PreprintPDF Available

Abstract and Figures

People tend to regard themselves as better than average. We conducted a replication and ‎extension of Alicke's (1985) classic study on trait dimensions in evaluations of self versus ‎others with U.S. American MTurk workers in two waves (total N = 1573; 149 total traits). ‎We successfully replicated the trait desirability effect, such that participants rated more ‎desirable traits as being more descriptive of themselves than of others (original: ηp2 = .78, ‎‎95% CI [.73, .81]; replication: sr2 = .54, 95% CI [.43, .65]). The effect of desirability was ‎stronger for more controllable traits (effect of desirability X controllability interaction on ‎self-other ratings difference, original: ηp2 = .21, 95% CI [.12, .28]; replication: sr2 = .07, ‎‎95% CI [.02, .12]). In an extension, we found that desirable traits were rated as more ‎common for others, but not for the self. Thirty-five years later, the better-than-average ‎effect appears to remain robust.‎
Content may be subject to copyright.
Replication and Extension of Alicke (1985) Better-Than-Average Effect
for Desirable and Controllable Traits
*Ignazio Ziano
Department of Marketing, Grenoble Ecole de Management,
Univ Grenoble Alpes ComUE
ignazio.ziano@grenoble-em.com
* Pui Yan (Cora) Mok
Department of Psychology, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR
coramok@gmail.com
^*Gilad Feldman
Department of Psychology, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR
gfeldman@hku.hk / giladfel@gmail.com
*Contributed equally, joint first author
^Corresponding author
Word: abstract [149], manuscript - [4870] (excluding tables/figures)
Corresponding author
Gilad Feldman, Department of Psychology, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR;
gfeldman@hku.hk
Author bios:
Gilad Feldman is an assistant professor with the University of Hong Kong psychology
department. His research focuses on judgment and decision-making.
Ignazio Ziano is an assistant professor at the Department of Marketing, Grenoble Ecole de
Management, Univ Grenoble Alpes ComUE. His research focuses on consumer behaviour and
judgment and decision-making.
Mok Pui Yan (Cora) was a guided thesis master’s student working under the supervision of
Gilad Feldman at the University of Hong Kong in the academic year 2018-2019.
Declaration of Conflict of Interest:
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or
publication of this article.
Financial disclosure/funding:
The research was supported by the European Association for Social Psychology seedcorn grant
awarded to the corresponding author.
Authorship declaration:
Cora conducted this project for her master's thesis. She initiated and designed the studies, wrote
the pre-registration, ran the initial analyses, and wrote the initial draft as her master’s thesis.
Gilad was the advisor, supervised each step in the project, conducted the pre-registrations, and
ran data collections. Ignazio followed up on initial work by Cora and Gilad to verify analyses
and conclusions, and completed the manuscript submission draft. Ignazio and Gilad jointly
finalized the manuscript for submission and handled revisions.
In the table below, we employ CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) to identify the
contribution and roles played by the contributors in the current replication effort. Please refer to
the url (https://www.casrai.org/credit.html ) on details and definitions of each of the roles listed
below.
Role
Ignazio
Ziano
Pui Yan (Cora)
Mok
Gilad
Feldman
Conceptualization
X
X
Pre-registration
X
Data curation
X
Formal analysis
X
X
Funding acquisition
X
Investigation
X
X
X
Methodology
X
X
Pre-registration peer
review / verification
X
X
Data analysis peer
review / verification
X
X
Project administration
X
Resources
X
Supervision
X
Validation
X
X
Visualization
X
X
Writing-original draft
X
X
Writing-review and
editing
X
X
Replication Hypotheses
1
The difference between evaluation of self and others is higher as traits increase in
desirability.
2
Among high desirable traits, self-ratings are higher than other-ratings for high
controllable traits than for low-controllable traits, whereas among low-desirable
traits, self-ratings are higher than other-ratings for low-controllable traits than for
high-controllable traits.
Extension Hypothesis
3
For ratings of others, trait desirability is positively associated with trait
commonness. For ratings of self, trait desirability is negatively associated with
trait commonness.
1
1
Design Facet
Replication
Independent variable operationalization
Same
Dependent variable operationalization
Same
Independent variable stimuli
Same
Dependent variable stimuli
Same
Procedural details
Different
Physical settings
Different
Contextual variables
Different
Replication and extension of Alicke (1985) 13
Table 3
Means, standard deviations, and correlations with confidence intervals
Variable
M
SD
Desirability
Controllability
Commonness
Self-ratings
Other-ratings
Desirability
3.73
1.78
Controllability
4.86
0.81
.03
[-.13, .19]
Commonness
4.07
0.54
.64**
.22**
[.54, .73]
[.06, .37]
Self-ratings
3.73
1.28
.92**
.04
.61**
[.89, .94]
[-.12, .20]
[.50, .70]
Other-ratings
3.97
0.58
.61**
.14
.92**
.55**
[.50, .70]
[-.02, .30]
[.89, .94]
[.42, .65]
Self-minus-other
ratings
-0.24
1.08
.77**
-.03
.23**
.89**
.11
[.69, .82]
[-.19, .13]
[.07, .37]
[.86, .92]
[-.05, .27]
Note. M and SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. Values in square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval
for each correlation. * indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01. Analyses were conducted on an item level. Ratings of desirability and
controllability were collected in the first sample, and those of commonness, self-ratings, and other-ratings were collected in the second sample.
Self-minus-other represents self-ratings deducted by other-ratings.
