnotnecessarilyhelpindividuals
attainstatusinanothercontext(e.g.,Andersonetal.,2008).Beingoverconfidentin
one’squantitativeskillswouldnothelponeattainstatusinafraternity(andinfact
mighthurtone’sstatus).Therefore,apersuasivedemonstrationwouldshowthat
thedesireforstatusinagivencontextleadstooverconfidenceprimarilyon
dimensionsthatfacilitatestatusattainmentinthatcontext,butnotondimensions
thatdonotleadtostatusattainmentinthatcontext.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
41
Method
Participants.Oursampleincluded68individualsfromaroundtheUnited
States(59%male).WerecruitedtheseparticipantsonlineviaMTurk.Theaverage
agewas33years(SD=10.16).Participantswereaskedtoselectallcategoriesthat
comprisedtheirethnicbackground;82.4%selectedWhite,4.4%selectedAfrican‐
American,2.9%selectedLatino,8.8%selectedAsian‐American,and1.5%selected
“other.”
Designandprocedure.Thestudyhadtwobetween‐participantconditions,
astatus‐motiveinductionandacontrolcondition,whichwerebasedonprevious
research(Griskeviciusetal.,2009;Griskeviciusetal.,2010),andtwowithin‐
participantconditions,businessrelevantandirrelevantpersonalcharacteristics.All
participantsfirstcompletedmeasuresofdemographicvariables.Theywerethen
askedtoreadastoryandimaginethemselvesinthescenarioandfeeltheemotions
andfeelingsthatthepersonisexperiencing.Participantsinthestatusconditionread
astoryinwhichtheyweremotivatedtoattainstatusinaworkcontext.Participants
inthecontrolconditionreadastoryinwhichtheylostandthenfoundtheirwallet.
Finally,participantsreportedtheirpercentilerankingonahostofability
dimensions,someofwhichwererelevanttoattainingstatusintheworkcontext
describedinthestatusprime,andsomeofwhichwereirrelevant.Acheckattheend
ofthestudyshowedthatnoparticipantcorrectlyguessedthenatureofthestudyor
itshypotheses.
Statusandcontrolprimes.Inthestatusprime,participantsreadashort
storyofabout400wordsthatwasadaptedfromanestablishedstatusmotive
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
42
manipulation(Griskeviciusetal.,2009;Griskeviciusetal.,2010).Inthestory,
participantsimaginethattheyrecentlygraduatedfromcollegeanddecidedtowork
foraprestigiouscompany.Thejobpayswellandoffersthemthechancetoascend
thehierarchy.Ontheirfirstdayatwork,theirbosssaysthatiftheydowell,theywill
beputonthe“fasttrack”tothetop.6Thecontrolprimewasalsobasedon
Griskeviciusetal.(2009),andaskedparticipantstoimaginebeingathomeand
realizingthattheirwalletismissing.Theysearchforthewalletandthestoryends
asthepersonfindsit.
Toensuretheadaptedstatusprimeelicitedthedesireforstatus,wepilot‐
testedbothprimesonaseparategroupofparticipants.Forty‐fourparticipantsread
eitherthestatusorthecontrolprimeandthenratedtheextenttowhichthey
desiredhighersocialstatus,regard,prestige,andrespectfromothers(α=.87).To
ensurethestatusprimeelicitedadesireforstatusspecifically,butnotadesirefor
bettersocialstandingingeneral,participantsalsoratedtheextenttowhichthey
desiredtobelong:tobelikedbyothers,acceptedbyothers,andincludedinsocial
groups(α=.87).Relativetothecontrolstory,thestatusstoryelicitedastronger
desireforstatusona1–7scale(5.85vs.5.12;p=.033)butnotastrongerdesireto
belong(5.79vs.5.39,p=.200).
Selfperceivedcompetence.Weaskedparticipantstoratetheirpercentile
rankingon15skillsandabilitiesthatseemedrelevanttoattaininghigherstatusin
workcontexts.Wefocusedontask‐relatedskills(intelligence,analyticalabilities,
criticalthinkingskills,problemsolvingskills,innovativeness,generalmental
abilities,abilitytofocus,multi‐taskingskills,creativity),aswellassocial‐emotional
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
43
skills(socialskills,abilitytoworkinteams,managingconflict,handlingstress,
maskingemotions).Wealsoaskedparticipantstoranktheirpercentileonsixskills
andabilitiesthatseemedirrelevanttoattainingstatusinworkcontexts(driving
ability,athletics,generalhand‐eyecoordination,generalphysicalreflexes,musical
ability,artisticskills).The15business‐relevantskillscorrelatedwitheachother(α
=.85)asdidthesixirrelevantskills(α=.70).
Toestablishthatthebusiness‐relevantskillswouldbedeemedmorerelevant
toattainingstatusinthatcontextthantheirrelevantskills,wepilottestedall
dimensionsonaseparatesampleof44participants.(Thissamplewasdistinctfrom
theotherpilot‐testsampledescribedabove.)Theseparticipantsreadthestatus
primestoryandwereaskedtorateeachoftheskillsandabilitiesonascalefrom1
(unimportanttoperformingintheworkcontextdescribedabove)to7(extremely
importanttoperformingintheworkcontextdescribedabove).Afactoranalysis
showedthatthebusiness‐relevantskillsallloadedontothefirstfactor,andthe
irrelevantskillsallloadedontootherfactors.Wethuscombinedall15business‐
relevantskills(α=.97)andthencombinedallirrelevantskills(α=.72).As
expected,thebusiness‐relevantskills(M=5.99)wereseenasmorerelevantto
attainingstatusthantheirrelevantskills(M=2.80,p<.001).
ResultsandDiscussion
Wesubmittedtheself‐perceivedcompetenceaggregatestoa2x2mixed‐
modelANOVAinwhichprime(desireforstatusvs.control)servedasthebetween‐
participantsfactorandskillrelevance(relevantvs.irrelevanttotheprimecontext)
servedasthewithin‐participantsfactor.Therewasnomaineffectforprime
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
44
condition,F(1,66)=0.23,p=.636,buttherewasamaineffectforskillrelevanceF
(1,66)=89.78,withindividualsperceivingthemselvestohavesuperiorwork‐
relevantskills(M=70.47,SD=10.95)thanirrelevantskills(M=54.63,SD=17.14).
Moregermanetoourhypotheses,however,wastheemergenceofa
significantinteractionbetweenprimeconditionandskillrelevance,F(1,66)=5.03,
p=.028.Specifically,individualsinducedtodesirestatusperceivedthemselvesto
possesshigherbusiness‐relevantskills(M=72.89,SD=12.24)thanindividualsin
thecontrolcondition(M=67.73,SD=8.67),t(66)=2.02,p=.047,butnottohave
higherskillsirrelevanttothebusinesscontext(M=53.57,SD=18.75)thanthosein
thecontrolcondition(M=55.80,SD=15.34),t(66)=.53,p=.595,ns.Therefore,the
effectofthestatusprimewasstrongerononlythoseskillsandabilitiesrelevantto
attainstatusinthebusinesscontext.Inducingthedesireforstatususingabusiness‐
relatedprimedidnotmakeparticipantsmoreconfidentonskillsandabilitiesthat
wereirrelevanttothebusinesscontext.
GeneralDiscussion
SummaryofFindings
Insixstudieswetestedastatus‐enhancementaccountofoverconfidence,
whichproposesthatoverconfidencebiasesself‐judgmentbecauseithelps
individualsattainhigherstatus.Insupport,wefoundthat(a)overconfident
individualswereperceivedbyothersasmorecompetentand,inturn,afforded
higherstatus,(b)overconfidentindividualsdisplayedthebehaviorsthatareusedby
otherstoinfercompetence,and(c)thedesireforstatus–bothnaturallyoccurring
andexperimentallyinduced–leadtohigherlevelsofoverconfidence.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
45
Thecurrentstudieshadanumberofstrengths.First,thedatawereextensive,
involving1172individualstotal:664participants,519ofwhominteractedindyads
orgroups,inadditionto420independentjudgesand88pilottestparticipants.The
studiesalsousedawidearrayofdatasources,includingself‐report,operational
indices,peer‐ratings,independentjudgmentsbyoutsidejudges,andbehavioral
codesbytrainedcoders.Finally,thestudiesuseddiversedesigns,includingdyadic,
group,laboratory,field,short‐termandlonger‐term,correlationalandexperimental.
