Where the Motivation Resides and Self‐Deception Hides: How Motivated Cognition Accomplishes Self‐Deception

How do people remain blind to the motives underlying their flattering self‐construals, attitudes, and social judgments? This paper explores how motivated cognition accomplishes the goal of self‐deception. It proposes that self‐serving conclusions are produced although the influence of such distortions remains hidden from conscious awareness because of the ubiquitous presence and specialized nature of motivated cognition. I will discuss how motivations infiltrate four stages of cognitive processing, including information gathering and the creation of filters, the deployment of attention, information processing, and memory. In doing so, I will suggest that perhaps it is precisely because of this multicomponent system of checks and balances, the efficiency of motivational biases, and the specialized neural pathways used by motivated cognition that self‐deception is successful.     

Addiction and Self‐Deception: A Method for Self‐Control?

Neil Levy argues that while addicts who believe they are not addicts are self‐deceived, addicts who believe they are addicts are just as self‐deceived. Such persons accept a false belief that their addictive behaviour involves a loss of control. This paper examines two implications of Levy's discussion: that accurate self‐knowledge may be particularly difficult for addicts; and that an addict's self‐deceived belief that they cannot control themselves may aid their attempts at self‐control. I argue that the self‐deceived beliefs of addicts in denial and of self‐described addicts differ in kind. Unlike the self‐deception of an addict in denial, that of the self‐described addict allows them to acknowledge their behaviour. As such, it may aid an addict to develop more self‐control. A paradoxical implication is that this self‐deception may allow an addict more self‐knowledge.     

The Self‐Ambivalence Measure: A psychometric investigation

The purpose of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the Self‐Ambivalence Measure and its subscales developed by Bhar and Kyrios. The factor structure, reliability, and validity of the measure were examined utilising a non‐clinical sample of 415 participants who completed self‐report measures of aspects of the self. Results indicated that the Self‐Ambivalence Measure exhibited levels of internal consistency and convergent and divergent validity, warranting its use in further research. In contrast to earlier research finding a two‐factor structure, a three‐factor structure was found to best fit the current sample and the factors were labelled Self‐Worth Ambivalence, Moral Ambivalence, and Public Self‐consciousness. This solution separated internal aspects of self‐ambivalence from social aspects which were conceptualised as an aspect of lovability. A discussion of implications is provided.     

Mirror Self‐Recognition and Self‐Identification

That great apes are the only primates to recognise their reflections is often taken to show that they are self‐aware—however, there has been much recent debate about whether the self‐awareness in question is psychological or bodily self‐awareness. This paper argues that whilst self‐recognition does not require psychological self‐awareness, to claim that it requires only bodily self‐awareness would leave something out. That is that self‐recognition requires ‘objective self‐awareness’—the capacity for first person thoughts like ‘that's me’, which involve self‐identification and so are vulnerable to error through misidentification. This objective self‐awareness is distinct from bodily or psychological self‐awareness, requires cognitive sophistication and provides the beginnings of a more conceptual self‐representation which might play a role in planning, mental time travel and theory of mind.     

Using the BIDR to Distinguish the Effects of Impression Management and Self‐Deception on the Criterion Validity of Personality Measures: A Meta‐Analysis

Although the use of personality tests for personnel selection has gained increasing acceptance, researchers have raised concerns that job applicants may distort their responses to inflate their scores. In the present meta‐analysis, we examined the effects of the two dimensions of social desirability, impression management and self‐deception, on the criterion validity of personality constructs using the balanced inventory of desirable responding (BIDR). The results indicate that impression management and self‐deception did not create spurious effects on the relationship between personality measures and performance, nor did they function as performance predictors. Moreover, removing the influence of impression management or self‐deception from personality measures did not substantially attenuate the criterion validity of personality variables. Implications of the results and directions for future research are also discussed.     

