Dispositional Self-Evaluation Motives and Accuracy of Self-Knowledge
Abstrakt
Aim
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).
Results
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.
Conclusion
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 analysisBibliografia
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
Licencja
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Użycie niekomercyjne – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