Therewerealsolimitationstothestudies.First,wecannotknowwith
certaintywhetheroverconfidentindividualstrulybelievedthattheywerehighly
competent,orwhethertheyweremerelyreportingwhattheywishedtobelieve.
However,vonHippelandTrivers(2011)reviewedfindingssuggestingthat
overconfidenceemergesunconsciously,withoutintentorawareness.Second,our
studieswereconductedprimarilyinthelaboratory,whichmightlimittheir
ecologicalvalidity.Itispossiblethatthesamefindingsmightnotemergein“real
world”contextswherethestakesarehigher.Therefore,futureresearchshould
explorethisissuebyexaminingnaturallyoccurringcontexts.
TheoreticalContributions
Thecurrentfindingsmaketwoprimarycontributionstotheliteratureon
overconfidence.First,theyspeaktotheoriginsofoverconfidence.Morespecifically,
humansmighthavethetendencytoformfalseself‐beliefsbecausedoingsohelps
convinceothersoftheirpositivevalue.Someintriguingrecenttheoriesspeculate
abouttheevolutionaryoriginsofcognitivebiases(Haselton&Nettle,2006)and
socialroleofoverconfidence(Johnson&Fowler,2011);ourstudiesprovidesomeof
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
46
thefirstempiricalinvestigationsofthepossiblesocialbasesofoverconfidence.In
addition,overconfidencehasbeenwidelyconsideredanimpedimenttoindividual
success(Dunningetal.,2004).Thecurrentfindingssuggestthattheeffectsof
overconfidencearelikelymorenuancedandcanhavebenefitsaswellascosts.
Ourfindingsalsohaveanumberofimportanttheoreticalimplicationsforthe
statusliterature.Forexample,onecommonlyaskedquestionaboutthosewho
possessstatusis,doestheirbehaviorreflecttheirpositionsortheirpreexisting
personalities?Forexample,inthecaseofnarcissisticCEOs(Chatterjee&Hambrick,
2007),didtheirstatusmakethemmorenarcissisticordidtheirnarcissismhelp
themriseinthehierarchy?Withregardtooverconfidence,ourfindingssuggestthat
theanswermightbe“both.”Higherrankmightleadtoinflatedself‐perceptions(e.g.,
Pfeffer,Cialdini,Hanna,&Knopoff,1998;Sachdev&Bourhis,1987),but
overconfidentindividualsarealsomorelikelytoattainstatusinthefirstplace.
FutureDirections
Thecurrentfindingsgenerateanumberofquestionsforfutureresearch.
First,acriticalissueforfutureresearchistounderstandtheboundaryconditions
fortheeffectsweobservedhere.Whenwilloverconfidenceleadtosocialbenefits
suchastheonesweobservedandwhenwillitnot?Also,inStudies1,2,and3,we
didnotfindanyevidenceforacurvilinearrelationbetweenoverconfidenceand
statusattainment.However,curvilineareffectsarenotoriouslydifficulttoobtain,
duetolackofstatisticalpower(McClelland&Judd,1993).Itisthusimportantthat
futureresearchexaminethisissuefurther.Finally,itisimportanttotestthese
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
47
hypothesesinothercultures,wheretheeffectsofoverconfidencemightdiffer
(Heine,Lehman,Markus,&Kitayama,1999).
Weconcludebynotingtheimportanceofexamininghowsocialstatusis
afforded.Thoseindividualsamonguswhoareelevatedtopositionsofstatuswield
undueinfluence,haveaccesstomoreresources,getbetterinformation,andenjoya
varietyofbenefits.Oneofthemostbasicquestionsforstudentsofhumansocial
groups,organizations,andsocieties,isthequestionofhowweselectindividualsfor
positionsofstatus.Althoughwemayseektochoosewisely,weareoftenforcedto
relyonproxiesforability,suchasindividuals’confidence.Insodoing,we,asa
society,createincentivesforthosewhowouldseekstatustodisplaymore
confidencethantheiractualabilitymerits.Theideathatoverconfidencemight
pervadehumanself‐perceptionbecauseofitssocialbenefitsgeneratesnew
hypothesesanddirectionsforfutureresearch. 
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
48
References
Ackerman,P.L.,Beier,M.E.,&Bowen,K.R.(2002).Whatwereallyknowaboutour
abilitiesandourknowledge.PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,33,587‐
605.
Alexander,R.D.(1987).Thebiologyofmoralsystems.Hawthorne,NY:Aldinede
Gruyter.
Alicke,M.D.(1985).Globalself‐evaluationasdeterminedbythedesirabilityand
controllabilityoftraitadjectives.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,
49,1621‐1630.
Alicke,M.D.,&Govorun,O.(2005).Thebetter‐than‐averageeffect.InM.D.Alicke,D.
Dunning&J.Krueger(Eds.),Theselfinsocialjudgment(pp.85‐106).New
York,NY:PsychologyPress.
Ames,D.R.,&Kammrath,L.K.(2004).Mind‐readingandmetacognition:Narcissism,
notactualcompetence,predictsself‐estimatedability.JournalofNonverbal
Behavior,28,187‐209.
Anderson,C.,&Galinsky,A.D.(2006).Power,optimism,andrisk‐taking.European
JournalofSocialPsychology,36,511‐536.
Anderson,C.,John,O.P.,Keltner,D.,&Kring,A.M.(2001).Whoattainssocialstatus?
Effectsofpersonalityandphysicalattractivenessinsocialgroups.Journalof
PersonalityandSocialPsychology,81,116‐132.
Anderson,C.,&Kilduff,G.J.(2009).Whydodominantpersonalitiesattaininfluence
inface‐to‐facegroups?Thecompetence‐signalingeffectsoftraitdominance.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,96,491‐503.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
49
Anderson,C.,Srivastava,S.,Beer,J.,Spataro,S.E.,&Chatman,J.A.(2006).Knowing
yourplace:Self‐perceptionsofstatusinsocialgroups.JournalofPersonality
andSocialPsychology,91,1094‐1110.
Bales,R.F.,Strodtbeck,F.L.,Mills,T.M.,&Roseborough,M.E.(1951).Channelsof
communicationinsmallgroups.AmericanSociologicalReview,16,461‐468
Barber,B.M.,&Odean,T.(2000).Tradingishazardoustoyourwealth:Thecommon
stockinvestmentperformanceofindividualinvestors.JournalofFinance,55,
773‐806.
Barkow,J.H.(1975).Prestigeandculture:Abiosocialinterpretation.Current
Anthropology,16,553–562.
Baumeister,R.F.(1982).Self‐esteem,self‐presentation,andfutureinteraction:A
dilemmaofreputation.JournalofPersonality,50,29‐45.
Baumeister,R.F.(1989).Theoptimalmarginofillusion.JournalofSocialandClinical
Psychology,8,176‐189.
Baumeister,R.F.,Campbell,J.D.,Krueger,J.I.,&Vohs,K.D.(2003).Doeshighself‐
esteemcausebetterperformance,interpersonalsuccess,happiness,or
healthierlifestyles?PsychologicalScienceinthePublicInterest,4,1‐44.
Benet‐Martínez,V.,&John,O.P.(1998).Loscincograndesacrossculturesandethnic
groups:MultitraitmethodanalysesoftheBigFiveinSpanishandEnglish.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,75,729‐750.
Berger,J.,Cohen,B.P.,&Zelditch,M.(1972).Statuscharacteristicsandsocial
interaction.AmericanSociologicalReview,37,241‐255.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
50
Berger,J.,Rosenholtz,S.J.,&Zelditch,Jr.,M.(1980).Statusorganizingprocesses.
AnnualReviewofSociology,6,479‐508.
Blau,P.M.(1964).Exchangeandpowerinsociallife.NewYork,NY:JohnWileyand
Sons.
Bonanno,G.A.,Field,N.P.,Kovacevic,A.,&Kaltman,S.(2002).Self‐enhancementas
abufferagainstextremeadversity:CivilwarinBosniaandtraumaticlossin
theUnitedStates.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,28,184‐196.
Brunswik,E.(1956).Perceptionandtherepresentativedesignofpsychological
experiments.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Buehler,R.,Griffin,D.,&Ross,M.(1994).Exploringthe"planningfallacy":Why
peopleunderestimatetheirtaskcompletiontimes.JournalofPersonalityand
SocialPsychology,67366‐381.