Desirability
(N = 149)
Controllability
(N = 149)
Commonness
(N = 149)
Self
(N = 149)
Other
(N = 149)
Traits
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
Intelligent
6.41 (1.02)
4.01 (1.81)
4.57 (1.24)
5.39 (1.35)
4.55 (1.16)
Reliable
6.40 (1.01)
5.93 (1.13)
4.76 (1.31)
5.90 (1.08)
4.57 (1.09)
Loyal
6.33 (1.00)
5.69 (1.42)
4.84 (1.20)
5.93 (1.34)
4.73 (1.10)
Attractive
6.33 (0.97)
3.35 (1.62)
4.32 (1.19)
4.31 (1.39)
4.35 (1.08)
Responsible
6.31 (1.16)
5.82 (1.32)
4.65 (1.20)
5.74 (1.26)
4.67 (1.31)
Resourceful
6.27 (1.01)
5.13 (1.49)
4.8 (1.14)
5.48 (1.12)
4.81 (1.43)
Kind
6.26 (1.08)
5.72 (1.40)
4.8 (1.20)
5.56 (1.19)
4.53 (1.14)
Sincere
6.2 (1.01)
5.33 (1.62)
4.59 (1.14)
5.76 (1.09)
4.51 (1.17)
Friendly
6.16 (1.01)
5.88 (1.19)
4.75 (1.16)
5.51 (1.18)
4.89 (1.35)
Dependable
6.15 (1.33)
5.64 (1.32)
4.78 (1.28)
5.85 (1.27)
4.62 (1.11)
Respectful
6.15 (1.03)
5.97 (1.10)
4.37 (1.37)
5.85 (0.98)
4.15 (1.41)
Admirable
6.12 (1.03)
4.8 (1.68)
4.29 (1.26)
4.38 (1.45)
4.44 (1.36)
Wise
6.09 (1.25)
3.73 (1.62)
4.08 (1.25)
4.85 (1.44)
3.89 (1.34)
Good-tempered
6.09 (1.13)
4.89 (1.70)
4.67 (1.27)
5.10 (1.37)
4.52 (1.28)
Interesting
6.09 (0.97)
4.08 (1.67)
4.37 (1.21)
4.78 (1.34)
4.83 (1.3)
Bright
6.07 (1.00)
4.06 (1.81)
4.45 (1.23)
5.60 (1.21)
4.45 (1.23)
Honorable
6.04 (1.13)
5.30 (1.74)
4.38 (1.28)
5.32 (1.39)
4.49 (1.32)
Clear-headed
6.02 (1.23)
4.58 (1.52)
4.23 (1.28)
5.03 (1.54)
4.11 (1.17)
Pleasant
6.01 (1.20)
5.46 (1.41)
5.03 (1.10)
5.49 (1.07)
4.52 (1.10)
Ethical
6.01 (1.16)
5.58 (1.49)
4.51 (1.14)
5.54 (1.40)
4.33 (1.27)
Level-headed
5.99 (1.26)
4.71 (1.59)
4.43 (1.24)
5.14 (1.51)
4.32 (1.29)
Intellectual
5.99 (1.16)
4.06 (1.79)
4.19 (1.33)
5.06 (1.17)
3.92 (1.17)
Considerate
5.98 (1.37)
5.99 (1.06)
4.28 (1.41)
5.75 (1.08)
4.47 (1.30)
Self-disciplined
5.98 (1.26)
5.59 (1.24)
4.14 (1.29)
4.70 (1.61)
3.95 (1.32)
Polite
5.98 (1.16)
6.36 (0.87)
4.56 (1.19)
5.65 (1.15)
4.12 (1.36)
Punctual
5.97 (1.04)
6.27 (1.03)
4.41 (1.31)
5.57 (1.56)
4.24 (1.31)
Table 4 (Continued)
Mean ratings and standard deviations of traits in terms of desirability, controllability and
commonness, self-ratings, and other-ratings
Desirability
(N = 149)
Controllability
(N = 149)
Commonness
(N = 149)
Self
(N = 149)
Other
(N = 149)
Traits
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
Versatile
5.95 (1.13)
4.87 (1.38)
4.71 (1.17)
4.65 (1.55)
4.55 (1.29)
Clean
5.91 (1.11)
6.20 (1.29)
4.85 (0.95)
5.47 (1.47)
4.68 (1.31)
Humorous
5.82 (1.17)
4.19 (1.54)
4.73 (1.18)
5.22 (1.41)
4.62 (1.10)
Original
5.81 (1.20)
4.02 (1.64)
4.12 (1.26)
4.80 (1.42)
3.98 (1.51)
Grateful
5.80 (1.29)
5.86 (1.34)
4.33 (1.34)
5.30 (1.50)
4.17 (1.51)
Trustful
5.77 (1.24)
5.14 (1.57)
4.78 (1.11)
5.21 (1.46)
4.24 (1.2)
Persistent
5.77 (1.17)
5.68 (1.36)
4.77 (1.23)
5.11 (1.52)
4.79 (1.28)
Lucky
5.76 (1.24)
1.85 (1.45)
4.12 (1.17)
3.43 (1.64)
4.19 (1.30)
Mature
5.71 (1.40)
4.93 (1.70)
4.26 (1.06)
5.32 (1.29)
4.00 (1.14)
Perceptive
5.71 (1.22)
4.03 (1.70)
4.31 (1.16)
5.62 (1.36)
4.27 (1.43)
Sharp-witted
5.71 (1.19)
3.77 (1.81)
4.04 (1.40)
4.92 (1.57)
4.40 (1.26)
Creative
5.64 (1.27)
3.81 (1.63)
4.45 (1.21)
4.79 (1.62)
4.31 (1.45)
Cooperative
5.63 (1.38)
6.17 (1.09)
4.83 (1.34)
5.51 (1.04)
4.57 (1.38)
Observant
5.63 (1.23)
5.42 (1.39)
4.52 (1.22)
5.61 (1.43)
4.29 (1.56)
Lively
5.61 (1.17)
4.57 (1.54)
4.97 (1.21)
4.50 (1.56)
4.91 (0.93)
Clever
5.60 (1.41)
3.89 (1.78)
4.13 (1.38)
5.29 (1.29)
4.22 (1.36)
Imaginative
5.60 (1.26)
3.71 (1.70)
4.61 (1.27)
5.17 (1.41)
4.29 (1.28)
Sportsmanlike
5.55 (1.26)
5.59 (1.47)
4.42 (1.13)
4.67 (1.86)
4.48 (1.25)
Neat
5.54 (1.09)
5.98 (1.16)
4.33 (1.14)
4.84 (1.57)
3.93 (1.28)
Normal
5.46 (1.29)
4.24 (1.58)
5.28 (1.23)
5.12 (1.54)
5.00 (1.12)
Witty
5.40 (1.35)
3.72 (1.71)
4.29 (1.20)
4.69 (1.73)
4.20 (1.31)
Well read
5.33 (1.34)
5.80 (1.35)
3.84 (1.45)
5.09 (1.51)
3.76 (1.66)
Fearless
5.26 (1.42)
3.81 (1.73)
3.86 (1.53)
3.35 (1.6)
3.99 (1.58)
Bold
5.25 (1.17)
4.79 (1.49)
4.59 (1.13)
3.72 (1.52)
4.73 (1.17)
Quick
5.08 (1.22)
3.94 (1.70)
4.26 (1.19)
4.49 (1.43)
4.31 (1.32)
Fashionable
5.04 (1.16)
5.72 (1.37)
4.46 (1.08)
3.58 (1.84)
4.01 (1.32)
Progressive
5.00 (1.28)
5.28 (1.41)
4.51 (1.25)
4.83 (1.72)
4.40 (1.22)
Ingenious
4.96 (1.79)
3.60 (1.77)
3.69 (1.51)
3.94 (1.75)
3.90 (1.49)
Table 4 (Continued)
Mean ratings and standard deviations of traits in terms of desirability, controllability and
commonness, self-ratings, and other-ratings
Desirability
(N = 149)
Controllability
(N = 149)
Commonness
(N = 149)
Self
(N = 149)
Other
(N = 149)
Traits
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
Self-satisfied
4.73 (1.57)
4.81 (1.57)
4.62 (1.38)
3.91 (1.66)
4.81 (1.27)
Thrifty
4.70 (1.37)
5.59 (1.48)
3.91 (1.48)
4.96 (1.59)
3.54 (1.36)
Philosophical
4.70 (1.34)
4.48 (1.66)
3.33 (1.45)
4.36 (1.70)
3.43 (1.50)
Prudent
4.67 (1.48)
4.91 (1.50)
4.04 (1.22)
4.38 (1.72)
4.07 (1.42)
Religious
4.62 (1.35)
5.66 (1.56)
4.73 (1.41)
3.21 (2.18)
4.43 (1.31)
Meticulous
4.59 (1.37)
5.26 (1.56)
3.77 (1.06)
4.29 (1.81)
3.70 (1.24)
Obedient
4.52 (1.44)
