Self-Favoring Biases, Self-Presentation, and the Self-Other Asymmetry in Social Comparison

ABSTRACT The relationship between self-favoring biases in social comparison, favorable self-presentation, and well-being and the self-other asymmetry effect was examined. Participants gave comparative chance estimations and trait ratings for positive and negative future events and traits. One-half of the participants compared themselves to the average other, while the remainder compared the average other to themselves. All participants completed measurements of two types of desirable responding (self-deception and impression management) and of subjective well-being. Participants who compared themselves to another showed stronger unrealistic optimism and illusory superiority effects for positive (but not for negative) future events und traits than participants comparing another to themselves, demonstrating a self-other asymmetry effect. Unrealistic optimism and illusory superiority concerning positive attributes were related to self-deception, while unrealistic optimism and illusory superiority concerning negative attributes were related to impression management. The relative independence of “positive” and “negative” self-favoring biases was further demonstrated by their differential relationship with self-esteem and subjective well-being.     

Attributions to discrimination and self-esteem: Impact of group identification and situational ambiguity

This study examined group identification and situational ambiguity as moderators of attributions to discrimination and self-esteem following negative feedback. As predicted, high gender-identified women made more discrimination attributions than low identified women when situational prejudice cues were ambiguous, but not when prejudice cues were absent or overt. Also as predicted, women exposed to overt prejudice cues had higher self-esteem than those exposed to ambiguous cues or no prejudice cues. The relationship between discrimination attributions and self-esteem was positive among women exposed to overt prejudice but negative among those exposed to no prejudice. Across conditions, however, the more that women discounted ability as a cause of their negative feedback (i.e., blamed discrimination more than ability), the higher their self-esteem. Results qualify and extend prior research and demonstrate that personal and situational factors moderate both the tendency to make attributions to discrimination and the consequences of those attributions for self-esteem.     

A friend is a present you give to your “Self”: Avoidance of intimacy moderates the effects of friends on self-liking

The current research proposes that thinking about friends improves feelings about the self and does so differentially depending on avoidance of intimacy. Based on previous findings that individuals who avoid intimacy in relationships (avoidant individuals) contrast their self-concepts with primed friends whereas those who pursue intimacy in relationships (non-avoidant individuals) assimilate their self-concepts to primed friends [Gabriel, S., Carvallo, M., Dean, K., Tippin, B. D., & Renaud, J. (2005). How I see “Me” depends on how I see “We”: The role of avoidance of intimacy in social comparison. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 156-157], we predicted that friends who embody negative aspects of self would lead avoidant individuals to like themselves more, whereas friends who embody positive aspects of self would lead non-avoidant individuals to like themselves more. A pretest determined that good friends were seen as more similar to positive and ideal aspects of the self, whereas friends about whom participants had more mixed feelings (ambivalent friends) were seen as more similar to disliked and feared aspects of the self. Four experiments supported the main hypotheses. In Experiment 1, non-avoidant individuals like themselves more when good friends were primed. In Experiment 2, avoidant individuals like themselves more when ambivalent friends were primed. In Experiment 3, non-avoidant individuals liked themselves better after thinking about a friend’s positive traits, whereas avoidant individuals liked themselves better after thinking about a friend’s negative traits. In Experiment 4, all individuals under self-esteem threat strategically brought friends to mind who would help them like themselves more.     

Better than average and better with time: relative evaluations of self and others in the past,present, and future

Evaluations of self and others in the past, present, and future were examined by asking 385 students to rate themselves or an acquaintance relative to their peers on a number of personality traits. We predicted, and found, evidence for self‐enhancement, as most participants regarded themselves superior to ‘most others’ at all points in time. We also found a better than average improvement effect, as participants considered themselves more superior now, than they were in the past, and expected to become even more superior in the future. Expected improvement in the future was larger than improvement over an equal span of time in the past. It is suggested that favorable self‐constructions are possible to the extent that the past and the future are perceived as ambiguous. Singular acquaintances were also rated better than most others, and were believed to improve over time, but their rate of improvement in the future was smaller than the expected improvement for oneself. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Peer ratings of depression,anxiety, and aggression in inpatient and elementary school children: Rating biases and influence of rater's self-reported depression,anxiety, and aggression

