More human than others? A critique of Cypryańska et al. (2017)

Cypryańska and colleagues offer a critique of existing work on the self-humanizing effect and present some empirical findings motivated by their critique. In this commentary, I question their overly restrictive understanding of self-humanizing and argue that the phenomenon does not stand or fall on a definition based on a strict analogy to the better-than-average effect. I argue that defining self-humanizing exclusively in these terms is inappropriate: It fails to recognize the relationship between self-humanizing and self-enhancement, as well as the primary role of trait valence in comparative self-ratings. Finally, I observe that Cypryańska et al.’s empirical findings are highly consistent with past work rather than offering the deep challenge that the authors suppose.     

Can I see the real me? Leadership ability and the better-than-average effect

Military organizations typically emphasize the importance of leadership. The quality of military leadership might be inhibited because individuals tend to overestimate their respective leadership abilities. We hypothesized that military professionals generally overestimate how well they lead compared to their peers (Hypothesis 1). We also hypothesized that an egocentric bias, where self-ratings are weighted more strongly than other-ratings, contributes to this better-than-average effect (Hypothesis 2). The results obtained across two studies supported both hypotheses. Most notably, 242 of 251 United States Air Force Academy cadets and 31 of 34 United States Air Force officers rated themselves as above average compared to their peers. The obtained results have important implications for understanding the better-than-average effect generally and leadership in military and nonmilitary organizations.     

Not so above average after all: When people believe they are worse than average and its implications for theories of bias in social comparison

Recent research calls into question the generally accepted conclusion that people believe themselves to be better than average. This paper reviews the new theories that have been proposed to explain the fact that better-than-average effects are isolated to common behaviors and abilities, and that people believe themselves to be below average with respect to rare behaviors and uncommon abilities. These new theories are then used to revisit prior findings of better-than-average effects. When viewed in light of recent work, the evidence suggests that prior findings overstated the degree to which people engage in self-enhancement by believing that they are better than others when in fact they are not. Prior studies have often confounded desirability with commonness and have used subjective measures of comparative judgment that capitalize on people’s tendency to conflate relative with absolute self-evaluation.     

Anticipated cooperation vs. competition moderates interpersonal projection

Two experiments investigated the impact of anticipated interdependence on people’s projection of their characteristics onto an unknown target. After participants had rated themselves on a list of personality traits, they were led to expect a situation of cooperation or competition with another participant and rated this participant on the same list of traits. In both experiments, projection of self-attributed traits was stronger under cooperation than competition. This effect was independent of trait valence, whether defined a priori (Experiment 1) or as an idiosyncratic measure (Experiment 2). Experiment 2 also revealed that the moderation of interpersonal projection by interdependence was not driven by changes in participants’ self-representation. These findings suggest that the anticipated interdependence context influences the way we perceive similarity with unknown others. We discuss possible cognitive and motivational mechanisms underlying this effect.     

Valence, comparison focus and self-positivity biases: does it matter whether people judge positive or negative traits?

The present research questions whether mere valence affects self-other comparisons in the domain of trait characteristics. While some previous studies have reported greater positivity bias for the self when traits were positive than when traits were negative, we suggest that this is an ambiguous finding, because valence and content were confounded. When we unconfounded content and valence, valence had no effect on the magnitude of self-positivity bias displayed. We also replicate several findings for our unconfounded set of traits. Firstly, comparing others to the self, rather than comparing the self to others, lowered self-positivity for positive and negative traits (focus effect). Secondly, extremely positive and negative traits triggered greater positivity bias than did more moderately evaluated ones. Finally, we suggest that comparative self-positivity biases may be based on a general positivity bias.     

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.     

Good to Bad or Bad to Bad? What is the relationship between valence and the trait content of the Big Two?