6.00 (1.16)
4.26 (1.22)
4.45 (1.41)
4.01 (1.44)
Authoritative
4.5 (1.44)
4.91 (1.44)
4.54 (1.21)
3.54 (1.88)
4.22 (1.37)
Changeable
4.36 (1.25)
5.30 (1.62)
4.20 (1.26)
4.04 (1.38)
4.25 (1.38)
Sensitive
4.35 (1.40)
3.92 (1.79)
4.35 (1.22)
4.96 (1.54)
4.42 (1.23)
Conforming
4.11 (1.52)
5.20 (1.41)
4.86 (1.26)
3.94 (1.52)
4.48 (1.37)
Reserved
4.10 (1.38)
4.69 (1.76)
3.72 (1.19)
4.85 (1.70)
3.27 (1.31)
Prideful
4.02 (1.88)
5.35 (1.34)
5.28 (1.21)
3.83 (1.82)
5.26 (1.21)
Impressionable
3.88 (1.69)
4.09 (1.64)
4.65 (1.16)
3.25 (1.53)
4.62 (1.26)
Extravagant
3.77 (1.64)
5.32 (1.72)
4.33 (1.44)
2.76 (1.67)
4.17 (1.46)
Softspoken
3.73 (1.40)
4.76 (1.60)
3.19 (1.31)
4.29 (1.75)
3.00 (1.15)
Cunning
3.69 (1.96)
3.90 (1.80)
3.56 (1.31)
3.13 (1.78)
3.91 (1.21)
Choosy
3.53 (1.41)
5.21 (1.32)
4.75 (1.12)
4.35 (1.75)
4.94 (1.23)
Ordinary
3.53 (1.39)
4.06 (1.69)
5.04 (1.22)
4.23 (1.79)
4.60 (1.54)
Eccentric
3.53 (1.30)
4.16 (1.66)
3.44 (1.35)
3.68 (1.91)
3.36 (1.44)
Strict
3.46 (1.43)
5.40 (1.53)
3.42 (1.22)
3.59 (1.85)
3.50 (1.25)
Self-concerned
3.45 (1.58)
5.11 (1.57)
5.08 (1.37)
4.04 (1.50)
5.14 (1.31)
Daydreamer
3.43 (1.31)
4.30 (1.81)
4.41 (1.38)
4.40 (1.78)
4.12 (1.17)
Solemn
3.37 (1.36)
4.92 (1.53)
3.53 (1.35)
3.63 (1.71)
3.23 (1.05)
Overcautious
3.01 (1.22)
4.69 (1.57)
3.83 (1.22)
4.56 (1.84)
3.37 (1.26)
Inhibited
2.94 (1.29)
4.07 (1.65)
3.52 (1.14)
3.30 (1.55)
3.16 (1.44)
Bashful
2.82 (1.44)
3.76 (1.67)
3.24 (1.33)
3.60 (1.95)
3.00 (1.30)
Melancholy
2.76 (1.62)
4.10 (1.63)
3.51 (1.13)
3.19 (1.88)
3.49 (1.30)
Table 4 (Continued)
Mean ratings and standard deviations of traits in terms of desirability, controllability and
commonness, self-ratings, and other-ratings
Desirability
(N = 149)
Controllability
(N = 149)
Commonness
(N = 149)
Self
(N = 149)
Other
(N = 149)
Traits
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
Irreligious
2.76 (1.29)
5.17 (1.73)
3.51 (1.43)
3.73 (2.32)
3.51 (1.41)
Impulsive
2.75 (1.30)
4.23 (1.71)
4.27 (1.40)
2.81 (1.50)
5.18 (1.26)
Passive
2.73 (1.29)
4.74 (1.43)
3.76 (1.31)
3.55 (1.71)
3.35 (1.39)
Hesitant
2.70 (1.35)
4.52 (1.62)
3.57 (1.14)
4.03 (1.59)
3.52 (1.27)
Meek
2.62 (1.50)
4.18 (1.72)
2.97 (1.30)
3.35 (1.81)
2.88 (1.10)
Compulsive
2.60 (1.40)
3.93 (1.76)
4.05 (1.54)
2.92 (1.69)
4.42 (1.43)
Restless
2.59 (1.35)
4.30 (1.53)
4.01 (1.52)
3.65 (1.54)
4.36 (1.49)
Boastful
2.58 (1.58)
5.52 (1.55)
4.67 (1.33)
2.33 (1.52)
4.88 (1.08)
Radical
2.51 (1.26)
4.92 (1.67)
3.41 (1.52)
2.71 (1.77)
3.18 (1.54)
Timid
2.47 (1.20)
3.72 (1.89)
3.14 (1.36)
3.52 (1.96)
2.99 (1.19)
Profane
2.42 (1.47)
5.57 (1.51)
4.19 (1.45)
2.76 (1.69)
3.84 (1.47)
Unemotional
2.42 (1.34)
3.61 (1.74)
3.04 (1.42)
2.83 (1.84)
2.55 (1.32)
Unpoised
2.26 (1.28)
4.66 (1.52)
3.68 (1.45)
3.00 (1.70)
3.65 (1.40)
Unoriginal
2.23 (1.31)
3.54 (1.55)
3.94 (1.50)
2.80 (1.70)
3.6 (1.61)
Unsophisticated
2.22 (1.27)
4.49 (1.67)
3.94 (1.43)
2.91 (1.62)
4.08 (1.39)
Discontented
2.15 (1.24)
4.93 (1.66)
4.19 (1.51)
2.76 (1.70)
3.95 (1.51)
Self-centered
2.12 (1.21)
5.28 (1.58)
5.00 (1.25)
2.78 (1.53)
4.98 (1.17)
Humorless
2.09 (1.44)
3.62 (1.87)
2.92 (1.27)
1.94 (1.38)
2.90 (1.40)
Uncultured
2.09 (1.25)
4.71 (1.68)
3.70 (1.39)
2.24 (1.32)
3.74 (1.51)
Unstudious
2.08 (1.36)
5.28 (1.70)
3.62 (1.23)
2.32 (1.48)
3.57 (1.30)
Vain
2.08 (1.17)
4.94 (1.63)
4.43 (1.44)
2.48 (1.67)
4.31 (1.50)
Unforgiving
2.07 (1.22)
5.30 (1.51)
3.62 (1.40)
2.68 (1.60)
3.58 (1.55)
Clumsy
2.02 (1.43)
3.52 (1.80)
3.38 (1.34)
3.40 (1.80)
3.17 (1.36)
Forgetful
2.00 (1.17)
3.59 (1.66)
3.81 (1.27)
3.06 (1.63)
3.76 (1.53)
Unentertaining
1.99 (1.39)
4.04 (1.48)
3.48 (1.36)
2.99 (1.70)
3.17 (1.32)
Cold
1.97 (1.20)
5.01 (1.57)
3.43 (1.33)
2.46 (1.50)
3.16 (1.43)
Withdrawn
1.97 (1.17)
4.43 (1.68)
3.01 (1.33)
3.54 (1.93)
2.93 (1.41)
Gullible
1.93 (1.22)
3.76 (1.67)
4.09 (1.33)
2.85 (1.66)
3.90 (1.48)
Table 4 (Continued)
Mean ratings and standard deviations of traits in terms of desirability, controllability and
commonness, self-ratings, and other-ratings
Desirability
(N = 149)
Controllability
(N = 149)
Commonness
(N = 149)
Self
(N = 149)
Other
(N = 149)
Traits
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
Complaining
1.92 (1.41)
5.57 (1.58)
4.65 (1.37)
3.00 (1.61)
4.54 (1.34)
Deceptive
1.91 (1.34)
5.35 (1.68)
3.66 (1.32)
2.17 (1.26)
3.56 (1.42)
Meddlesome
1.91 (1.31)
5.70 (1.35)
3.74 (1.45)
2.21 (1.33)
3.93 (1.28)
Disobedient
1.91 (1.17)
5.82 (1.39)
3.69 (1.49)
2.57 (1.57)
3.69 (1.45)
Maladjusted
1.90 (1.33)
3.86 (1.74)
3.38 (1.48)
2.22 (1.64)
3.17 (1.37)
Dissatisfied
1.90 (1.25)
4.64 (1.68)
4.38 (1.59)
3.14 (1.76)
4.18 (1.51)
Unkind
1.89 (1.32)
5.52 (1.60)
3.30 (1.28)
1.98 (1.32)
3.35 (1.51)
Insecure
1.89 (1.17)
3.75 (1.78)
3.88 (1.55)
3.65 (1.91)
4.01 (1.60)
Irrational
1.87 (1.41)
4.34 (1.74)
3.92 (1.24)
2.26 (1.44)
3.83 (1.31)
Irresponsible
1.85 (1.37)
5.48 (1.57)
3.73 (1.44)
2.32 (1.45)
3.85 (1.42)
Shallow
1.83 (1.14)
4.92 (1.64)
3.99 (1.61)
2.37 (1.59)
4.25 (1.43)
Phony
1.82 (1.41)
5.15 (1.86)
3.58 (1.48)
1.88 (1.37)
3.94 (1.55)
Rude
1.82 (1.36)
5.97 (1.38)