Using parallel self-, peer, and teacher rating scales, several rating biases in children's peer ratings of depression, anxiety, and aggression were examined. Participants were 66 inpatient and 133 elementary school children (N = 199, 109 boys, 90 girls; 61% white, 39% black) aged 8 to 12, and their teachers. Results showed significant halo bias in both the children's peer ratings and the teachers' ratings. Children's self-reports on each of the three traits were significantly related to their peer ratings of the same trait, while adjusting for socioeconomic status and the peers' teachers' ratings of the same trait. Children who rated themselves as high on each trait rated their peers significantly higher on the same trait than children who rated themselves as medium or low; and for depression and anxiety, those who rated themselves as medium rated their peers significantly higher on those traits than those who rated themselves as low. For both depression and aggression, children's self-reports on the trait were significantly related to their peer ratings of the same trait, but not significantly related to their peer ratings of different traits. Disagreements between children's and teachers' ratings of the peers on all three traits were significantly related to child self-reports on each trait, indicating a possible distortion in children's peer ratings due to self-report. The implications of the results for both peer and others' assessments are discussed, and further investigation of rating biases in other informants' assessments is encouraged.These data were collected as part of the author's doctoral dissertation submitted to Memphis State University. Appreciation is expressed to Stacey Donegan for assistance with the literature review for an earlier version of this paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, March 1993.     

Whose personality is better,mine or my partner's? Self‐enhancement bias in relationships

Previous research has documented self‐enhancement and relationship partner‐enhancement motivations, but not examined whether individuals view themselves or their partners more favorably, overall. The authors conducted three studies that revealed a general tendency to favor oneself over one's partner in direct self–partner personality comparisons. This illustrated a motivational precedence of self‐enhancement over partner‐enhancement goals. In Study 1, participants rated self‐only traits more favorably than partner‐only traits. In Studies 2 and 3, participants rated desirable traits as more characteristic of themselves than their partner, particularly when traits were more relevant to personal than relationship success. The authors also found that this self‐favoring bias was weaker (typically nonexistent) among those with higher relationship satisfaction, lower self‐esteem, or lower self‐deceptive tendencies. The authors discuss practical, theoretical, and methodological implications.     

Self-esteem and organization of valenced information about others: the "Jekyll and Hyde"-ing of relationship partners

The authors theorize that individuals with high self-esteem functionally integrate positive and negative partner information in memory, whereas those low in self-esteem segregate such information. The authors obtained support for this view in 7 studies. In a first set, participants judged whether positive and negative traits presented in an alternating or nonalternating order applied to a partner. Low but not high self-esteem individuals were slowed by the alternating order when judging relationship partners (but not inanimate objects). In a 2nd set, participants answered questions tapping integrated thinking, self-esteem, and other attributes. Higher self-esteem was associated with more integrated thinking when other attributes were controlled. In a final study, anxiously attached individuals were more labile in rating their spouse over a 5-day period.     

Social desirability, personality questionnaires, and the “better than average” effect

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.”     

Positive Illusions in Parenting: Every Child Is Above Average

This study examined the paradox between the difficulties of parenting and the high levels of parenting satisfaction in terms of positive illusions. Results were consistent with a positive illusions model, as biological parents with a child between the ages of 2 and 5 reported unrealistically positive views of their children. They rated their own children as possessing more positive and less negative attributes than the average child. The more positively parents rated themselves, the more positively they rated their children. Parents' self-esteem scores, unrealistically positive ratings of the child, and positive illusions of parenting were related to 3 aspects of the parenting experience. This study extends the literature on positive illusions to encompass parents' positive illusions about their young children.     