Bugental,D.B.,&Lewis,J.C.(1999).Theparadoxicalmisuseofpowerbythosewho
seethemselvesaspowerless:Howdoesithappen?JournalofSocialIssues,55,
51‐64.
Buss,D.M.(1999).Humannatureandindividualdifferences:Theevolutionof
humanpersonality.InL.A.Pervin&O.P.John(Eds.),Handbookof
personality:Theoryandresearch(2nded.,pp.31‐56).NewYork,NY:Guilford
Press.
Camerer,C.F.,&Lovallo,D.(1999).Overconfidenceandexcessentry:An
experimentalapproach.TheAmericanEconomicReview,89,306‐318.
Campbell,W.K.,Goodie,A.S.,&Foster,J.D.(2004).Narcissism,confidence,andrisk
attitude.JournalofBehavioralDecisionMaking,17,297‐311.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
51
Carli,L.L.,LaFleur,S.J.,&Loeber,C.C.(1995).Nonverbalbehavior,gender,and
influence.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,68,1030‐1041.
Chatterjee,A.,&Hambrick,D.C.(2007).It’sallaboutme:Narcissisticchiefexecutive
officersandtheireffectsoncompanystrategyandperformance.
AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,52,351‐386.
Cheng,P.Y.K.(2007).Thetraderinteractioneffectontheimpactofoverconfidence
ontradingperformance:Anempiricalstudy.JournalofBehavioralFinance,8,
59‐69.
Cohen,B.P.,&ZhouX.(1991).StatusProcessesinEnduringWorkGroups.American
SociologicalReview,56,179–188.
Cohen,J.,Cohen,P.,West,S.G.,&Aiken,L.S.(2003).Appliedmultiple
regression/correlationanalysisforthebehavioralsciences(3rded.).Hillsdale,
NJ:Erlbaum.
Colvin,C.R.,Block,J.&Funder,D.C.(1995).Overlypositiveself‐evaluationsand
personality:Negativeimplicationsformentalhealth.JournalofPersonality
andSocialPsychology,68,1152‐1162.
Costa,P.T.,&McCrae,R.R.(1992).Multipleusesforlongitudinalpersonalitydata.
EuropeanJournalofPersonality,6,85–102.
Cronbach,L.J.,&Furby,L.(1970).Howshouldwemeasure"change"‐orshouldwe?
PsychologicalBulletin,74,68‐80.
DePaulo,B.M.,Charlton,K.,Cooper,H.,Lindsay,J.J.,&Muhlenbruck,L.(1997).The
accuracy‐confidencecorrelationinthedetectionofdeception.Personality
andSocialPsychologyReview,1,346‐357.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
52
DePaulo,B.M.,Lindsay,J.J.,Malone,B.E.,Muhlenbruch,L.,Charlton,K.,&Cooper,H.
(2003).Cuestodeception.PsychologicalBulletin,129,74‐118.
Driskell,J.E.,&Mullen,B.(1990).Status,expectations,andbehavior:Ameta‐
analyticreviewandtestofthetheory.PersonalityandSocialPsychology
Bulletin,16,541‐553.
Driskell,J.E.,Olmstead,B.,&Salas,E.(1993).Taskcues,dominancecues,and
influenceintaskgroups.JournalofAppliedPsychology,78,51‐60.
DuBois,P.H.(1957).Multivariatecorrelationalanalysis.NewYork,NY:Harper.
Dunning,D.,Heath,C.,&Suls,J.M.(2004).Flawedself‐assessment:Implicationsfor
health,education,andtheworkplace.PsychologicalScienceinthePublic
Interest,5,69‐106.
Dunning,D.,Leuenberger,A.,&Sherman,D.A.(1995).Anewlookatmotivated
inference:Areself‐servingtheoriesofsuccessaproductofmotivational
forces?JournalofPersonality&SocialPsychology,69,58‐68.
Dunning,D.,Meyerowitz,J.A.,&Holzberg,A.D.(1989).Ambiguityandself‐
evaluation:Theroleofidiosyncratictraitdefinitionsinself‐serving
assessmentsofability.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,57,1082‐
1090.
Edwards,J.R.(1994).Thestudyofcongruenceinorganizationalbehaviorresearch:
Critiqueandaproposedalternative.OrganizationalBehaviorandHuman
DecisionProcesses,58,51‐100.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
53
Ehrlinger,J.,&Dunning,D.(2003).Howchronicself‐viewsinfluence(and
potentiallymislead)estimatesofperformance.JournalofPersonalityand
SocialPsychology,84,5‐17.
Ehrlinger,J.,Johnson,K.,Banner,M.,Dunning,D.,&Kruger,J.(2008).Whythe
unskilledareunaware:Furtherexplorationsof(absent)self‐insightamong
theincompetent.OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,105,
98‐121.
Eibl‐Eibesfeldt,I.(1989).Humanethology.NewYork,NY:AldinedeGruyterPress.
Ellis,L.(1994).Socialstratificationandsocioeconomicinequality(Vol.2).Westport,
CT:Praeger.
Emerson,R.M.(1962).Powerdependencerelations.AmericanSociologicalReview,
27,30–41.
Gigerenzer,G.,&Hoffrage,U.(1995).HowtoimproveBayesianreasoningwithout
instruction:Frequencyformats.PsychologicalReview,102,684‐704.
Goffman,E.(1959).Thepresentationofselfineverydaylife.GardenCity,NY:
Doubleday.
Goldhamer,H.,&Shils,E.A.(1939).Typesofpowerandstatus.AmericanJournalof
Sociology,45,171‐182.
Gonzalez,R.,&Griffin,D.(1997).Onthestatisticsofinterdependence:Treating
dyadicdatawithrespect.InS.Duck(Ed.),Handbookofpersonalrelationships
(pp.271–302).NewYork,NY:Wiley.
Gosling,S.D.,Rentfrow,P.J.,&Swann,W.B.(2003).Averybriefmeasureofthebig
fivepersonalitydomains.JournalofResearchinPersonality,37,504‐528.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
54
Gough,H.G.,McClosky,H.,&Meehl,P.E.(1951).Apersonalityscalefordominance.
JournalofAbnormalandSocialPsychology,46,360‐366.
Griffin,D.,&Gonzalez,R.(1995).Correlationalanalysisofdyad‐leveldatainthe
exchangeablecase.PsychologicalBulletin,118,430‐439.
Griskevicius,V.,Tybur,J.M.,Gangestad,S.W.,Perea,E.F.,Shapiro,J.R.,&Kenrick,D.
T.(2009).Aggresstoimpress:Hostilityasanevolvedcontext‐dependent
strategy.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,96,980–994.
Griskevicius,V.,Tybur,J.M.,&VandenBergh,B.(2010).Goinggreentobeseen:
Status,reputation,andconspicuousconservation.JournalofPersonalityand
SocialPsychology,98,392‐404.
Gruenfeld,D.H.,&Tiedens,L.(2010).Organizationalpreferencesandtheir
consequences.InS.T.Fiske,D.T.Gilbert,&G.Lindzey(Eds.),Handbookof
socialpsychology(5thed.,Vol.2,pp.1252–1287).Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley&
Sons.
Harmon‐Jones,E.,Simon,L.,Greenberg,J.,Pyszczynski,T.,Solomon,S.,&McGregor,
H.(1997).Terrormanagementtheoryandself‐esteem:Evidencethat
increasedself‐esteemreducesmortalitysalienceeffects.Journalof
PersonalityandSocialPsychology,72,24‐36.
Haselton,M.G.,&Nettle,D.(2006).Theparanoidoptimist:Anintegrative
evolutionarymodelofcognitivebiases.PersonalityandSocialPsychology
Review,10,47‐66.
Harvey,N.(1997).Confidenceinjudgment.Trendsincognitivesciences,1,78‐82.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
55
Haun,D.E.,Zeringue,A.,Leach,A.,&Foley,A.(2000).Assessingthecompetenceof
specimen‐processingpersonnel.LaboratoryMedicine,31,633‐637.
Heatherton,T.F.,&Polivy,J.(1991).Developmentandvalidationofascalefor
measuringstateself‐esteem.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,60,
895‐910.
Heine,S.J.,Lehman,D.R.,Markus,H.R.,&Kitayama,S.(1999).Isthereauniversal
needforpositiveself‐regard?PsychologicalReview,106,766‐794.