4.00 (1.45)
2.07 (1.45)
3.73 (1.33)
Snobbish
1.81 (1.19)
5.56 (1.61)
3.76 (1.50)
2.14 (1.47)
3.73 (1.53)
Disrespectful
1.80 (1.33)
5.83 (1.46)
3.73 (1.40)
2.02 (1.50)
3.79 (1.59)
Spiteful
1.79 (1.28)
5.14 (1.64)
3.68 (1.46)
2.38 (1.69)
3.6 (1.51)
Uncivil
1.78 (1.28)
5.59 (1.51)
3.22 (1.52)
2.12 (1.61)
3.25 (1.40)
Belligerent
1.78 (1.21)
5.38 (1.52)
3.76 (1.54)
1.98 (1.59)
3.44 (1.52)
Unpopular
1.77 (1.18)
3.46 (1.68)
3.60 (1.35)
3.07 (1.77)
3.44 (1.41)
Unskilled
1.76 (1.16)
4.98 (1.78)
3.64 (1.39)
2.39 (1.51)
3.07 (1.31)
Mean
1.74 (1.17)
5.74 (1.35)
3.53 (1.54)
2.26 (1.62)
3.48 (1.38)
Impolite
1.73 (1.00)
5.98 (1.38)
3.89 (1.42)
2.00 (1.30)
3.73 (1.50)
Unreasonable
1.71 (1.13)
4.76 (1.69)
3.82 (1.36)
1.95 (1.17)
3.63 (1.58)
Tiresome
1.71 (0.99)
4.28 (1.62)
3.67 (1.57)
2.61 (1.70)
3.57 (1.56)
Discourteous
1.70 (1.02)
5.78 (1.56)
3.78 (1.40)
1.90 (1.35)
3.84 (1.49)
Unappreciative
1.66 (1.00)
5.42 (1.75)
4.20 (1.70)
2.04 (1.41)
3.86 (1.48)
Troubled
1.66 (0.95)
3.77 (1.61)
3.92 (1.29)
2.67 (1.65)
3.87 (1.43)
Lazy
1.65 (1.24)
5.59 (1.53)
3.77 (1.43)
2.81 (1.70)
3.78 (1.47)
Table 4 (Continued)
Mean ratings and standard deviations of traits in terms of desirability, controllability and
commonness, self-ratings, and other-ratings
Desirability
(N = 149)
Controllability
(N = 149)
Commonness
(N = 149)
Self
(N = 149)
Other
(N = 149)
Traits
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
Ill-mannered
1.65 (1.18)
5.47 (1.69)
3.62 (1.55)
2.15 (1.63)
3.60 (1.60)
Jealous
1.65 (0.94)
4.57 (1.69)
4.28 (1.41)
2.62 (1.56)
3.79 (1.40)
Unpleasant
1.62 (1.18)
5.24 (1.55)
3.44 (1.30)
2.02 (1.36)
3.34 (1.48)
Hostile
1.59 (1.12)
5.35 (1.40)
3.48 (1.57)
1.84 (1.25)
3.28 (1.53)
Deceitful
1.58 (1.02)
5.51 (1.67)
3.70 (1.38)
1.86 (1.37)
3.16 (1.37)
Unethical
1.57 (1.09)
5.43 (1.54)
3.52 (1.57)
1.65 (1.08)
3.41 (1.49)
Liar
1.57 (1.07)
5.98 (1.44)
3.89 (1.68)
2.05 (1.43)
3.33 (1.36)
Dishonorable
1.55 (1.16)
5.22 (1.89)
3.04 (1.50)
1.90 (1.64)
2.88 (1.51)
Unpleasing
1.54 (0.84)
4.49 (1.65)
3.27 (1.22)
2.37 (1.60)
2.89 (1.31)
Incompetent
1.53 (1.26)
4.40 (1.77)
3.30 (1.33)
1.85 (1.37)
3.17 (1.39)
Dishonest
1.53 (1.08)
5.43 (1.67)
3.42 (1.38)
2.05 (1.37)
3.59 (1.27)
Replication and extension of Alicke (1985) 22
Table 5
Regression results using self-minus-other ratings as the dependent variable, desirability and controllability as the independent variables
Predictor
b
b
95% CI
[LL, UL]
beta
beta
95% CI
[LL, UL]
sr2
sr2
95% CI
[LL, UL]
Fit
Difference
(Intercept)
-0.24***
[-0.36, -0.13]
Desirability
0.46***
[0.40, 0.53]
0.77
[0.66, 0.87]
.59
[.49, .69]
R2 = .59***
Controllability
-0.07
[-0.21, 0.07]
-0.05
[-0.16, 0.05]
.00
[-.01, .01]
95% CI [.48,.66]
(Intercept)
-0.25***
[-0.36, -0.15]
R2 = .66***
ΔR2 = .07***
Desirability
0.45***
[0.39, 0.51]
0.74
[0.64, 0.84]
.54
[.43, .65]
95% CI [.56,.71]
F(3, 145) = 91.84***
95% CI [.02, .12]
ΔF(1, 145) = 28.17***
Controllability
-0.15*
[-0.28, -0.02]
-0.11
[-0.21, -0.01]
.01
[-.01, .03]
Interaction
0.19***
[0.12, 0.26]
0.27
[0.17, 0.37]
.07
[.02, .12]
Note. A significant b-weight indicates the beta-weight and semi-partial correlation are also significant. b represents unstandardized regression
weights. beta indicates the standardized regression weights. sr2 represents the semi-partial correlation squared. r represents the zero-order
correlation. LL and UL indicate the lower and upper limits of a confidence interval, respectively.
* indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01. *** indicates p < .001
Replication and extension of Alicke (1985) 25
Table 6
Comparison of effect sizes between the original article and replication, with the self- minus-other ratings difference as dependent variable
Original Article
Replication
NHST Summary
Replication Summary
ηp2
f
B
beta
sr2
Desirability
.78
[.73, .81]
1.88
[1.66, 2.06]
0.45
[0.39, 0.51]
0.74
[.64, .38]
.54
[.43, .65]
Supported
Consistent in direction;
strong effect
Controllability
.06
[.002, .18]
.26
[0.04, 0.47]
-0.15
[-0.28, -0.02]
-0.11
[-0.21, -0.03]
.01
[-.01, .03]
Supported
Inconsistent in direction;
inconclusive finding
Desirability controllability
.21
[.12, .28]
.52
[ 0.37, 0.62]
0.19
[0.12, 0.26]
0.27
[0.17, 0.37]
.07
[.02, .12]
Supported
Consistent in direction;
weak effect
Desirability controllability*
.15
[.04, .28]
.42
[0.2, 0.62]
Desirability perspective
.59
[.52, .65]
1.21
[1.04, 1.35]
Perspective desirability
controllability
.23
[.14, .31]
.55
[0.40, 0.66]
Note. Values in square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval. b represents unstandardized regression weights. beta indicates the
standardized regression weights. sr2 represents the semi-partial correlation squared. * indicates that the original article revised categorization of
desirability at high, neutral-high, neutral-low, low level. Since this analysis is performed with the self- minus-other ratings as dependent
variable, we did not include effects of the desirability x perspective and the perspective desirability controllability interactions.
