ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Research in which people compare themselves with an average peer has consistently shown that people evaluate themselves more favorably than they evaluate others. Seven studies were conducted to demonstrate that the magnitude of this better-than-average effect depends on the level of abstraction in the comparison. These studies showed that people were less biased when they compared themselves with an individuated target than when they compared themselves with a nonindividuated target, namely, the average college student. The better-than-average effect was reduced more when the observer had personal contact with the comparison target than when no personal contact was established. Differences in the magnitude of the better-than-average effect could not be attributed to the contemporaneous nature of the target's presentation, communication from the target, perceptual vividness, implied evaluation, or perceptions of similarity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
... This positive illusion is widely found in trait ratings (Alicke, 1985;Brown, 2012;Dunning et al., 1989), skill perceptions (e.g., Svenson, 1981), and perceptions of risk of misfortune (Perloff & Fetzer, 1986). Furthermore, the effect is not only found in comparison with an average, abstract person but also in comparison with friends (Brown, 1986;Perloff & Fetzer, 1986) and vivid, real, and specific persons (Alicke et al., 1995). There are various explanations for the positive misperception between the self and others. ...
... In Study 3b, we manipulated the decision maker's self-evaluation. Studies have found that individuals possess a positive view of the self, such as positive attributes and favourable beliefs about oneself (e.g., Alicke et al., 1995). Ma and Han (2010) suggested that the paradigm of self-concept threat priming (SCT) is an efficient way to weaken the implicit positive association with the self. ...
... Our findings suggest that individuals prefer the absolutely superior but comparatively inferior option when making decisions for themselves but are less likely to choose it when they make decisions for others. This is because individuals overestimate themselves (Alicke et al., 1995;Brown, 2012). In daily life, agents are usually more skilled professionals, such as doctors, financial advisers, and management consultants. ...
Article
Full-text available
When individuals are given a choice between an outcome that is comparatively superior but absolutely inferior (your salary is $5,000; others’ salaries are $4,000), and an outcome that is absolutely superior but comparatively inferior (your salary is $6,000; others’ salaries are $7,000), what would they choose for themselves or for others? The present study aims to explore the impact of decision targets (self vs. other) on a decision involving a tradeoff between a better absolute outcome and an outcome with a more favourable interpersonal comparison. Across six studies (n = 927, including two preregistered studies), we consistently found that the absolutely superior option with low relative standing was more preferable when deciding for oneself than for others. Furthermore, evaluation of the target was identified as the underlying mechanism. Compared with making decisions for others, individuals who made decisions for themselves had a higher preference for the absolutely superior option because they have a higher evaluation for the self than for others.
... Moreover, previous evidence has suggested that the self-positivity bias does not necessarily lead to negative evaluation of others (Fields et al., 2019;Xia et al., 2021). In fact, healthy human beings generally view others positively, albeit with viewing themselves even more positively (Alicke, Klotz, Breitenbecher, Yurak & Vredenburg, 1995). In any case, it seems unlikely that participants here would have any motivation to view others negatively, given that the task did not require any comparison between self and others. ...
Article
Previous research has shown that using foreign languages reduces cognitive biases. Here, we investigate whether this foreign-language effect extends to self-related cognition – in particular, the self-positivity bias, which refers to automatic association of oneself with positive information and has a facilitation role in maintaining mental health. We applied event-related brain potentials and oscillations in the implicit association test where Chinese–English bilinguals responded to category words (self vs. others) and attribute words (positive vs. negative) in either their native language Chinese or their foreign language English. In response to Chinese words, a self-positivity bias occurred, indexed by a positive D -score in reaction times as well as by smaller N200, larger P3-like/LPC responses, and lower alpha desynchronization when self words were associated with positive relative to negative traits. However, the bias was diminished in the English context. Overall, our findings provide important implications for language choices when self-protective mechanisms should be enhanced.