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory: self-esteem differences in the experience and anticipation of success

Successes--defined broadly as meeting important standards or receiving positive evaluations--are widely assumed to be enjoyed equally by people with high self-esteem (HSEs) and low self-esteem (LSEs). Three studies examined the contradictory hypothesis that HSEs react more favorably to success than do LSEs and that success brings about certain unfavorable consequences for LSEs. Undergraduate participants reacted to a laboratory-manipulated success (Studies 1 and 2) or imagined highly positive events in the future (Study 3). Self-esteem differences emerged in anxiety, thoughts about the self, and (in Study 3) thoughts about non-self-related aspects of the event. LSEs were more anxious than HSEs after succeeding, success improved HSEs' self-relevant thoughts but not LSEs', and LSEs focused more on success's negative aspects.     

More human than you: attributing humanness to self and others

People typically evaluate their in-groups more favorably than out-groups and themselves more favorably than others. Research on infrahumanization also suggests a preferential attribution of the "human essence" to in-groups, independent of in-group favoritism. The authors propose a corresponding phenomenon in interpersonal comparisons: People attribute greater humanness to themselves than to others, independent of self-enhancement. Study 1 and a pilot study demonstrated 2 distinct understandings of humanness--traits representing human nature and those that are uniquely human--and showed that only the former traits are understood as inhering essences. In Study 2, participants rated themselves higher than their peers on human nature traits but not on uniquely human traits, independent of self-enhancement. Study 3 replicated this "self-humanization" effect and indicated that it is partially mediated by attribution of greater depth to self versus others. Study 4 replicated the effect experimentally. Thus, people perceive themselves to be more essentially human than others.     

The relationship between Facebook and the well-being of undergraduate college students

We investigated how Facebook use and attitudes relate to self-esteem and college adjustment, and expected to find a positive relationship between Facebook and social adjustment, and a negative relationship between Facebook, self-esteem, and emotional adjustment. We examined these relationships in first-year and upper-class students and expected to find differences between the groups. Seventy undergraduate students completed Facebook measures (time, number of friends, emotional and social connection to Facebook), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and the Student Adaptation to College Scale. First-year students had a stronger emotional connection to and spent more time on Facebook while they reported fewer friends than upper-class students did. The groups did not differ in the adjustment scores. The number of Facebook friends potentially hinders academic adjustment, and spending a lot of time on Facebook is related to low self-esteem. The number of Facebook friends was negatively associated with emotional and academic adjustment among first-year students but positively related to social adjustment and attachment to institution among upper-class students. The results suggest that the relationship becomes positive later in college life when students use Facebook effectively to connect socially with their peers. Lastly, the number of Facebook friends and not the time spent on Facebook predicted college adjustment, suggesting the value of studying further the notion of Facebook friends.     

Depression versus anxiety: Processing of self- and other-referent information

Abstract

Depression and anxiety are psychopathological states that have been closely related in clinical. empirical. and theoretical investigations. Cognitive approaches to the emotional disorders suggest that depressed and anxious individuals can be differentiated on the basis of the specific content of their self-referent judgements and information processing. The present investigation provided a stringent test of the content-specificity hypothesis by iomparing depressed. anxious. and nondepressed-nonanxious subjects' processing of positive and negative depression-relevant, anxiety-relevant. and control content adjectives for themselves and a well-known other (their best friends). Based on judgement and reaction time measures. the content-specificity hypothesis was supported. Depressed subjects were unique in exhibiting balanced endorsements and processing of positive and negative traits. suggesting that they possessed self-schematil with mixed positive and negative content. In contrast. anxious subjects were unique in ascribing more negative than positive anxiety-relevant traits to themselves and in processing negative anxiety-relevant traits fitstcr than depression-relevant traits. In addition. depressed and anxious subjects' self-referent processing was specific to the self: both groups' judgements were more negative for themselves than for their best friends. The findings are discussed with regard to their implications for cognitive differences between depression and anxiety and the specificity of the “depressive evenhandedness” effect.     

Self-enhancement in Japan and America

North Americans view themselves in more positive terms than they view most other people. In the present paper, we report three studies showing that this bias is also found in Japan. For highly valued traits and abilities, Japanese students rated themselves and their best friends in more positive terms than they rated most other students (Study 1 and Study 2) and most other Japanese (Study 2). In Study 3, a sample of older Japanese displayed the same tendency when evaluating themselves and a member of their family. We discuss the theoretical importance of the findings.     