Reported statistics
Calculated effect sizes
F
df
p
ηp2
f
Desirability
306.80
3, 261
< .0001
.78
[.73, .81]
1.88
[1.66, 2.06]
Controllability
5.93
1, 87
< .02
.06
[.002, .18]
.26
[0.04, 0.47]
Desirability controllability
22.72
3, 261
< .0001
.21
[.12, .28]
.52
[0.37, 0.62]
Desirability controllability
14.87
1, 87
< .0005
.15
[.04, .28]
.42
[0.2, 0.62]
Desirability perspective
126.74
3, 261
< .0001
.59
[.52, .65]
1.21
[1.04, 1.35]
Perspective desirability
controllability
25.90
3, 261
< .0001
.23
[.14, .31]
.55
[0.40, 0.66]
Level of desirability
Level of control
High
Moderate-high
Moderate-low
Low
Ratings of self
High
5.72 (0.57)
4.60 (0.79)
3.40 (0.73)
2.23 (0.73)
Low
5.37 (0.66)
4.60 (0.54)
3.21 (0.74)
2.59 (0.69)
Ratings of average college student
High
4.69 (0.72)
4.44 (0.72)
3.74 (0.61)
3.26 (0.83)
Low
4.87 (0.74)
4.27 (0.47)
3.40 (0.55)
3.40 (0.78)
Ratings of self minus average college student
High
1.03
0.16
-0.34
-1.03
Low
0.50
0.33
-0.19
-0.81
Effect sizes
NHST Summary
b
beta
sr2
Desirability
0.16
[0.06, 0.26]
0.53
[0.21, 0.85]
.04
[-.01, .09]
Supported
Self-ratings
0.05
[-0.09, 0.18]
0.11
[-0.21, 0.43]
.00
[-.01, .01]
Not supported
Desirability self-ratings
0.01
[-0.03, 0.05]
0.03
[-0.10, 0.16]
.00
[-.01, .01]
Not supported
Desirability
0.04
[0.01, 0.06]
0.12
[0.04, 0.20]
.01
[-.00, .02]
Supported
Other ratings
0.80
[0.72, 0.87]
0.86
[0.77, 0.94]
.41
[.31, .52]
Supported
Desirability other ratings
0.02
[-0.02, 0.07]
0.03
[-0.03, 0.10]
.00
[-.00, .00]
Not supported
Study
Alicke (1985)
Replication
Sample
Initial
Final
Initial
Final
n
80 (desirability)
/ 84
(controllability)
88 (self) /
88 (other)
341 (desirability)
/ 329
(controllability)
300 (self) /
306 (other) /
297
(commonness)
% Female
57.9
58.0
47.2
54.4
Age M
(Years)
Unreported
Unreported
39.12
39.34
Age SD
(Years)
Unreported
Unreported
12.01
12.42
Hypothesis 1 (Replication)
IV 1:
Desirability
IV 2 Condition 1:
Self-perspective
DV:
Title: Self-minus-other ratings of the traits
Specific DV item: Rate to which degree each trait characterizes
you/the average American on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all
characteristic; 7 = very characteristic).
IV 2 Condition 2:
Other perspective
Hypothesis 2 (Replication)
IV 1:
Desirability
IV 2:
Controllability
IV 3 Condition 1:
Self-perspective
DV:
Title: Self-minus-other ratings of the traits
Specific DV item: Rate to which degree each trait characterizes
you/the average American on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all
characteristic; 7 = very characteristic).
IV 3 Condition 2:
Other perspective
Hypothesis 3 (Extension)
IV 1:
Desirability
IV 2 Condition 1:
Self-perspective
DV:
Title: Commonness ratings of the traits
Specific DV item: Rate to which degree each trait is common
among the average Americans on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all
common; 7 = very common).
IV 2 Condition 2:
Other perspective
Replication and extension of Alicke (1985): Supplementary 13
Table S7. Regression results using commonness as the dependent variable, desirability and self-ratings as the independent variables
Predictor
b
b
95% CI
[LL, UL]
beta
beta
95% CI
[LL, UL]
sr2
sr2
95% CI
[LL, UL]
Fit
Difference
(Intercept)
4.07***
[4.00, 4.13]
R2 = .42***
Desirability
0.16**
[0.07, 0.26]
0.54
[0.22, 0.86]
.04
[-.01, .10]
95% CI [.29,.51]
F(2, 146) = 51.88***
Self-ratings
0.05
[-0.09, 0.18]
0.11
[-0.21, 0.43]
.00
[-.01, .01]
(Intercept)
4.05***
[3.93, 4.16]
Desirability
0.16**
[0.06, 0.26]
0.53
[0.21, 0.85]
.04
[-.01, .09]
R2 = .42***
ΔR2 = .001
Self-ratings
0.05
[-0.09, 0.18]
0.11
[-0.21, 0.43]
.00
[-.01, .01]
95% CI [.29, .51]
F(3, 145) = 34.48***
95% CI [-.01, .01]
ΔF(1, 145) = 0.22
Interaction
0.01
[-0.03, 0.05]
0.03
[-0.10, 0.16]
.00
[-.01, .01]
Note. A significant b-weight indicates the beta-weight and semi-partial correlation are also significant. b represents unstandardized regression
weights. beta indicates the standardized regression weights. sr2 represents the semi-partial correlation squared. r represents the zero-order
correlation. LL and UL indicate the lower and upper limits of a confidence interval, respectively.
* indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01. *** indicates p < .001.
Replication and extension of Alicke (1985): Supplementary 14
Table S8. Regression results using commonness as the dependent variable, desirability and other-ratings as the independent variables
Predictor
b
b
95% CI
[LL, UL]
beta
beta
95% CI
[LL, UL]
sr2
sr2
95% CI
[LL, UL]
Fit
Difference
(Intercept)
4.07***
[4.03, 4.10]
R2 = .86***
Desirability
0.04**
[0.02, 0.06]
0.13
[0.05, 0.21]
.01
[-.00, .02]
95% CI [.82,.89]
Other ratings
0.79***
[0.71, 0.86]
0.84
[0.77, 0.92]
.45
[.34, .56]
F(2, 146) = 451***
(Intercept)
4.05***
[4.01, 4.10]
R2 = .86***
ΔR2 = .001
Desirability
0.04**
[0.01, 0.06]
0.12
[0.04, 0.20]
.01
[-.00, .02]
95% CI [.82,.89]
F(3, 145) = 300.8***
95% CI [-.00, .00]
ΔF(1, 145) = 0.92
Other ratings
0.80***
[0.72, 0.87]
0.86
[0.77, 0.94]
.41
[.31, .52]
Interaction
0.02
[-0.02, 0.07]
0.03
[-0.03, 0.10]
.00
[-.00, .00]
Note. A significant b-weight indicates the beta-weight and semi-partial correlation are also significant. b represents unstandardized regression
weights. beta indicates the standardized regression weights. sr2 represents the semi-partial correlation squared. r represents the zero-order
correlation. LL and UL indicate the lower and upper limits of a confidence interval, respectively.
* indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01. *** indicates p <. 001
Controllability
b
p
95% CI
One SD below mean***
0.29
< .001
[.21, .38]
One SD above mean***
0.60
< .001
[.52, .68]
Revised Conditions
Mean Pre-rating
Mean Difference
Neutral-high D, high C
4.84
0.53
Neutral-high D, low C
5.06
0.32
Neutral-low D, high C
3.89
-0.17
Neutral-low D, low C
3.88
0.22
Item
Explanation
Original Article
Replication Study
Instructions
Participants in the first-wave sample were
asked them to judge to what extent the
traits were desirable or controllable.