Chapter
Dishonesty can be broadly defined as any behavior that violates what most people deem acceptable or that breaks the rules. While initially confined to clear violations, such as cheating and stealing, research now also considers lack of reciprocity, failure to restrict energy consumption, and exploiting loopholes as dishonest behaviors. Given the breadth of these behaviors, scholars from psychology and neighboring fields have developed novel theoretical and empirical approaches to understand what drives good people to do bad things, and what can be done about it. This entry is not limited to a review of this literature. Rather, it discusses some of the processes in which dishonesty can make “the impossible possible,” such as bending the rules while feeling honest, unconsciously lying to ourselves, seeing reality in self-serving ways, and even promoting creativity. It will conclude with the discussion of some current research on how dishonesty can be curbed in real-life settings.
Article
People report themselves to be above average on simple tasks and below average on difficult tasks.This paper proposes an explanation for this effect that is simpler than prior explanations. The new explanation is that people conflate relative with absolute evaluation, especially on subjective measures.The paper then presents a series of four studies that test this conflation explanation.These tests distinguish conflation from other explanations, such as differential weighting and selecting the wrong referent.The results suggest that conflation occurs at the response stage during which people attempt to disambiguate subjective response scales in order to choose an answer.This is because conflation has little effect on objective measures, which would be equally affected if the conflation occurred at encoding.
Article
Full-text available
Los estudiantes de nivel universitario requieren un desarrollo integral que involucre diversas áreas cómo son el manejar competencias blandas, dominar el trabajo en equipo, tener capacidad de asimilar errores y trascender. Para ello se requiere que se encuentren apoyados por instructores o maestros que cuenten con una importante vocación y ética docente. El objetivo de esta investigación es encontrar cuáles son las capacidades que apoyan el desarrollo integral de los jóvenes universitarios. Mediante una investigación documental, la determinación de un cuestionario y una prueba piloto se diseñó un instrumento de investigación validado y confiable que permitió investigar a una muestra censal consistente en 137 profesores de la Facultad de comercio y administración de Tampico y los resultados encontraron en los valores beta con un 0.303 de los aspectos personales, 0.084 de los aspectos psicológicos y el 0.227 de la cultura de los docentes influyen positivamente en el desarrollo integral del alumno. Mientras que los aspectos legales tienen una beta negativa de -0.146 lo que parece indicar la ausencia de justicia en la sociedad actual.
Article
Full-text available
Overconfidence has undertaken an indispensable role in the psychology of managers and places important significance on managers’ behavior and decision-making. This study investigates the effect of Fintech on the psychological traits of managers from the perspective of overconfidence based on the panel data of Chinese A-share non-financial listed firms and the digital inclusive finance index of Chinese prefecture-level cities between 2011 and 2020. The empirical results show that (1) Fintech exerts a negative effect on manager overconfidence; (2) the main channels of the negative effect of Fintech on manager overconfidence include Fintech coverage breadth and Fintech usage depth; (3) for firms with severe financing constraints and lower power concentration, the negative effect of Fintech on manager overconfidence is more prominent; and (4) our benchmark results still hold after a series of robust tests, including IV regression, altering the measurement of Fintech and manager overconfidence, and employing logit model re-estimation. Based on the above findings, this study provides some insights into the cause for managers’ psychological traits, maintaining managers’ mental health, and empowering the firms’ sustainable development by adopting Fintech.
