Dispositional Self-Evaluation Motives and Accuracy of Self-Knowledge

Łukasz Miciuk

Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun


This laboratory study was the first to investigate the links between four cardinal dispositional self-evaluation motives (self-motives) and accuracy of self-knowledge.
Method. Participants were 178 people (i.e., 89 dyads of acquaintances) at a mean age of 24 years. The used measures were the Self-Motive Items (Gregg, Hepper & Sedikides) and the personality Q-sort QOS (Miciuk).

Accuracy of self-knowledge correlated most strongly and positively with the self-assessment motive. In turn, self-enhancement was a negative correlate of accuracy. Response surface analyses (RSAs) supported hypotheses about discrepancies inside pairs of self-motives being predictors of accurate self-knowledge. Most importantly, compared with the other three motives, the accuracy of self-knowledge was higher in participants who scored lower in self-enhancement. Self-motives and their interconnections explained 22% of accuracy of self-knowledge.

The dispositional motive of self-enhancement is negatively related to the accuracy of self-knowledge. Nonetheless, self-enhancing people can still achieve relatively high levels of accuracy as long as their self-enhancement is not stronger than the other three motives. In general, self-motives are important predictors of accuracy of self-knowledge.

Słowa kluczowe:

accuracy of self-knowledge, self-other agreement, self-enhancement, self-verification, self-assessment, self-improvement, Q-sort, response surface analysis

Alicke, M. D., & Sedikides, C. (2009). Self-enhancement and self-protection: What they are and what they do. European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 1–48. DOI:10.1080/10463280802613866.   Google Scholar

Back, M.D., & Vazire, S. (2012). Knowing our personality. In S. Vazire & T. D. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of self-knowledge (pp. 131–157). New York: Guilford Press.   Google Scholar

Barranti, M., Carlson, E. N., & Côté, S. (2017). How to test questions about similarity in personality and social psychology research: Description and empirical demonstration of response surface analysis. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 465–475. doi:10.1177/1948550617698204.   Google Scholar

Block, J. (2008). The Q-sort in character appraisal: Encoding subjective impressions of persons quantitatively. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. DOI:10.1037/11748-000.   Google Scholar

Bosson, J. K., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2001). The paradox of the sincere chameleon: Strategic self-verification in close relationships. In J. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 67–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.   Google Scholar

Brauer, K., & Proyer, R. T. (2020). Dyadic effects. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences (pp. 1222–1226). New York: Springer. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_656-1.   Google Scholar

Colvin, C. R., Block, J., & Funder, D. C. (1995). Overly positive self-evaluations and personality: Negative implications for mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1–11. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1152.   Google Scholar

Cronbach, L. J. (1955). Processes affecting scores on “understanding of others” and “assumed similarity”. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177–193. DOI: 10.1037/h0044919.   Google Scholar

Djikic, M., Peterson, J. B., & Zelazo, P. D. (2005). Attentional biases and memory distortions in self-enhancers. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 559–568. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.010.   Google Scholar

Edwards, J. R. (2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations: Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 350-400). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.   Google Scholar

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.   Google Scholar

Funder, D. C., & West, S. G. (1993). Consensus, self‐other agreement, and accuracy in personality judgment: An introduction. Journal of Personality, 61(4), 457–476. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00778.x.   Google Scholar

Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball Sampling. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32, 148–170. DOI: 10.1214/aoms/1177705148.   Google Scholar

Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1983). Adjective Checklist Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.   Google Scholar

Gregg, A. P., Hepper, E. G., & Sedikides, S. (2011). Quantifying self-motives: Functional links between dispositional desires. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 840–852. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.827.   Google Scholar

Hardaker, M., & Tsakanikos, E. (2021). Early information processing in narcissism: Heightened sensitivity to negative but not positive evaluative attributes. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 110386. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110386.   Google Scholar

Humberg, S., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2019). Response Surface Analysis in Personality and Social Psychology: Checklist and Clarifications for the Case of Congruence Hypotheses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(3), 409–419. DOI: 10.1177/1948550618757600.   Google Scholar

James, W. (1999). The self. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), The self in social psychology (pp. 69–77). Psychology Press.   Google Scholar