Definitions of desirable and controllable
were given (see Procedures in Section 3 for
details).
Same instructions
Measures/
Stimulus
362 traits
149 traits (The article reported using 154
traits (Alicke, 1985, p. 1624) but the
appendix listed only 149 traits.)
Paper-and-pencil survey
One booklet (either desirability or
controllability)
Sheets in randomized order (37 traits
on each)
Non-randomized choices
Online Qualtrics survey
Randomized, evenly presented blocks
for desirability and controllability
36-40 traits in total
Added 2 attention checks for each
condition
Added 3 comprehension questions for
each condition
7-point bipolar scale (1 = not at all
desirable or controllable, 7 = very
characteristic of desirable or controllable)
Same scale
Procedure
Between-subjects design
Same design
Participants rated all traits on either
desirability or controllability
Participants were randomly assigned to rate
40 traits either desirability or
controllability
Location
In groups (18 to 29 subjects); location
unreported
Alone; online
Remuneration
Unreported
Participants received 0.5 USD for a task
estimated at 4 minutes, which is
commensurate with the federal minimum
hourly wage of 7.25 USD.
Participant
Population
Introductory psychology students at
University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, North Carolina
Americans recruited via Amazon
Mechanical Turk (MTurk)
Item
Explanation
Original Article
Replication Study
Instructions
Participants in the second-wave sample
received the first booklet of traits for one
perspective and were asked to rate to which
degree the traits characterized them or the
average college student. Then they
received the second booklet and repeated
the same process for the other perspective.
Participants in the second-wave sample
were asked to rate to what extent the traits
were characteristic of either them or the
average American, or to what extent the
traits are common among the average
American.
Measures/
Stimulus
154 traits
149 traits (The article reported using 154
traits (Alicke, 1985, p. 1624) but the
appendix listed only 149 traits.)
Paper-and-pencil survey
Two booklets (self & average college
student) presented in counterbalanced
order
Sheets in randomized order (6 traits
on each)
Non-randomized choices
Online Qualtrics survey
3 randomized blocks: self-ratings,
other ratings or commonness ratings
Added 2 attention checks for each
condition
Added 3 comprehension questions for
the commonness condition, and 1
comprehension question each for the
self-condition and the other condition
7-point bipolar scale (1 = not at all
characteristic of me or the average college
student, 7 = very characteristic of me or the
average college student)
Same scale but we replaced “average
college student” with “average American”
to match with our target population
Procedure
Within-subjects design
Between-subjects design
Participants rated all traits in both the self
and other conditions
Participants were randomly assigned to rate
40 traits from the self or average American
perspective
Location
In groups (18 to 29 subjects);
location unreported
Alone; online
Remuneration
Unreported
Participants received 0.5 USD for a task
estimated at 4 minutes, which is
commensurate with the federal minimum
hourly wage of 7.25 USD.
Participant
Population
Introductory psychology students at
University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, North Carolina
Americans recruited via MTurk
Replication and extension of Alicke (1985): Supplementary 19
Pre-registration Planning and Deviation Documentation
The below table summarizes the components where there were deviations from the pre-registration.
Table S13. Pre-registration planning and deviation documentation
Components in
your
preregistration
Location of
preregistered
decision/plan
Location of the
rationale for the
decision/plan (if any)
Were there
deviations?*
If yes - describe details of
deviation(s)
Rationale for
deviation
How might the results
be different if you had
not deviated
Procedures
Page 12 of pre-
registration
Page 12 of pre-
registration
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
Power analysis
Page 13 of pre-
registration
Page 13 of pre-
registration
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exclusion rules
Page 13 of pre-
registration
Page 13 of pre-
registration
Minor
There was an error in Qualtrics,
which rendered the attention
checks ineffective in the “Other
ratings” condition.
Results after
exclusion in
supplementary
material
The size of the second-
wave sample after
exclusion would be
slightly smaller.
Evaluation criteria
Page 16 of pre-
registration
Page 16 of pre-
registration
Minor
Commented on magnitude and
direction only instead of using
LeBel et al.’s (2018) framework
See discussion of the
manuscript
N/A
Analyses
Page 17-19 of pre-
registration
Page 17-20 of pre-
registration
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
Presentation of
statistics
Page 20 of pre-
registration
Page 20 of pre-
registration
Minor
Did not include a graph for the
extension hypothesis
Weak to no
moderating effects
detected
N/A
Note. *Categories for deviations: Minor - Change probably did not affect results or interpretations; Major - Change likely affected results or interpretations.
1. Cooperative
2. Considerate
3. Responsible
4. Friendly
5. Respectful
6. Reliable
7. Resourceful
8. Polite
9. Dependable
10. Trustful
11. Pleasant
12. Sincere
13. Loyal
14. Self-disciplined
15. Kind
16. Clean
17. Good-tempered
18. Versatile
19. Persistent
20. Well read
21. Sensitive
22. Grateful
23. Thrifty
24. Neat
25. Bold
26. Self-satisfied
27. Religious
28. Self-concerned
29. Radical
30. Obedient
31. Fashionable
32. Prideful
33. Prudent
34. Choosy
35. Troubled
36. Boastful
37. Unpoised
38. Jealous
39. Self-centered
40. Unskilled
41. Melancholy
42. Unsophisticated
43. Clumsy
44. Daydreamer
45. Irreligious
46. Strict
47. Conforming
48. Compulsive
49. Hesitant
50. Eccentric
51. Unforgiving
52. Disobedient
53. Deceptive
54. Disrespectful
55. Snobbish
56. Spiteful
57. Meddlesome
58. Complaining
59. Unstudious
60. Uncivil
61. Unappreciative
62. Unpleasing
63. Phony
64. Discourteous
65. Unkind
66. Rude
67. Impolite
68. Dishonest
69. Cold
70. Dishonorable
71. Deceitful
72. Hostile
73. Irresponsible
74. Unreasonable
75. Creative
76. Bright
77. Imaginative
78. Intelligent
79. Clear-headed
80. Observant
81. Perceptive
82. Level-headed
83. Mature
84. Honorable
85. Lively
86. Clever
87. Admirable
88. Wise
89. Intellectual
90. Sportsmanlike
91. Punctual
92. Original
93. Interesting
94. Humorous
95. Reserved
96. Cunning
97. Fearless
98. Meticulous
99. Impulsive
100. Ordinary
101. Impressionable
102. Authoritative
103. Normal
104. Attractive
105. Lucky
106. Ingenious
107. Changeable
108. Witty
109. Philosophical
110. Ethical
111. Quick
112. Progressive
113. Sharp-witted
114. Forgetful
115. Uncultured
116. Discontented
117. Dissatisfied
118. Withdrawn
119. Unoriginal
120. Tiresome
121. Profane
122. Unentertaining
123. Passive
124. Timid
125. Bashful
126. Restless
127. Unpopular
128. Unemotional
129. Meek
130. Overcautious
131. Inhibited
132. Extravagant
133. Solemn
134. Softspoken
135. Insecure
136. Belligerent
137. Humorless
138. Lazy
139. Vain
140. Gullible
141. Liar
142. Unpleasant
143. Mean
144. Maladjusted
145. Unethical
146. Ill-mannered
147. Incompetent
148. Shallow
149. Irrational
Correlations
r.jk r.jh
t
p
q
Desire, self |
Desire, other***
.31 [.22, .42]
10.67
<.001 (one-tailed)
0.88
Self-minus-other, desire |
Self-minus-other,
control***
.79 [.62, .96]
10.72
<.001 (one-tailed)
1.04
Common, desire |
Common, self-minus-
other***
.42 [.32, .53]
11.34
<.001
0.76
First-wave
(n = 607)
Second-wave
(n = 771)
Gender
Male
309 (50.9%)
346 (44.9%)
Female
294 (48.4%)
423 (54.9%)
Missing
4 (0.7%)
2 (0.3%)
Age
Mean (SD)
39.3 (12.1)
39.5 (12.4)
Median [Min, Max]
36.0 [18.0, 77.0]
37.0 [18.0, 87.0]
Missing
4 (0.7%)
2 (0.3%)
Replication and extension of Alicke (1985): Supplementary 44
Table S16. Means, standard deviations, and correlations with confidence intervals after exclusion
Variable
M
SD
Desirability
Controllability
Commonness
Self-ratings
Other-ratings
Desirability
3.73
1.78
Controllability
4.94
0.91
.01
[-.15, .17]
Commonness
4.07
0.54
.64**
.21*
[.54, .73]
[.05, .36]
Self-ratings
3.73
1.28
.92**
.02
.61**
[.89, .94]
[-.14, .18]
[.50, .70]
Other-ratings
4.23
0.85
.02
.06
.52**
.01
[-.14, .18]
[-.10, .22]
[.39, .63]
[-.15, .17]
Self-minus-other ratings
-0.50
1.53
.76**
-.02
.22**
.83**
-.55**
[.68, .82]
[-.18, .14]
[.06, .37]
[.77, .88]
[-.65, -.42]
Note. M and SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. Values in square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval
for each correlation. The confidence interval is a plausible range of population correlations that could have caused the sample correlation
(Cumming, 2014). * indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01.