Social Comparisons of One's Own With Others' Attitudes Toward Casual and Responsible Sex1

College students perceive their risks for negative outcomes from sexual behavior as lower than that of their peers. We examined whether similar biases would occur when undergraduates rated their own, their close friends', and the typical college student's attitudes regarding casual sex and sexual responsibility. Participants rated their own attitudes relative to all others' as the least permissive and most sexually responsible. Close friends' attitudes were rated as less permissive and more responsible than the average college student's. Finally, individuals with unrestricted sociosexual orientations and men attributed more permissive and less sexually responsible attitudes to both themselves and close friends than did individuals with restricted sociosexual orientations and women. These latter effects were absent when rating the typical college student.     

The Relationship Between Friendship Quality and Self-Esteem in Adolescent Girls and Boys

Much has been written about the low self-esteem of adolescent girls relative to adolescent boys, but little research has explored the role that friendship quality may play in affecting self-esteem. Ninety-seven female and 67 male 11th and 12th graders completed measures of self-esteem and of friendship quality with both same- and cross-gender best friends. Ninety-five percent of the participants were White, and ranged across the socioeconomic spectrum with the majority coming from middle-class families. We found that girls' self-esteem was significantly lower than boys' self-esteem and that girls rated their relationships as stronger, more interpersonally rewarding, and more stressful than boys did. Boys reported that their friendship with their best female friend was more interpersonally rewarding than their friendship with their best male friend, whereas girls rated the quality of their same- and cross-gender friends similarly. As expected, girls' self-esteem was positively correlated with the friendship quality of their cross-gender best friend. However, their self-esteem was not correlated with the quality of their same-gender friendship. Boys' self-esteem did not correlate with the quality of their same- or cross-gender best friendship. Results may help us understand the relatively low self-esteem experienced by adolescent girls.     

What Do People Think About the Risks of Driving? Implications for Traffic Safety Interventions1

Two studies found that people generally think of themselves as better than average drivers. Both older and younger people rated themselves slightly better than peers, with the younger people rating their peers as the worst drivers but rating themselves as if they did not belong to this group. University students rated their peers as being more similar to themselves than did nonuniversity younger people. A factor analysis found five dimensions along which people thought about driving risks: environmental and road conditions, unexpected events, driver problems, necessary or unavoidable driving risks, and voluntary driving risks. Speeding was thought of in two ways, as both an unavoidable driving risk and as a voluntary risk. Differences were found between general and specific questions, and a theoretical framework for exploring these in future research was proposed predicts differences between a situational or dispositional focus. The implications of the results for traffic safety interventions were drawn out, and specific recommendations, made for targeting such interventions.     

Positive illusion in close relationships

The literature regarding self-other comparisons suggests that self-enhancing perceptions are prevalent, including forms of “illusion” such as excessively positive self-evaluation, unrealistic optimism, and exaggerated perceptions of control. Concepts from optimal distinctiveness theory served as the basis for two experiments examining whether illusion functions similarly when the context of evaluation involves a relationship. In both experiments participants rated themselves, the best friend, and the average other—or their own romantic relationships, the best friend's relationship, and the relationship of the average other–using scales measuring positivity of evaluation, optimism regarding the future, and perceptions of control. In both experiments, participants exhibited centrality-based differentiation, rating targets more favorably to the degree that the target was more central to their social identity. Patterns of differentiation differed for the two contexts: In the individual context, participants differentiated themselves and their friends from the average other. In the relationship context, participants differentiated their own relationships from the relationships of friends and average others. Also, participants rated individuals as more controllable than relationships. Participants in Experiment 2 provided information regarding potential predictors of illusion. Analyses of these data suggest that favorable centrality-based differentiation may be partially accounted for by impression management, global self-esteem (particularly in the individual context), and commitment level (particularly in the relationship context).