In this article we directly assessed the relationship between valence and relevant traits of the Big Two dimensions (i.e., communion and agency). Drawing on previous research, we expected that the relationship with valence would be less monotonous and more variable in direction across agency-related traits, compared to communion-related traits. In three repeated measures studies we assessed the perceived valence of each trait dimension on a continuum of seven points. Studies 1 and 2 defined each continuum verbally. In Study 3 each continuum was defined by facial features. Results across these studies show that valence is linearly and more consistently related with communion-related traits than with agency-related traits. Within agency, however, competence established a positive linear relationship with valence, whereas dominance showed a target-sensitive relationship with valence: quadratic in evaluation of trait concepts, and negative and linear in face evaluation. We discuss the implications of these data for Big Two-related research.     

Group size,group status and trait valence as determinants of intergroup bias: Stereotyping in Finland and Sweden

The effects of group size, group status and trait valence (positive or negative stereotypes of in‐ and outgroup) on intergroup bias was studied in nation‐wide probability samples of majority and minority groups in Finland and Sweden, (N = 2479). Ethnolinguistic vitality was used as a proxy for status. It is argued that the specific history of real‐life intergroup relations has to be duly acknowledged when predicting main and interactive effects on intergroup bias in natural contexts. Supporting the predictions made, numerical group size showed a stable main effect; members of numerical minorities showed more bias than members of numerical majorities, regardless of trait valence. While status had no main effect, there was a significant interaction between status and size as well as between status and trait valence: intergroup bias was highest in the high status minority, and low status groups showed less bias than high status groups on negatively valenced traits. In fact, minority members showed the reverse of PNAE. In addition, majority members favoured the outgroup on negatively valenced traits, but favoured their ingroup on positively valenced traits. Different explanations for these results are discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Social Comparison in the Setting of Goals for Own and Others' Performance

This research examines social factors implicated by social comparison theory to be involved in the setting of task performance goals. Participants conducted an error-checking task and selected performance goals for themselves, their roommates, and unknown others. In addition, participants made judgments regarding their relative ability on the task as well as stating their confidence in attaining the goals. Consistent with predictions, participants rated themselves as above average in ability, had more confidence in their own abilities, and set lower goals for others than for themselves. In addition, individuals had more confidence in the abilities of their roommates than unknown others, and consequently chose goals for their roommates that were more similar to their own goals. The results and implications of this study are discussed within the context of social comparison theory and the better-than-average effect.     

A Below‐Average Effect with Respect to American Political Stereotypes on Warmth and Competence

The “above‐average effect” is the phenomenon that people tend to judge themselves above average on desirable traits. Based on social identity theory, we propose that a “below‐average effect” may arise when individuals rate themselves and the average ingroup member on traits stereotypically associated with the ingroup. In two studies, Republican and Democrat participants rated themselves and the average political ingroup member on possession of desirable traits related to warmth and competence. Current political stereotypes in America associate the former dimension with Democrats and the latter with Republicans. Consistent with our hypothesis, the above‐average effect was moderated by political group and dimension in interaction. In particular, Democrats rated themselves below the average Democrat on warmth and Republicans rated themselves below the average Republican on competence.     

Implicit policies about relations between personality traits and behavioral effectiveness in situational judgment items

This paper develops the concept of implicit trait policy (ITP), which is a variant of the accentuation effect described by Tajfel (1957). ITPs are implicit beliefs about causal relations between personality traits and behavioral effectiveness. Studies reported here tested the hypotheses (a) that personality traits affect ITPs so that agreeable people, for instance, believe the relation between agreeableness and effectiveness is more strongly positive than disagreeable people do and (b) that ITPs can predict behavior that expresses associated personality traits. Two studies with undergraduate research participants supported the first hypothesis for traits of agreeableness and extraversion (the average correlation between traits and associated ITPs was .31 for agreeableness and .37 for extraversion) but not for conscientiousness. A 3rd study with student participants found that individual differences in ITPs for agreeableness predicted agreeable behavior (the average correlation was .33) in simulated work settings. These results suggest that ITPs may be useful for predicting work behavior that expresses personality traits even though ITPs may not be strongly correlated with the personality traits themselves.     