Jankowski, T. (2006). Motywy związane z koncepcją siebie [Self-motives]. Studia z Psychologii w KUL [Research in Psychology at Catholic University in Lublin, Poland], 13, 149–174.   Google Scholar

Johnston, R., Jones, K., & Manley, D. (2018). Confounding and collinearity in regression analysis: a cautionary tale and an alternative procedure, illustrated by studies of British voting behaviour. Quality and Quantity, 52, 1957–1976. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-017-0584-6.   Google Scholar

Kruger, J., Chan, S., & Roese, N. (2009). (Not so) positive illusions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(6), 526–527. DOI: 0.1017/S0140525X09991270.   Google Scholar

Miciuk, Ł. R. (2020). QOS: Q-sort do pomiaru zgodności między samoopisem i szacowaniem (self–other agreement) orazinnych wskaźników obiektywności samowiedzy [QOS: Q-sort to measure self–other agreement and other indexes of objectivity of self-knowledge]. In M. Trojan & M. Gut (Eds.), Nowe technologie i metody w psychologii [New technologies and methods in psychology] (pp. 431–448). Warsaw: Liberi Libri. doi: 10.47943/lib.9788363487430.rozdzial20.   Google Scholar

Miciuk, Ł. R., & Dubas-Miciuk, M. M. (2020). Analiza powierzchni odpowiedzi (response surface analysis) w badaniach psychologicznych [Response surface analysis in psychological research]. In M. Trojan & M. Gut (Eds.), Nowe technologie i metody w psychologii [New technologies and methods in psychology] (pp. 411–429). Warsaw: Liberi Libri. DOI: 10.47943/lib.9788363487430.rozdzial19.   Google Scholar

Oleś, P.K., Drat-Ruszczak, K. (2008). Osobowość [Personality]. In J. Strelau, D. Doliński (Eds.), Psychologia. Tom 1 [Psychology. Vol. 1] (pp. 651–764). Gdańsk: GWP.   Google Scholar

Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Goldenberg, J. (2003). Freedom vs. fear: On the defense, growth, and expansion of the self. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 314–343). New York: Guilford Press.   Google Scholar

Riverside Accuracy Project. (2016). Q-sort resources. Q-sorter program. https://rap.ucr.edu/qsorter.   Google Scholar

Robins, R. W., & John, O. P. (1997). The quest for self-insight: Theory and research on accuracy and bias in self-perception. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, S. R. Briggs (eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 649–679). San Diego: Academic Press. DOI: 10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50026-3.   Google Scholar

Schönbrodt, F. D. (2016). RSA: Response surface analysis (R package Version 0.9.10) [Oprogramowanie]. Pobrane z http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/RSA.   Google Scholar

Sedikides, C. (1993). Assessment, enhancement, and verification determinants of the self-evaluation process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 317–338. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.317.   Google Scholar

Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: To thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 209–270). Academic Press. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60018-0.   Google Scholar

Strube, J. S. (2012). From “out there” to “in here”: Implications of self-evaluation motives for self-knowledge. In S. Vazire & T. D. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of self-knowledge (pp. 397–412). New York: Guilford Press.   Google Scholar

Swann, W. B., Rentfrow, P., & Guinn, J. (2003). Self-verification: The search for coherence. In M. Leary & J. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 367–383). New York: Guilford.   Google Scholar

Taylor, S.E., & Brown, J. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2),193–210. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193.   Google Scholar

Taylor, S. E., Neter, E., & Wayment, H. A. (1995). Self-evaluation processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1278–1287. DOI: 10.1177/01461672952112005.   Google Scholar

Trope, Y. (1986). Self-enhancement and self-assessment in achievement behavior. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundation of social behavior (pp. 350–378). New York: Guilford Press.   Google Scholar

Vazire, S., & Carlson, E. N. (2010). Self-knowledge of personality: Do people know themselves? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 605–620. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00280.x.   Google Scholar


Cited By /

Miciuk, Łukasz. (2021). Dispositional Self-Evaluation Motives and Accuracy of Self-Knowledge. Przegląd Psychologiczny, 64(4), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.7887

Łukasz Miciuk 
Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun


Prawa autorskie (c) 2022 Przegląd Psychologiczny

Creative Commons License

Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Użycie niekomercyjne – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.