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
People tend to be unable to evaluate themselves accurately in many areas. One such area is their own and others’ morality. The current research explores the self–other moral valuation difference in the context of moral foundation theory. We propose that people generally have a moral positive illusion. Specifically, people overestimate their own morality and underestimate the morality of others. Two studies provide converging evidence that individuals underestimate the average moral valuations of others on the five dimensions of moral foundation theory. In particular, we demonstrate three moderators for moral positive illusion: moral foundation type, gender, and political identity. Specifically, compared with the binding foundations, people have greater moral positive illusions based on the individualizing foundations; compared to men, women have greater moral positive illusions; and compared with liberals, conservatives have greater moral positive illusions based on the binding foundations.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose-This study aims to propose and test a model explicating the antecedents and consequences of knowledge sabotage. Design/methodology/approach-Data obtained from 330 employees working in the Turkish retail and telecommunication sectors were analyzed by means of the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling technique. Findings-Co-worker knowledge sabotage is the key factor driving knowledge sabotage behavior of individual employees, followed by co-worker incivility. Interactional justice suppresses individual knowledge sabotage, while supervisor incivility does not affect it. Co-worker knowledge sabotage reduces job satisfaction of other employees, which, in turn, triggers their voluntary turnover intention. Contrary to a popular belief that perpetrators generally benefit from their organizational misbehavior, the findings indicate that knowledge saboteurs suffer from the consequences of their action because they find it mentally difficult to stay in their current organization. Employees understate their own knowledge sabotage engagement and/or overstate that of others. Practical implications-Managers should realize that interactional justice is an important mechanism that can thwart knowledge sabotage behavior, promote a civil organizational culture, develop proactive approaches to reduce co-worker incivility and strive towards a zero rate of knowledge sabotage incidents in their organizations. Co-worker incivility and co-worker knowledge sabotage in the workplace are possible inhibitors of intraorganizational knowledge flows and are starting points for job dissatisfaction, which may increase workers' turnover intention. Originality/value-This study is among the first to further our knowledge on the cognitive mechanisms linking interactional justice and uncivil organizational behavior with knowledge sabotage and employee outcomes.
Article
Full-text available
Background People deceive online. There is, however, mixed evidence about whether people present themselves falsely on Facebook. We investigated to what extent people present their true selves on Facebook. As generally, people estimate their own behavior as ‘less evil’ than the behaviors of others, we also assessed people’s estimations of whether other people present their true selves on Facebook. Methods In two studies (n=94, n=189), participants filled in a survey asking them to report how frequently and intensely they falsely present themselves on Facebook and in which ways. They were also asked to estimate this for other Facebook users. Results The results showed that the majority of participants were not always honest on Facebook regarding their personality, unbeneficial information, and emotional state. A minority of participants provided false information in comments. We also obtained the ‘less deceptive than thou’ effect: Participants estimated that others more frequently and intensively engage in deception. Conclusion The current research has led to new findings showing that the majority of the participants engage in deceptive self-presentational behavior and estimate others to be more deceptive than they are.
Article
Full-text available
Past research suggests that people believe that they perform socially desirable behaviors more frequently and socially undesirable behaviors less frequently than others (Goethals, 1986; Messick, Bloom, Boldizar, & Samuelson, 1985). The present research examined whether this perception also characterizes people's thinking about intelligent and unintelligent behaviors. In Study 1, subjects wrote lists of behaviors that they or others did. Subjects indicated that they performed more good and intelligent behaviors and fewer bad and unintelligent behaviors than others, although the magnitude of these differences was greater for good and bad acts than for intelligent and unintelligent ones. In Study 2, a different group of subjects judged the frequency with which the behaviors generated in the first study occur. While self-ascribed good behaviors were rated as occurring more frequently than the good acts of others, self-ascribed intelligent behaviors were not judged as more frequent than the intelligent acts of...
Article
Full-text available
164 undergraduates rated the degree to which various traits represented desirable characteristics and the degree to which it was possible for a person to exert control over each of these characteristics. From these initial ratings, 154 trait adjectives for which 4 levels of desirability were crossed with 2 levels of controllability were selected. 88 undergraduates then rated the degree to which each of these traits characterized the self and the average college student. Results support the prediction that self-ratings in relation to average college student ratings would be increasingly positive as traits increased in desirability and that in conditions of high desirability, self-ratings in relation to average college student ratings would be greater for high- than for low-controllable traits, whereas in conditions of low desirability the opposite would occur. Results are discussed in terms of the adaptive advantages of maintaining a global self-concept that implies that positive characteristics are under personal control and that negative characteristics are caused by factors outside of personal control. Mean preratings of desirability and controllability are appended. (29 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
Full-text available
EXPERIMENTS HAVE SHOWN THAT THE PRESENCE OF AN AUDIENCE AFFECTS INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE BY ENHANCING THE EMISSION OF DOMINANT RESPONSES. EVALUATED THE PROPOSAL THAT THE MERE PRESENCE OF OTHER PERSONS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR AUDIENCE EFFECTS. 45 STUDENTS PERFORMED A PSEUDORECOGNITION TASK; 15 PERFORMED THE TASK ALONE, 15 BEFORE AN AUDIENCE OF 2 PASSIVE SPECTATORS, AND 15 BEFORE 2 NONSPECTATORS. THE TASK PLACED PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED VERBAL HABITS IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER. THE PRESENCE OF AN AUDIENCE ENHANCED THE EMISSION OF DOMINANT RESPONSES, BUT THE MERE PRESENCE OF OTHERS DID NOT.