Hoelzl,E.,&Rustichini,A.(2005).Overconfident:Doyouputyourmoneyonit?.The
EconomicJournal,115,305‐318.
Hoffrage,U.(2004).Overconfidence.InR.F.Pohl(Ed.),Cognitiveillusions:Fallacies
andbiasesinthinking,judgment,andmemory(pp.235‐254).Hove,England:
PsychologyPress.
Hogan,R.(1983).Asocioanalytictheoryofpersonality.InM.Page(Ed.),Nebraska
symposiumonmotivation:Personality—Currenttheoryandresearch(Vol.30,
pp.55–89).Lincoln,NE:UniversityofNebraskaPress.
Homans,G.C.(1950).Thehumangroup.NewYork,NY:HarcourtBrace.
Hoorens,V.(1995).Self‐favoringbiases,self‐presentationandtheself‐other
asymmetryinsocialcomparison.JournalofPersonality,63,793‐817.
Imada,A.S.,&Hakel,M.D.(1977).Influenceofnonverbal‐communicationandrater
proximityonimpressionsanddecisionsinsimulatedemployment
interviews.JournalofAppliedPsychology,62,295‐300.
Jackson,D.N.(1999)PersonalityResearchFormManual(3rd.ed).PortHuron,MI:
SigmaAssessmentSystems.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
56
John,O.P.,&Robins,R.W.(1994).Accuracyandbiasinself‐perception:Individual
differencesinself‐enhancementandtheroleofnarcissism.Journalof
PersonalityandSocialPsychology,66,206‐219.
John,O.P.,&Srivastava,S.(1999).TheBigFivetraittaxonomy:History,
measurement,andtheoreticalperspectives.InL.A.Pervin&O.P.John(Eds.),
Handbookofpersonality:Theoryandresearch(2nded.,pp.102‐138).New
York,NY:Guilford.
Johnson,D.D.P.,&Fowler,J.H.(2011).Theevolutionofoverconfidence.Nature,
477(7364),317‐320
Jones,R.,Panda,M.,&Desbiens,N.(2008).Internalmedicineresidentsdonot
accuratelyassesstheirmedicalknowledge.AdvancesinHealthSciences
Education,13,463‐468.
Jones,S.C.,&Shrauger,J.S.(1970).Reputationandself‐evaluationasdeterminants
ofattractiveness.Sociometry,33,276‐286.
Josephs,R.A.,Sellers,J.G.,Newman,M.L.,&Mehta,P.H.(2006).TheMismatch
Effect:Whentestosteroneandstatusareatodds.JournalofPersonalityand
SocialPsychology,90,999‐1013.
Judd,C.M.,Kenny,D.A.,&McClelland,G.H.(2001).Estimatingandtesting
mediationandmoderationinwithin‐participantdesigns.Psychological
Methods,6,115‐134.
Keltner,D.,Gruenfeld,D.H.,&Anderson,C.(2003).Power,approach,andinhibition.
PsychologicalReview,110,265‐284.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
57
Kennedy,J.A.,Anderson,C.,&Moore,D.A.(2011).Socialreactionsto
overconfidence:Dothecostsofoverconfidenceoutweighthebenefits?
Manuscriptsubmittedforpublication.
Kenny,D.A.(1994).Interpersonalperception:Asocialrelationsanalysis.NewYork,
NY:GuilfordPress.
Kenny,D.A.,&LaVoie,L.(1984).Thesocialrelationsmodel.InL.Berkowitz(Ed.),
Advancesinexperimentalsocialpsychology(Vol.18,pp.142‐182).Orlando,
FL:Academic.
Koellinger,P.,Minniti,M.,&Schade,C.(2007)."IthinkIcan,IthinkIcan":
Overconfidenceandentrepreneurialbehavior.JournalofEconomic
Psychology,28,502‐527.
Krebs,D.L.,&Denton,K.(1997).Socialillusionsandself‐deception:Theevolutionof
biasesinpersonperception.InJ.A.Simpson,&D.T.Kenrick(Eds.)
Evolutionarysocialpsychology.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Krueger,J.,&Mueller,R.A.(2002).Unskilled,unaware,orboth?Thebetter‐than‐
averageheuristicandstatisticalregressionpredicterrorsinestimatesofown
performance.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,82,180‐188.
Krueger,J.I.,&Wright,J.C.(2011).Measurementofself‐enhancement(andself‐
protection).InM.D.Alicke,&C.Sedikides(Eds.),Handbookofself
enhancementandselfprotection(pp.472‐494).NewYork,NY:Guilford.
Kruger,J.,&Burrus,J.(2004).Egocentrismandfocalisminunrealisticoptimism
(andpessimism).JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,40,332‐340.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
58
Kruger,J.,&Dunning,D.(1999).Unskilledandunawareofit:Howdifficultiesin
recognizingone'sownincompetenceleadtoinflatedself‐assessments.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,77,1121‐1134.
Kunda,Z.(1987).Motivatedinference:Self‐servinggenerationandevaluationof
causaltheories.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,53,636‐647.
Kwan,V.S.,John,O.P.,Kenny,D.A.,Bond,M.H.,&Robins,R.W.(2004).
Reconceptualizingindividualdifferencesinself‐enhancementbias:An
interpersonalapproach.PsychologicalReview,111,94‐110.
Kwang,T.,&Swann,W.B.(2010).Dopeopleembracepraiseevenwhentheyfeel
unworthy?Areviewofcriticaltestsofself‐enhancementversusself‐
verification.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyReview,14,263‐280.
Larrick,R.P.,Burson,K.A.,&Soll,J.B.(2007).Socialcomparisonandconfidence:
Whenthinkingyou'rebetterthanaveragepredictsoverconfidence(and
whenitdoesnot).OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,
102,76‐94.
Leary,M.R.(2007).Motivationalandemotionalaspectsoftheself.AnnualReviewof
Psychology,58,317‐344.
Leary,M.R.,&Kowalski,R.M.(1990).Impressionmanagement‐aliterature‐review
and2‐componentmodel.PsychologicalBulletin,107,34‐47.
Lee,M.T.,&Ofshe,R.(1981).Theimpactofbehavioralstyleandstatus
characteristicsonsocialinfluence:Atestoftwocompetingtheories.Social
PsychologyQuarterly,44,73‐82.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
59
Lord,R.G.(1985).Aninformationprocessingapproachtosocialperceptions,
leadershipandbehavioralmeasurementinorganizations.InL.L.Cummings,
&B.M.Staw(Eds).Researchinorganizationalbehavior(Vol.7).Greenwich,
CT:JAIPress.
Lord,R.G.,DeVader,C.L.,&Alliger,G.M.(1986).Ameta‐analysisoftherelation
betweenpersonalitytraitsandleadershipperceptions:Anapplicationof
validitygeneralizationprocedures.JournalofAppliedPsychology,71,402–
410.
Magee,J.C.,&Galinsky,A.D.(2008).Socialhierarchy:Theself‐reinforcingnatureof
powerandstatus.InJ.P.Walsh,&A.P.Brief(Eds.),AcademyofManagement
Annals(Vol.2,pp.351‐398).
Malmendier,U.,&Tate,G.(2005).CEOoverconfidenceandcorporateinvestment.
JournalofFinance,60,2661‐2700.
Maslow,A.H.(1943).Atheoryofhumanmotivation.PsychologicalReview,50,370‐
396.
McClelland,G.H.,&Judd,C.M.(1993).Statisticaldifficultiesofdetectinginteractions
andmoderatoreffects.PsychologicalBulletin,114,376‐390.
McNulty,S.E.,&Swann,W.B.(1994).Identitynegotiationinroommate
relationships‐Theselfasarchitectandconsequenceofsocial‐reality.Journal
ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,67,1012‐1023.
Miller,D.T.,&Ross,M.(1975).Self‐servingbiasesintheattributionofcausality:
Factorfiction?PsychologicalBulletin,82,213‐225.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
60
Minson,J.A.,Liberman,V.,&Ross,L.(2011).Twototango:Theeffectof
collaborativeexperienceanddisagreementondyadicjudgment.Personality
andSocialPsychologyBulletin,37,1325‐1338.
Moore,D.A.(2007).Notsoaboveaverageafterall:Whenpeoplebelievetheyare
worsethanaverageanditsimplicationsfortheoriesofbiasinsocial
comparison.OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,102,42‐
58.