Trust and respect as mediators of the other‐ and self‐profitable trait effects on interpersonal attraction

Mediators of the effects of other‐profitable (e.g., sincere vs. irresponsible) or self‐profitable (e.g., intelligent vs. unintelligent) traits on attraction were investigated. In Experiment 1 (N = 256), valence of a single other‐ or self‐profitable trait was varied, and trust in, respect for, and attraction toward the partner were measured. The three constructs were distinct. Moreover, the effects of the other‐profitable traits on attraction were solely mediated by trust, and those of the self‐profitable traits were mediated more strongly by respect than trust. In Experiment 2 (N = 144), an other‐profitable trait was crossed with the self‐profitable one, and diagnosticity ratings of those traits for the partner's warmth and competence and the previous three responses were taken. The five constructs were empirically distinct. Although trust mediated the effect of other‐profitable trait on attraction, there was a direct effect also. Respect was the sole mediator of the self‐profitable trait effect. Theoretical and methodological implications of these findings are discussed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Attitude extremity,consensus and diagnosticity

Studied the effects of attitude extremity on perceived consensus and willingness to ascribe trait terms to others with either pro or anti nuclear attitudes. Results showed that attitude extremity affected consensus estimates. Trait attributions revealed a clear effect for valence, especially for the extreme attitude groups. Subjects with extreme attitudes also ascribed more traits to both pro and anti others than subjects with relatively moderate attitudes.     

“别人家的孩子”vs.平庸的自己：社会比较对独特性寻求行为的影响

人们在自我评价中普遍存在着优于平均值效应, 而上行社会比较会打破这一自我评价偏差, 引发后续的补偿性消费行为。通过5个实验, 依次论证上行比较(vs.下行比较)会提升个体对独特产品选项的偏好(实验1); 其心理机制在于上行比较降低了而非下行比较提升了个体的自我独特性感知, 从而促使个体出于补偿的目的而寻求独特性(实验2a、2b和2c); 上述效应适用于经济状况这一特定比较维度, 并且在感知经济流动性的调节作用下得到强化或削弱(实验3)。研究结论对于推动社会比较和独特性寻求行为相关领域的理论进展, 指导长尾市场中企业的营销策略、帮助个体缓解上行比较的威胁均有着积极的启示价值。     

The better-than-my-average effect: The relative impact of peak and average performances in assessments of the self and others

We examine whether people call to mind different manifestations of various traits when considering what they are like than when considering what others are like. Specifically, do people think that peak manifestations of their traits and abilities best capture who they are themselves, but that other people are better captured by their average performances or trait expressions? In Studies 1a and 1b, participants were more likely to believe that their own most attractive photographs best represent their typical appearance than others' do. In Study 2, participants' estimates of where they stand on various trait dimensions coincided with their highest possible standing, whereas their estimates of an acquaintance's standing coincided with the midpoint between the latter's highest and lowest possible standing. In Study 3, regression analyses revealed that students' predictions of their own final exam score were based most heavily on their highest score received to that point, but their predictions of someone else's final exam score was based most heavily on that student's average score. We discuss how this tendency fits in the broader literature on self-other differences in evaluation and how it contributes to above-average effect.     

Trait desirability and cultural difference in the better‐than‐average effect

The present study examined whether cultural differences in the better‐than‐average effect (the tendency to view oneself as better than average) would vary with trait desirability and used Koreans and Americans as representatives of East Asian and Western cultures, respectively. In Study 1, the author found that the magnitude of cultural difference in the better‐than‐average effect varied between Americans and Koreans. Specifically, Korean participants failed to exhibit the better‐than‐average effect for any negative trait. In contrast, Americans tended to display the better‐than‐average effect more than Koreans, and cultural difference was greater for negative traits than for positive traits. In Study 2 as a conceptual replication of Study 1, it was also found that the magnitude of cultural difference in the better‐than‐average effect was significantly and negatively correlated with trait desirability. In Study 3 to pin down the underlying mechanism that gives rise to cultural differences, it was found that while the self‐effacing orientation of the modesty norm mediates the cross‐cultural difference, the other‐enhancing orientation moderates it.