Self‐Handicapping: On the Self‐Perpetuating Nature of Defensive Behavior

The term self‐handicapping was introduced by Jones and Berglas (1978 ) to refer to the creation of barriers to successful performance for the purpose of controlling attributions about the self. In the event of failure, attributions to lack of ability are diminished or discounted because of the handicap and, in the event of success, attributions to ability are enhanced or augmented because of the handicap. This article reviews over 25 years of research on self‐handicapping. A process model is presented in which individual differences in goals and concerns dynamically interact with situational threats to elicit self‐handicapping behavior which produces consequences that perpetuate the use of the behavior in future situations.     

Self‐esteem and caregiving in romantic relationships: Self‐ and partner perceptions

Self‐esteem may be associated with romantic partners' experience of emotional support and caregiving. Using a sample of 6,385 heterosexual couples in committed relationships gathered from the RELATionship Evaluation (RELATE) data set (see www.relate‐institute.org ), structural equation modeling was used to compare two actor–partner interdependence models examining the associations between both partners' self‐esteem and perceptions of partner caregiving responsiveness (i.e., accessibility, responsiveness, and engagement). Male and female self‐esteem was significantly related to partners' caregiving responsiveness while controlling for family‐of‐origin attachment experiences and relationship stability. Female self‐esteem was also significantly associated with females' caregiving responsiveness. These findings yield important implications, demonstrating that higher self‐esteem may be associated with improved caregiving behaviors between romantic partners. Relevant implications and future research directions are discussed.     

Self‐Compassion,Self‐Esteem,and Well‐Being

This article focuses on the construct of self‐compassion and how it differs from self‐esteem. First, it discusses the fact that while self‐esteem is related to psychological well‐being, the pursuit of high self‐esteem can be problematic. Next it presents another way to feel good about oneself: self‐compassion. Self‐compassion entails treating oneself with kindness, recognizing one’s shared humanity, and being mindful when considering negative aspects of oneself. Finally, this article suggests that self‐compassion may offer similar mental health benefits as self‐esteem, but with fewer downsides. Research is presented which shows that self‐compassion provides greater emotional resilience and stability than self‐esteem, but involves less self‐evaluation, ego‐defensiveness, and self‐enhancement than self‐esteem. Whereas self‐esteem entails evaluating oneself positively and often involves the need to be special and above average, self‐compassion does not entail self‐evaluation or comparisons with others. Rather, it is a kind, connected, and clear‐sighted way of relating to ourselves even in instances of failure, perceived inadequacy, and imperfection.     

Self‐Legislation and Self‐Command in Kant's Ethics

In his later writings, Kant distinguishes between autonomy and self‐mastery or self‐command. My article explains the relation between these two ideas, both of which are integral to his understanding of moral agency and the pursuit of virtue. I point to problems with other interpretations of this relation and offer an alternative. On my view, self‐command is a condition or state achieved by those agents who become proficient at solving problems presented by the passions. Such agents are able to stick to the results of self‐legislation over time and thereby achieve a form of temporally extended freedom.     

Motivation and Self‐Control: Implicit Motives Moderate the Exertion of Self‐Control in Motive‐Related Tasks

Using a dual‐task paradigm, two experiments tested whether aroused implicit motives would moderate the exertion of self‐control in motive‐related tasks. In Study 1, 67 participants first watched a power dialogue and were then asked to either enact the dialogue or simply reproduce it by writing it down. In Study 2, 74 participants performed either the frustrating or the simple version of an achievement‐related sensorimotor task. Participants who were high (compared to low) on the implicit power motive and had exerted power over another person subsequently showed more success at controlling their emotional responses (Study 1). Participants who were high (compared to low) on the implicit achievement motive and who had mastered a frustrating sensorimotor task scored better on a subsequent Stroop task (Study 2). Participants in the control conditions did not differ in self‐control performance regardless of their level of implicit motives. These studies provide evidence that aroused implicit motives regulate how much self‐control is exerted when performing motive‐related tasks that require self‐control.