Moore,D.A.,&Healy,P.J.(2008).Thetroublewithoverconfidence.Psychological
Review,115,502‐517.
Moore,D.A.,&Klein,W.M.P.(2008).Useofabsoluteandcomparativeperformance
feedbackinabsoluteandcomparativejudgmentsanddecisions.
OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,107,60‐74.
Moore,D.A.,&Small,D.A.(2007).Errorandbiasincomparativejudgment:On
beingbothbetterandworsethanwethinkweare.JournalofPersonalityand
SocialPsychology,92,972‐989.
Murray,H.A.(1938).Explorationsinpersonality.NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversity
Press
Neale,M.A.,&Bazerman,M.H.(1985).Theeffectofframingofconflictand
negotiatoroverconfidenceonbargainingbehaviorandoutcome.Academyof
ManagementJournal,28,34‐49.
Odean,T.(1998).Volume,volatility,price,andprofitwhenalltradersareabove
average.JournalofFinance,53,1887‐1934.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
61
Odean,T.(1999).Doinvestorstradetoomuch?AmericanEconomicReview,89,
1279‐1298.
Pajares,F.(1996).Self‐efficacybeliefsinacademicsettings.ReviewofEducational
Research,66,543‐578.
Paulhus,D.L.(1984).Two‐componentmodelsofsociallydesirableresponding.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,46,598‐609.
Paulhus,D.L.(1998).Interpersonalandintrapsychicadaptivenessoftraitself‐
enhancement:Amixedblessing?JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,
74,1197‐1208.
Paulhus,D.L.,&Harms,P.D.(2004).Measuringcognitiveabilitywiththe
overclaimingtechnique.Intelligence,32,297‐314.
Paulhus,D.L.,&John,O.P.(1998).Egoisticandmoralisticbiasinself‐perceptions:
Theinterplayofself‐deceptivemechanismswithbasictraitsandmotives.
JournalofPersonality,66,1025‐1060.
Paulhus,D.L.,Harms,P.D.,Bruce,M.N.,&Lysy,D.C.(2003).Theover‐claiming
technique:Measuringself‐enhancementindependentofaccuracy.Journalof
PersonalityandSocialPsychology,84,681‐693.
Pfeffer,J.,Cialdini,R.B.,Hanna,B.,&Knopoff,K.(1998).Faithinsupervisionandthe
self‐enhancementbias:Twopsychologicalreasonswhymanagersdon't
empowerworkers.BasicandAppliedSocialPsychology,20,313‐321.
Powers,T.A.,&Zuroff,D.C.(1988).Interpersonalconsequencesofovertself‐
criticism‐Acomparisonwithneutralandself‐enhancingpresentationsof
self.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,54,1054‐1062.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
62
Preacher,K.J.,&Hayes,A.F.(2008).Asymptoticandresamplingstrategiesfor
assessingandcomparingindirecteffectsinmultiplemediatormodels.
BehaviorResearchMethods,40,879‐891.
Radzevick,J.R.,&Moore,D.A.(2011)Competingtobecertain(butwrong):Market
dynamicsandexcessiveconfidenceinjudgment.ManagementScience,57,93‐
106.
Realo,A.,Allik,J.,Nolvak,A.,Valk,R.,Ruus,T.,Schmidt,M.,&Eilola,T.(2003).Mind‐
readingability:Beliefsandperformance.JournalofResearchinPersonality,
37,420‐445.
Reynolds,D.J.,&Gifford,R.(2001).Thesoundsandsightsofintelligence:Alens
modelchannelanalysis.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,27,187‐
200.
Ridgeway,C.L.(1984).Dominance,performance,andstatusingroups.Atheoretical
analysis.InE.Lawler(Ed.).Advancesingroupprocesses:Theoryandresearch
(Vol.1,pp.59–93).Greenwich,CT:JAIPress.
Ridgeway,C.L.(1987).Nonverbalbehavior,dominance,andthebasisofstatusin
taskgroups.AmericanSociologicalReview,52,683‐694.
Ridgeway,C.,&Diekema,D.(1989).Dominanceandcollectivehierarchyformation
inmaleandfemaletaskgroups.AmericanSociologicalReview,54,79‐93.
Robins,R.W.,&Beer,J.S.(2001).Positiveillusionsabouttheself:Short‐term
benefitsandlong‐termcosts.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,80,
340‐352.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
63
Sachdev,I.,&Bourhis,R.Y.(1987).Powerandstatusdifferentialsinminorityand
majoritygrouprelations.EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology,21,1‐24.
Santos‐Pinto,L.,&Sobel,J.(2005).Amodelofpositiveself‐imageinsubjective
assessments.AmericanEconomicReview,95,1386‐1402.
Savin‐Williams,R.C.(1979).Dominancehierarchiesingroupsofearlyadolescents.
ChildDevelopment,50,923‐935.
Schaefer,P.S.,Williams,C.C.,Goodie,A.S.,&Campbell,W.K.(2004).
OverconfidenceandtheBigFive.JournalofResearchinPersonality,38,473‐
480.
Scheier,M.F.,Carver,C.S.,&Bridges,M.W.(1994).Distinguishingoptimismfrom
neuroticism(andtraitanxiety,self‐mastery,andself‐esteem):Are‐
evaluationofthelifeorientationtest.JournalofPersonalityandSocial
Psychology,67,1063‐1078.
Scherer,K.R.,London,H.,&Wolf,J.J.(1973).Thevoiceofconfidence:Paralinguistic
cuesandaudienceevaluation.JournalofResearchinPersonality,7,31‐44.
SchmidMast,M.,Hall,J.A.,&Schmid,P.C.(2010).Wantingtobebossandwanting
tobesubordinate:Effectsonperformancemotivation.JournalofApplied
SocialPsychology,40,458‐472.
Smith,P.K.,Wigboldus,D.H.J.,&Dijksterhuis,A.(2008).Abstractthinkingincreases
one'ssenseofpower.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,44,378‐385.
Stankov,L.,&Crawford,J.D.(1997).Self‐confidenceandperformanceontestsof
cognitiveabilities.Intelligence,25(2),93‐109.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
64
Stogdill,R.M.(1948).Personalfactorsassociatedwithleadership:Asurveyofthe
literature.JournalofPsychology,25,35‐71.
Swann,W.B.(2005).Theselfandidentitynegotiation.InteractionStudies,6,69‐83.
Swann,W.B.,&Ely,R.J.(1984).Abattleofwills‐Self‐verificationversusbehavioral
confirmation.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,46,1287‐1302.
Swann,W.B.,&Gill,M.J.(1997).Confidenceandaccuracyinpersonperception:Do
weknowwhatwethinkweknowaboutourrelationshippartners?Journalof
PersonalityandSocialPsychology,73,747‐757.
Tay,L.,&Diener,E.Needsandsubjectivewell‐beingaroundtheworld.Journalof
PersonalityandSocialPsychology,101,354‐365.
Taylor,S.E.,&Brown,J.D.(1988).Illusionandwell‐being:Asocialpsychological
perspectiveonmentalhealth.PsychologicalBulletin,103,193210
Taylor,S.E.,Lerner,J.S.,Sherman,D.K.,Sage,R.M.,&McDowell,N.K.(2003).
Portraitoftheself‐enhancer:Welladjustedandwelllikedormaladjusted
andfriendless?JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,84,165‐176.
Tenney,E.R.,MacCoun,R.J.,Spellman,B.A.,&Hastie,R.(2007).Calibrationtrumps
confidenceasabasisforwitnesscredibility.PsychologicalScience,18,46‐50.
Tenney,E.R.,Spellman,B.A.,&MacCoun,R.J.(2008).Thebenefitsofknowingwhat
youknow(andwhatyoudon't):Howcalibrationaffectscredibility.Journalof
ExperimentalSocialPsychology,44,1368‐1375.
Tiedens,L.Z.&Fragale,A.R.(2003).Powermoves:Complementarityinsubmissive
anddominantnonverbalbehavior.JournalofPersonalityandSocial
Psychology,84,558‐568.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
65
Tracy,J.L.,&Robins,R.W.(2004).Showyourpride:Evidenceforadiscreteemotion
expression.PsychologicalScience,15,194‐197.