Article
Full-text available
The relative and combined influences of faces and bodies on judgments of physical attractiveness were assessed in a factorial design crossing 3 levels (high, moderate, and low) of face and body attractiveness. Based on preratings, 3 sets of slides were created that super imposed faces onto bodies. A second sample of subjects then rated these 27 slides (3 faces X 3 bodies X 3 sets) on physical attractiveness, intelligence, sociability, and morality. Strong effects of both face and body on attractiveness ratings were obtained. In addition, a significant interaction was obtained between faces and bodies on ratings of physical attractiveness. Faces significantly influenced ratings of intelligence, sociability, and morality, whereas bodies had a significant effect on ratings of intelligence and sociability.
Chapter
It is tempting to draw a sharp line of demarcation between the private and public sides of the self. The private self has been afforded a prestigious status within psychology. It is usually regarded as both a structure, containing the organized, relatively stable contents of one’s personal experiences, and an active process that guides and regulates one’s thoughts, feelings, and actions. It is the core of one’s inner being: basic, enduring, distinctive, genuine, and a worthy subject for examination by psychologists.
Article
Three investigations are reported that examined the relation between self-appraisals and appraisals of others. In Experiment 1, subjects rated a series of valenced trait adjectives according to how well the traits described the self and others. Individuals displayed a pronounced “self-other bias,” such that positive attributes were rated as more descriptive of self than of others, whereas negative attributes were rated as less descriptive of self than of others. Furthermore, in contrast to C. R. Rogers's (1951) assertion that high self-esteem is associated with a comparable regard for others, the tendency for individuals to evaluate the self in more favorable terms than they evaluated people in general was particularly pronounced among those with high self-esteem. These findings were replicated and extended in Experiment 2, where it also was found that self-evaluations were more favorable than were evaluations of a friend and that individuals with high self-esteem were most likely to appraise their friend...
Article
A theory of victims' responses to their victimization, termed Selective Evaluation, is proposed. It is maintained that the perception that one is a victim and the belief that others perceive one as a victim are aversive. Victims react to this aversive state by selectively evaluating themselves and their situation in ways that are self-enhancing. Five mechanisms of selective evaluation that minimize victimization are proposed and discussed: making social comparisons with less fortunate others (i.e., downward comparison); selectively focusing on attributes that make one appear advantaged; creating hypothetical, worse worlds; construing benefit from the victimizing event; and manufacturing normative standards of adjustment that make one's own adjustment appear exceptional. The theory is integrated with the existing literature on victimization, and possible functions of selective evaluation are discussed.
Article
People tend to expect misfortunes to happen to others, not to themselves. College students (n = 76) who compared their own chances of experiencing 6 negative events with the chances of their classmates were optimistically biased (p < .001). Treatments were designed to manipulate 2 cognitive. factors-lack of information about others' risk-reducing factors and failure to think carefully about others-that might cause these biases. The Information treatment. forced subjects to think about others by providing detailed information about 5 other students. The Perspective treatment used a role-playing procedure to, force subjects to think about another student, but did not provide actual information. When repeating their comparative risk judgments for the same events, both Information and Perspective groups were significantly less optimistic than a control condition, but they did not differ from one another. The results support the hypothesis that egocentrism contributes to unrealistic optimism. They, suggest that optimistic biases do not result so much from a lack of information about other people as from a failure to think carefully about others' circumstances.