Replication and extension of Alicke (1985): Supplementary 45
Figure S14. Scatterplot showing the relationship between desirability and self-minus-other ratings with 95% confidence interval after exclusion.
Replication and extension of Alicke (1985): Supplementary 46
Table S17
Regression results using self-minus-other ratings as the criterion after exclusion
Predictor
b
b
95% CI
[LL, UL]
beta
beta
95% CI
[LL, UL]
sr2
sr2
95% CI
[LL, UL]
Fit
Difference
(Intercept)
-0.24***
[-0.36, -0.13]
R2 = .59***
Desirability
0.46***
[0.40, 0.53]
0.77
[0.66, 0.87]
.59
[.48, .69]
95% CI [.48,.66]
Controllability
-0.07
[-0.19, 0.05]
-0.06
[-0.16, 0.04]
.00
[-.01, .02]
F(2, 146) = 104.7***
(Intercept)
-0.25***
[-0.35, -0.14]
R2 = .66***
ΔR2 = .07***
Desirability
0.45***
[0.39, 0.51]
0.74
[0.64, 0.84]
.54
[.43, .65]
95% CI [.56,.71]
F(3, 145) = 91.9***
95% CI [.02, .12]
F(1, 145) = 27.88***
Controllability
-0.12*
[-0.24, -0.01]
-0.11
[-0.20, -0.01]
.01
[-.01, .03]
Interaction
0.17***
[0.10, 0.23]
0.26
[0.16, 0.36]
.07
[.02, .12]
Note. A significant b-weight indicates the beta-weight and semi-partial correlation are also significant. b represents unstandardized regression
weights. beta indicates the standardized regression weights. sr2 represents the semi-partial correlation squared. r represents the zero-order
correlation. LL and UL indicate the lower and upper limits of a confidence interval, respectively.
* indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01. *** indicates p < .001.
Replication and extension of Alicke (1985): Supplementary 47
Table S18. Regression results using commonness as the criterion after exclusion
Predictor
b
b
95% CI
[LL, UL]
beta
beta
95% CI
[LL, UL]
sr2
sr2
95% CI
[LL, UL]
Fit
Difference
(Intercept)
4.07***
[3.99, 4.15]
R2 = .39***
Desirability
0.17**
[0.05, 0.28]
0.47
[0.14, 0.79]
.03
[-.01, .08]
95% CI [.27, .49]
Self-ratings
0.08
[-0.08, 0.24]
0.17
[-0.15, 0.50]
.00
[-.01, .02]
F(2, 146) = 47.35***
(Intercept)
4.07***
[3.93, 4.20]
R2 = .39***
ΔR2 = .000
Desirability
0.17**
[0.05, 0.28]
0.47
[0.14, 0.80]
.03
[-.01, .08]
95% CI [.26, .49]
F(3, 145) = 31.35***
95% CI [-.00, .00]
F(1, 145) = 0.002
Self-ratings
0.08
[-0.08, 0.24]
0.17
[-0.16, 0.50]
.00
[-.01, .02]
Interaction
-0.00
[-0.05, 0.05]
-0.00
[-0.13, 0.13]
.00
[-.00, .00]
Note. A significant b-weight indicates the beta-weight and semi-partial correlation are also significant. b represents unstandardized regression
weights. beta indicates the standardized regression weights. sr2 represents the semi-partial correlation squared. r represents the zero-order
correlation. LL and UL indicate the lower and upper limits of a confidence interval, respectively.
* indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01. *** indicates p < .001.
Replication and extension of Alicke (1985): Supplementary 48
Table S19. Regression results using commonness as the criterion after exclusion
Predictor
b
b
95% CI
[LL, UL]
beta
beta
95% CI
[LL, UL]
sr2
sr2
95% CI
[LL, UL]
Fit
Difference
(Intercept)
4.07***
[4.02, 4.11]
R2 = .81**
Desirability
0.04**
[0.01, 0.08]
0.13
[0.04, 0.22]
.01
[-.00, .02]
95% CI [.75,.84]
F(2, 146) = 309.7***
Other ratings
0.89***
[0.79, 0.99]
0.82
[0.73, 0.91]
.42
[.31, .53]
(Intercept)
4.03***
[3.97, 4.09]
R2 = .81**
ΔR2 = .003
Desirability
0.04*
[0.00, 0.07]
0.10
[0.01, 0.20]
.01
[-.00, .02]
95% CI [.76,.85]
F(3, 145) = 209.5***
95% CI [-.00, .01]
F(1, 145) = 2.53
Other ratings
0.92***
[0.81, 1.02]
0.84
[0.75, 0.94]
.40
[.29, .51]
Interaction
0.05
[-0.01, 0.11]
0.06
[-0.01, 0.14]
.00
[-.00, .01]
Note. A significant b-weight indicates the beta-weight and semi-partial correlation are also significant. b represents unstandardized regression
weights. beta indicates the standardized regression weights. sr2 represents the semi-partial correlation squared. r represents the zero-order
correlation. LL and UL indicate the lower and upper limits of a confidence interval, respectively.
* indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01. *** indicates p < .001
... An immediate suspect is the sample, if of different demographics. The original experiment employed Stanford undergraduates, and we employed online MTurk samples, which have been shown reliable (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011;Coppock, 2017;Coppock, Leeper, & Mullinix, 2018;Zwaan et al., 2018), especially so in the domain of judgement and decision making replications, with replications from the economic psychology and judgment and decisionmaking yielding highly similar results even more than 20 years later (Chandrashekar et al., 2020;Ziano, Jie, et al., 2020;Ziano, Wang, et al., 2020;Ziano, Mok, & Feldman, 2020). Yet, we consider it unlikely that the sample is to blame for the failed replication of the "choice under risk" problem, when at the same time demonstrating a successful replication of the "paying to know" problem. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
We conducted a very close replication of the disjunction effect first introduced by Tversky ‎and Shafir (1992) (N = 890). The target article demonstrated the effect using two paradigms ‎in a between-subject design, and we added an extension also testing a within-subject design, ‎with design being randomly assigned. Our results were consistent with the original findings ‎for the "paying to know" problem (original: Cramer’s V = .22, 95% (CI) [.14, .32]; ‎replication: Cramer’s V = .30, 95% CI [.24, .37]), yet not for the "choice under risk" problem ‎‎(original: Cramer’s V = .26, 95% CI [.14, .39]; replication: Cramer’s V = .11, 95% CI [-.07, ‎‎.20]). The within-subject extension showed very similar results. We discuss implications for ‎the disjunction effect and judgment and decision-making theory, and call for improvements ‎on the statistical understanding of comparisons of between-subject and within-subject ‎designs.‎
Preprint
Full-text available
Six experiments (total n = 3,552, four preregistered, three incentivized) show that consumers believe similar others would use the same products more often and would find them more useful than they themselves would. Overestimation of usefulness of the same product to others is caused by the overestimation of other people’s materialism: we find that this bias reverses when consumers estimate products’ usefulness for someone very low on materialism, and is muted for less materialistic purchases. Overestimation of usefulness is muted for well-known others, as estimation accuracy increases with personal knowledge. Our findings help explain the “X effect,” which is the belief that others are willing to pay more for products (Frederick 2012). These findings connect previously parallel literature streams about self-serving bias in social comparison and biases in self-other monetary evaluations. We discuss theoretical implications for consumers’ above and below average biases, materialism, and the X effect. We discuss practical implications for pricing, negotiation, proxy decision-making, and gift-giving.
Preprint
Full-text available
Bias Blind Spot (BBS) is the phenomenon that people tend to perceive themselves as less ‎susceptible to biases than others. In three pre-registered experiments (overall N = 969), we ‎replicated two experiments of the first demonstration of the phenomenon by Pronin et al. ‎‎(2002). We found support of the BBS hypotheses, with effects in line with findings in the ‎original study: Participants rated themselves as less susceptible to biases than others (d = -1.00 ‎‎[-1.33, -0.67]). Deviating from the original, we found an unexpected effect that participants ‎rated themselves as having fewer shortcomings (d = -0.34 [-0.46, -0.23]), though there was ‎support for the target's main premise that BBS was stronger for biases than for shortcomings (d ‎‎= -0.43 [-0.56, -0.29]). Extending the replications, we found that beliefs in own free will were ‎positively associated with BBS (r ~ 0.17-0.22) and that beliefs in both self and general free will ‎were positively associated with self-other asymmetry related to personal shortcomings (r ~ ‎‎0.16-0.24). Materials, datasets, and code are available on https://osf.io/3df5s/ . ‎
Article
Full-text available
The data includes measures collected for the two experiments reported in “False-Positive Psychology” [1] where listening to a randomly assigned song made people feel younger (Study 1) or actually be younger (Study 2). These data are useful because they illustrate inflations of false positive rates due to flexibility in data collection, analysis, and reporting of results. Data are useful for educational purposes.
Article
Full-text available
Social self-analysis is the process by which people use comparison information to define and modify their self-concepts or identity images. Self-concepts are beliefs about one's abilities, attitudes, emotions, and behavior tendencies that range from relatively concrete to abstract in a self-knowledge hierarchy. Comparison information includes contrasting one's own task and social feedback with others' or with past and future states of one's own or others'. We use an analogy with psychometric test theory to highlight the features of social self-analysis and view these comparisons as comparison tests that people encounter or conduct to assess their self-concepts. Comparison test feedback is assessed for its reliability, validity, and generalizability and is abstracted to low- to high-level self-concepts. Accurate translation from comparison test feedback to self-concepts is hindered by the absence of adequate comparison samples, the tendency to eschew large-scale comparison data for local comparisons (what we call " local dominance" ), and by the desire to construct and maintain favorable identity images.
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
The current studies tested the hypothesis that, despite experiencing high rates of performance failure, athletes maintain positive ability perceptions by basing assessments of their ability on peak, rarely occurring performances rather than on their more typically occurring base rate averages. Findings from two studies support this assertion. Study 1 showed that collegiate baseball players perceived their best-ever hitting performance to better represent their true hitting ability than their worst-ever performance, despite the latter being far more reflective of their objective batting average. Study 2 replicated this effect among college softball players, and demonstrated further that low-performing athletes were the most severely miscalibrated in their ability perceptions. Implications for coaches, trainers, and practitioners committed to helping athletes develop are discussed.
Article
The culture movement challenged the universality of the self-enhancement motive by proposing that the motive is pervasive in individualistic cultures (the West) but absent in collectivistic cultures (the East). The present research posited that Westerners and Easterners use different tactics to achieve the same goal: positive self-regard. Study 1 tested participants from differing cultural backgrounds (the United States vs. Japan), and Study 2 tested participants of differing self-construals (independent vs. interdependent). Americans and independents self-enhanced on individualistic attributes, whereas Japanese and interdependents self-enhanced on collectivistic attributes. Independents regarded individualistic attributes, whereas interdependents regarded collectivistic attributes, as personally important. Attribute importance mediated self-enhancement. Regardless of cultural background or self-construal, people self-enhance on personally important dimensions. Self-enhancement is a universal human motive.
Article
People maintain a positive identity in at least two ways: They evaluate themselves more favorably than other people, and they judge themselves to be better now than they were in the past. Both strategies rely on autobiographical memories. The authors investigate the role of autobiographical memories of lying and emotional harm in maintaining a positive identity. For memories of lying to or emotionally harming others, participants judge their own actions as less morally wrong and less negative than those in which other people lied to or emotionally harmed them. Furthermore, people judge those actions that happened further in the past to be more morally wrong than those that happened more recently. Finally, for periods of the past when they believed that they were very different people than they are now, participants judge their actions to be more morally wrong and more negative than those actions from periods of their pasts when they believed that they were very similar to who they are now. The authors discuss these findings in relation to theories about the function of autobiographical memory and moral cognition in constructing and perceiving the self over time.
Article
Survey experiments have become a central methodology across the social sciences. Researchers can combine experiments’ causal power with the generalizability of population-based samples. Yet, due to the expense of population-based samples, much research relies on convenience samples (e.g. students, online opt-in samples). The emergence of affordable, but non-representative online samples has reinvigorated debates about the external validity of experiments. We conduct two studies of how experimental treatment effects obtained from convenience samples compare to effects produced by population samples. In Study 1, we compare effect estimates from four different types of convenience samples and a population-based sample. In Study 2, we analyze treatment effects obtained from 20 experiments implemented on a population-based sample and Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk). The results reveal considerable similarity between many treatment effects obtained from convenience and nationally representative population-based samples. While the results thus bolster confidence in the utility of convenience samples, we conclude with guidance for the use of a multitude of samples for advancing scientific knowledge.
Article
It is well established that respondents are much more likely to rate themselves highly on personality questionnaire items with high social desirability (SD) than on items with low SD. However, conflicting explanations have been offered for this phenomenon. In the present study, 286 participants were randomly assigned to four groups that rated 119 items from two well-known personality questionnaires. One group of participants rated themselves, a second group rated their family and friends, a third rated “people in general,” and a fourth rated the items’ SD. It was found that mean SD ratings of personality items were highly correlated with mean self-ratings and with mean ratings of family and friends for the same items (all rs > .800), but not with mean ratings of “people in general.” In other words, participants strongly tended to rate themselves, their family, and their friends as high on socially desirable qualities, but this tendency did not extend to ratings of people in general. These results support the conclusion that respondents’ personality ratings of themselves, their family and friends, but not of people in general, are influenced by the form of self-serving bias known as the “better than average effect.”