Trivers,R.(1985).Socialevolution.MenloPark,CA:Benjamin/Cummins.
vonHippel,W.,&Trivers,R.(2011).Theevolutionandpsychologyofself‐deception.
BehavioralandBrainSciences,34(01),1‐16.
Waldman,M.(1994).Systematicerrorsandthetheoryofnaturalselection.The
AmericanEconomicReview,84,482‐497.
Whyte,W.F.(1943).Streetcornersociety.Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Wiggins,J.S.(1979).Apsychologicaltaxonomyoftrait‐descriptiveterms:The
interpersonaldomain.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,37,395‐
412.
Wiggins,J.S.,Trapnell,P.,&Phillips,N.(1988).Psychometricandgeometric
characteristicsoftherevisedinterpersonaladjectivescales(ias‐r).
MultivariateBehavioralResearch,23,517‐530.
Williams,E.F.,&Gilovich,T.(2008).Dopeoplereallybelievetheyareabove
average?JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,44,1121‐1128.
Wolfe,R.N.,&Grosch,J.W.(1990).Personalitycorrelatesofconfidenceinone's
decisions.JournalofPersonality,58,515‐534.
Wright,G.N.,&Phillips,L.D.(1979).Personalityandprobabilisticthinking:An
exploratorystudy.BritishJournalofPsychology,70,295‐303.
Zuckerman,M.,&Knee,C.R.(1996).Therelationbetweenoverlypositiveself‐
evaluationandadjustment:AcommentonColvin,Block,andFunder(1995).
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,70,1250‐1251.
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
66
Footnotes
1.Priorresearchhasdistinguishedvariousformsofoverconfidence(Moore&Healy,
2008).Wefocusedonoverplacement,whichinvolvesoverestimatingone’srankin
abilityrelativetoothers,becauseindividuals’statusisbasedonperceivedabilities
relativetoothers(Bergeretal.,1972;Ridgeway,1984).
2.Theuseofdifferencescoreshasbeenwidelycriticizedbecausedifferencescores
areunreliableandtendtobeconfoundedwithvariablesthatcomprisetheindex
(e.g.,Cohen,Cohen,West,&Aiken,2003;Cronbach&Furby,1970).Scholarssuggest
regressingparticipants’actualperformanceontotheirself‐evaluationsandretaining
theresidualsoftheself‐evaluations(e.g.,John&Robins,1994).
3.Thephotographedtargetsandthedataforeachtarget’s“true”personalitywere
obtainedfromDanielAmes.Eachtarget’s“truescore”wastheaverageratingmade
bytheselfandeightknowledgeableinformants.
4.Theaccuracyandover‐claimingindexeswerecalculatedusingstandardsignal
detectionformulas(Macmillan&Creelman,1991).Wefirstcalculatedthe“hit”rate
astheproportionofthe48realitemsonwhichtherespondentclaimedfamiliarity
(aresponseabove0onthefamiliarityscale).Similarly,wecalculatedthe“false‐
alarm”rateasthecorrespondingproportionofthe12foilsonwhichtherespondent
claimedfamiliarity.Fromthesehitandfalse‐alarmrates,twoindexeswere
calculatedforeachrespondent:Theaccuracyindexwasdprime(thez‐transformed
hitrateminusthez‐transformedfalsealarmrate),andtheover‐claimingindexwas
thecriterionlocation(theaverageofthez‐transformedhitandfalsealarmrates).
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
67
5.Providingfeedbackaboutpercentilerankwouldhavemeantprovidingsomein
theoverconfidentconditionoverlynegativefeedback(e.g.,tellingpeoplewhoscored
abovethe98thpercentilethattheyscoredinthe95thpercentile).Pilottestsshowed
thatfeedbackaboutabsoluteperformanceeffectivelymanipulatedoverplacement.
6.Wemodifiedtheoriginalstorytoavoidtwopotentialconfounds.First,toavoid
inducingcompetitivefeelingsmoregenerally,wedeletedapartthatspokeofa
competitionforpromotionwithothernewlyhiredemployees.Second,toavoid
directlypriminghigherlevelsofconfidence,wedeletedapartthatspokeaboutthe
protagonisttryingtoboosthisorherconfidence.

STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
68
Table1.
Study2.CoefficientsforRegressionModelsCorrespondingtoEffectofOverconfidence
onPeerRatedStatusandPeerAssignedGrade.

Status

Grade
B
SEB

B
SEB
Overconfidence
.32*
.07
.08*
.03
Accuracy .27* .05 .06* .02
Optimism ‐.01 .03 ‐.01 .01
TraitDominance ‐.02 .03 ‐.02 .01
Extraversion .04 .06 .01 .02
Neuroticism ‐.01 .06 ‐.02 .02

*p<.01
STATUS‐ENHANCEMENTACCOUNTOFOVERCONFIDENCE
69
Table2
Study4.TheBehavioralSignatureofOverconfidence:ABrunswik(1956)LensModelAnalysis
Cue‐displaycorrelations
Cue‐utilizationcorrelations
Overconfidence
Actual
Competence
Behavioralcue("lens")
Observer‐perceived
competence
.25** .17 Percentoftimespoke .59**
.29** .13 Confidentandfactualvocaltone .54**
.19* .03 Providedinformationrelevanttoproblem .51**
.00 .15 Expandedposture .37**
.22* .02 Calmandrelaxeddemeanor .34**
‐.10 .16 Offeredananswerlater .24*
.27** ‐.04 Offeredananswerfirst .21*
.17 .12 Statementsofcertaintyinestimate .21*
.07 .10 Statementsabouteaseordifficultyoftask .18
‐.14 ‐.06 Statementsaboutone’sowncompetence .09
 
*p<.05,two‐tailed. **p<.01,two‐tailed.
STATUS-ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT OF OVERCONFIDENCE 0
Table3
Study5:NeedforDominancePredictsOverconfidence
Variable
b
SE
β
t
(Constant) ‐1.45 1.55 ‐0.94
NeedforDominance 1.220.46.422.64*
NeedforAffiliation 0.22 0.60 .07 0.37
NeedforAchievement ‐0.11 0.58 ‐.03 ‐0.19
Extraversion ‐0.26 0.21 ‐.25 ‐1.25
Agreeableness 0.06 0.20 .04 0.27
Conscientiousness 0.17 0.17 .14 1.01
Neuroticism ‐0.05 0.16 ‐.05 ‐0.32
Openness ‐0.13 0.19 ‐.08 ‐0.68
Note.Statisticsappearinginboldrepresenttestsofourhypotheses.
*p=.010.

STATUS-ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT OF OVERCONFIDENCE 1
Figure1.Partner‐ratedknowledgemediatedtherelationshipbetween
overconfidenceandstatusinthedyad(Study1).

STATUS-ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT OF OVERCONFIDENCE 2
Figure2.Participantsprovidedwithoverlypositiveperformancefeedback,who
engagedinoverconfidence,wereperceivedasmorecompetentbytheirpartners
thanparticipantsprovidedwithaccurateperformancefeedback,whomore
accuratelyperceivedtheirability(Study3).

STATUS-ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT OF OVERCONFIDENCE 0
Figure3.Brunswik’s(1956)lensmodel.
CueDisplayCueUtilization
Inner
Characteristic
(e.g.,agreeableness)
Lens
Cue3
(e.g.,furrowed
brows)
Cue2
(e.g.,frown)
Cue1
(e.g.,smile)
Observer
Judgment
(e.g.,rating
oftarget’s
agreeableness)
Inferenceoftarget’sinnercharacteristic
... Participants who thought they did well were more likely to feel pride. We sought to make our performance task more engaging by adopting an interpersonal perception task by Anderson et al. (2012), where participants were shown video clips of interpersonal interactions and then asked to predict characteristics of the people in the materials. Anderson et al. (2012) induced overconfidence among participants by presenting false information as to the accuracy of their predictions, generating positive/negative self-evaluations. ...
... We sought to make our performance task more engaging by adopting an interpersonal perception task by Anderson et al. (2012), where participants were shown video clips of interpersonal interactions and then asked to predict characteristics of the people in the materials. Anderson et al. (2012) induced overconfidence among participants by presenting false information as to the accuracy of their predictions, generating positive/negative self-evaluations. We supplemented the interpersonal perception task by adopting a feedback protocol used by Mahadevan et al. (2019), who manipulated state narcissism by providing visual information about social rank relative to the normative standard. ...
... Our series of four studies aimed to address the ongoing controversy about the construct validity of hubristic pride as conceptualized by Tracy and Robins' Authentic Pride and Hubristic Pride (AP-HP) Scales (2007). Beside the direct attempt to replicate previous manipulation using the Relived Emotion Task, we drew on relevant literature in the domains of overconfidence (Anderson et al., 2012), power (Fast & Chen, 2009), status , and state narcissism (Mahadevan et al., 2019) to develop a strong manipulation of hubristic pride. Yet, none of our manipulations induced the desirable levels of authentic and hubristic pride consistent with the standard we set up at the beginning (Figure 1). ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Pride is a complex emotion. According to Tracy and Robins’ two-facet theory of pride, authentic pride arises when success originates from unstable attributions (e.g., effort), and hubristic pride arises when success originates from stable attributions (e.g., talent). Yet, controversy persists with regard to the validity of hubristic pride. Our research compared diverse experimental methods to assess construct validity of both facets of pride. Study 1 (n = 329) asked participants to recall pride inducing episodes with explicit encouragement to feel target emotions. Study 2 (n = 177) presented participants with positive feedback on interpersonal perception based on unstable vs. stable characteristics of participants’ competency. Study 3 (n = 328) and Study 4 (n = 107) presented participants with feedback of high leadership aptitude based on prestige vs. dominance quality and asked them to predict others’ responses to the same feedback. A mini meta-analysis estimated that hubristic-pride manipulations were generally successful relative to authentic-pride manipulations in inducing hubristic pride with minimal intensity. However, authentic pride was far more salient than hubristic pride across all conditions and manipulations. Study 3 and 4 illuminated participants’ apprehension in reporting hubristic pride, when they expected others to experience greater hubristic pride, corroborating the low frequency of hubristic pride across all studies. Analyses of nomological networks revealed that authentic pride clearly covaried with positive affect, while hubristic pride covaried more strongly with negative affect (e.g., hostility and shame) than with positive affect. Analyses of nomological shockwaves highlighted the difficulty of observing intense levels of hubristic pride in people’s experience of success. Our findings pose novel challenges to the two-facet theory of pride: (1) hubristic pride may not be a discrete emotion of pride; and (2) a single-facet model of pride still stands as a fruitful model, until pending evidence otherwise supports the two-facet theory of pride.
... Une littérature trèsétendue en psychologie sociocognitiveétudie l'effet de la surconfiance au sein des groupes et montre que celle-ci : (i) conduità l'amélioration du statut social de l'individu surconfiant (Anderson et al., 2012); (ii) augmente sa capacité de convaincre (Zarnoth and Sniezek, 1997); et (iii) renforce ses chances de devenir leader d'opinion (Radzevick and Moore, 2011;Yaniv and Foster, 1997 (Bernardo and Welch, 2001), l'aptitudeà coordonner et rassembler , l'aptitudeà donner l'exemple et gérer les problèmes de passagers clandestins (Gervais and Goldstein, 2007 Au centre de ce raisonnement est l'idée que la surconfiance peut avoir une fonction sociale consistantà renforcer le statut social ou l'influence d'un individu dans ses inter-actions avec les autres. Cet aspect fonctionnel est d'ailleurs fortement liéà l'hypothèse de sélection que nous avons présentée précédemment. ...
... Cet aspect fonctionnel est d'ailleurs fortement liéà l'hypothèse de sélection que nous avons présentée précédemment. Si la surconfiance est un facteur permettant d'augmenter la probabilité d'accéderà la fonction de dirigeant ouà atteindre une positionélevée dans la hiérarchie (Anderson et al., 2012), alors elle peutêtre vue comme un trait désirable. Dans ce cas, la seule manière de décourager des individus parfaitement rationnelsà "masquer" leurs véritables croyances serait de mettre en place un mécanisme sanctionnant les comportements surconfiants quand ceux-ci sont révélés ex post. ...
... Une première sanction de ce type pourraitêtre la perte de crédibilité ou la dégradation du statut social. Plusieursétudes expérimentales ont comparé les bénéfices sociaux procurés par la surconfianceà ses coûts réputationnels subséquents (Anderson et al., 2012;Tenney et al., 2008). Les résultats de cesétudes peuventêtre résumées de la manière suivante :"Overconfidence led to social benefits when undetected and had no associated social costs once she was discovered.(. . . ) Accordingly, the current findings bolster the notion that overconfidence is socially rewarding for the individual and help explain the frequency of this bias." ...
Thesis
In light of the observation of a globally negative vision of managerial overcondence in the economics and management literature (analyzed in the rst chapter of this PhD Thesis) we present some positive implications of the overcondence bias on rm performance. In Chapter 2 we perform an empirical study that accounts for the endogeneity of managerial overcondence and its contingence upon contextual factors such as corporate governance and managerial compensation. We show that when we control for the endogeneity bias in the data (through the difference-in-differences method) we observe a positive relationship between managerial overconfidence and rm performance. Then, in Chapter 3 we propose a theoretical model that presents one potential mediator of this positive relationship. Our model predicts that an overcondent CEO would implement incentivizing tournaments between the top management team members more often than a rational CEO. These tournaments would lead to an increase in the total effort supply of top executives and hence improve the performance of the rm. At last, in Chapter 4 we show, through a study of nascent entrepreneurs, that two dierent types of condence, condence in one's own abilities and condence in opportunity outcomes have opposed effects on the likelihood of a successful start-up process. The rst type has a positive effect whereas the second one has a negative effect on the probability to create an operating business.
... The coronavirus pandemic has affected so many people, including travel enthusiasts who booked their trips long before an enhanced community quarantine (ECQ) was imposed in the Philippines. 1 Apart from flight cancellations and suspended operations of travel-related services, hotel chains have also been shut down. Many guests postpone and cancel their bookings due to the outbreak. ...
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study is to provide new insights into the factors that influence cancellation behaviour with respect to hotel bookings. Cancellations of bookings are one of the most common concerns in the hotel sector. Before the specified arrival date, the client would cancel their reservation. The cancellation has had a major impact on hotel operations as well. The researchers developed a prototype system called Automated Hotel Booking Cancellation that can assist a hotel in better anticipating consumer cancellations and booking transactions. The researchers utilized a survey questionnaire following the ISO 25010 Software Quality Standard to assess the system's usefulness, functionality, accuracy, security, reliability, and maintainability. The results show "strongly agree" in all the domains with an overall mean = 3.46. IT Experts and respondents evaluated the proposed prototype and gained a "Strongly Agree" rating in all the domains under the survey. The domain on the usefulness of the system gained the highest mean = 3.89 with an interpretation of "strongly agree," and the lowest was the domain of security with a mean = 3.15 or "strongly agree," which ranked 6 in summary. The researchers concluded based on the findings that the developed prototype web-based system was useful and functional to the needs of the target users/beneficiaries. The user interface of the web-based system was user-friendly, representing an object-oriented user interface for the users. An improvement recommended on the cancellation to automatically predict cancellations that can be incorporated into the system using Machine Learning Algorithms to ease the process of cancellation were recommended for future researchers who want to pursue advanced studies about the topic.
... As discussed above, perceptions of expertise are driven by cues. Our model is agnostic as to the origin of the cue, but researchers have documented that advice-seekers often rely on advisors' self-presentation, as in statements about professed expertise and confident demeanor (e.g., Anderson et al. 2012;Bonaccio and Dalal 2006;Jones and Shrauger 1970;Powers and Zuroff 1988;Yaniv and Kleinberger 2000). Intuitively, when a colleague selfassuredly claims high skill, one is more willing to entertain the advice than when such a claim is absent. ...
Article
Full-text available
When facing a crisis (or preparing for one), decision-makers often turn to peer networks, seeking advice and providing it. Scholars and practitioners endorse sharing knowledge and experience, especially for boosting resilience and combating crises. They believe such decentralized, peer-to-peer contact suits the ill-structured challenges organizations encounter. Yet, this endorsement overlooks a bias known as the Dunning-Kruger effect: People regularly misjudge their own and their peers’ skills. Thus, ascertaining whether a peer is sufficiently skilled to advise is an error-prone endeavor. Because of the bias, a person in need may mistakenly accept poor advice—and then proceed to unintentionally spread it. To understand advice networks in crisis, we weave case studies and experimental evidence into a formal model. Seeding the model with empirical data on skill (mis)judgment, we confirm that advice improves performance, but only if skill misjudgment is assumed away. When the bias is incorporated into the model, the risk of transmitting poor advice increases. As it cascades from one person to another, poor advice undercuts skill throughout organizations and networks. And it reduces the diversity and range of knowledge and advice, further hampering crisis response. Seeking a remedy, we introduce a theoretically-derived mechanism for carving up the advice network, showing how organizational design can ameliorate the risk. We conclude with implications for resilience and crisis research and practice whether in established organizations or entrepreneurial ventures.
... Many studies have found that members of society with higher social status tend to receive more respect and admiration from others and that humans, as a social group, have an intrinsic need to be respected by others. Therefore, individuals will satisfy their intrinsic needs through various behaviors (e.g., choosing jobs or environments with higher social status), thus giving rise to an internal motivation that leads them to pursue high social status 26,27 . According to the explanation of evolutionary psychology, individuals are internally motivated to pursue high social status because it provides individuals with more resources for survival and development 28 . ...
Article
Full-text available
The other-race effect refers to the phenomenon in which the chance of individuals misidentifying faces from other races more than their own race is significantly higher. This study explored the effect of motivation on the other-race effect by manipulating the social status of faces. The results showed that: (1) compared to other-race faces with low social status, when individuals' perceptions of the social status of other-race faces increased, individuals' recognition scores for high social status other-race faces increased, and the other-race effect disappeared, and (2) when individuals' perceptions of the social status of other-race faces decreased, there was no significant difference in individuals' recognition scores of other-race faces, of either high or low social status. These findings suggest that motivation has a significant impact on the other-race effect.
... Relatedly, question creators also seek to minimize the dissonance between the perceived validity of their questions and their own ability as interviewers such that interviewers with an inflated belief in their abilities are more likely to perceive the questions they created as more valid. The upward bias in validity judgements serves as a self-enhancement tactic such that interviewers inflate the perceived quality of their own creations to preserve their sense of competence (Anderson et al., 2012). For these reasons, a heightened sense of self-confidence is expected to amplify perception of question validity for question creators. ...
Article
Interviewers are often confident in the validity of their interview questions. What drives this confidence and is it justified? In three studies, we found that question creators judged their own interview questions as more valid than when the same questions are judged by an evaluator. We also found that effort expenditure inflated the perceived validity of interview questions but not question quality. Question creators’ perceptions of validity were primarily driven by their self-confidence, and not the question quality. As an intervention, we nudged participants into holding more favourable attitudes towards better questions (i.e., structured questions) by allowing them to choose a subset of them from a pre-written list. Together, we found that while effort expenditure was responsible for the illusion of validity when evaluating unstructured (i.e., low-quality) questions, the same mechanism could also be used to improve interviewers’ acceptance of structured questions. Implications for structured interviews and the scientist-practitioner gap are discussed.
... Relatedly, question creators also seek to minimize the dissonance between the perceived validity of their questions and their own ability as interviewers such that interviewers with an inflated belief in their abilities are more likely to perceive the questions they created as more valid. The upward bias in validity judgments serves as a self-enhancement tactic such that interviewers inflate the perceived quality of their own creations to preserve their sense of competence (Anderson et al., 2012). For these reasons, a heightened sense of self-confidence is expected to amplify perception of question validity for question creators. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
This manuscript has been accepted for publication at European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. This version is not the final copy and may not reflect the final, authoritative version of the article. Please cite this as: Zhang, D.C., & Kausel, E.E., (2022, in press). The illusion of validity: How effort inflates the perceived validity of interview questions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Don C. Zhang, Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University. Email: zhang1@lsu.edu.
Chapter
This article considers the phenomenon of overconfidence whereby an individual, group or organization believes that it has more knowledge or skill in a particular domain than it actually possesses. It outlines the three distinct forms of confidence that have been identified in the literature: misestimation, misplacement and misprecision. It goes on to discuss various ways in which organizations can adapt their judgement processes to reduce the incidence of overconfidence, highlighting some real-world case studies. It ends with some observations and suggestions for future research in this complex area.
Article
Despite increasing investments in workforce security education and training, many organizations still face the challenge that their employees overestimate their knowledge and abilities to prevent security incidents. Since these misperceptions regarding one's competencies may entail serious consequences for business, the present paper investigates contextual influences on overconfidence susceptibility. For this purpose, we first surveyed more than 5,500 employees of an international pharmaceutical company and then applied machine learning techniques to classify them according to their likelihood of exhibiting overconfidence. Results demonstrate the significance of factors like training commitment, salary band, team size, and job experience are helping managers to adjust and improve awareness measures.
Article
The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of manager and employee perception of justice and trust on workplace outcomes, by testing the mediating effect of employee trust on the relationship between organisational justice and performance measures (absence rate, financial performance, labour productivity, product quality). Then, the effect of manager overconfidence as a moderator of this relationship is tested. Management and employee data from 1462 workplaces in the UK were analysed. Path analysis was used to test the moderated mediation model. The results show that employee trust mediates the relationship between organisational justice and financial performance, labour productivity, and quality of product or service. Manager overconfidence was found to moderate the indirect effect of both interpersonal justice and procedural justice on these three performance outcomes through employee trust. Understanding the relationships between justice, trust and organisational outcomes, as well as the effect of managerial overconfidence thereupon, helps managers and decision-makers to design better policies in the interest of the firm’s performance.
Article
Full-text available
Reactions to trait self-enhancers were investigated in 2 longitudinal studies of person.perception in discussion groups. Groups of 4-6 participants met 7 times for 20 rain. After Meetings 1 and 7, group members rated their perceptions of one another. In Study 1, trait self-enhancement was indexed by measures of narcissism and self-deceptive enhancement. At the first meeting, self-enhancers made positive impressions: They were seen as agreeable, well adjusted, and competent. After 7 weeks, however, they were rated negatively and gave self-evaluations discrepant with peer evaluations they received. In Study 2, an independent sample of observers (close acquaintances) enabled a pretest index of discrepancy self-enhancement: It predicted the same deteriorating pattern of interpersonal perceptions as the other three trait measures. Nonetheless, all self-enhancement measures correlated positively with self-esteem.
Article
Research has variously portrayed self-enhancement as an indicator of narcissistic defensiveness or as a concomitant of mental health. To address this controversy, the present study used multiple measures of self-enhancement along with multiple measures and judges of mental health, comprehensively assessing their relationship. The results indicated that self-enhancement is positively associated with multiple indicators of mental health and with a more favorable impact on others. Discussion centers on a reconciliation of discrepant portraits of the self-enhancer.
Article
Two studies addressed parallel questions about the correlates and consequences of self-enhancement bias. Study 1 was conducted in a laboratory context and examined self-enhancing evaluations of performance in a group-interaction task. Study 2 assessed students' illusory beliefs about their academic ability when they first entered college and then followed them longitudinally to test claims about the long-term benefits of positive illusions. Both studies showed that self-enhancement bills was related to narcissism. ego involvement, self-serving attributions, and positive affect. Study 2 found that self-enhancement was associated with decreasing levels of self-esteem and well-being as well as with increasing disengagement front the academic context. Self-enhancement did not predict higher academic performance or higher graduate rates. Thus, the findings suggest that self-enhancing beliefs may be adaptive in the short term but not in the long term.
Article
Two studies examine complementarity (vs. mimicry) of dominant and submissive nonverbal behaviors. In the first study, participants interacted with a confederate who displayed either dominance (through postural expansion) or submission (through postural constriction). On average. participants exposed to a dominant confederate decreased their postural stance, whereas participants exposed to a submissive confederate increased their stance. Further, participants with complementing response,, (dominance in response to submission and submission in response to dominance) liked their partner more and were more comfortable than those who mimicked. In the second study, complementarity and mimicry were manipulated, and complementarity resulted in more liking and comfort than mimicry. The findings speak to the likelihood of hierarchical differentiation.
Article
This book sets forth a provocative agenda for the scientific study of human personality. Blending no-nonsense empiricism with the humanistic desire to understand the whole person, the book is as relevant today as it was to its many readers seventy years ago. The book sets forth a full theory of human personality, illustrated with a bevy of creative methods for personality assessment, and presenting the results of a landmark study of fifty Harvard men. The book is one of the great classics in 20th-century psychology.