A Short Scale to Measure Self-Righteousness

Falbo, Toni; Belk, Sharyn S.

doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4902_13

Cited by 28 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Self-Righteousness Measure (Falbo and Belk, 1985) was designed to assess con®dence and rigidity in an individual's belief system. Respondents rate their agreement to nine statements using a 7-point scale with 1 as strongly disagree and 7 as strongly agree.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We also used a measure of Locus of Control (LOC;Rotter, 1966), since individuals with an external locus of control may be more likely to conform to external suggestions. Individuals with rigid belief systems may be less likely to respond to suggestions to construct false memories and, following Winograd et al (1998), we used the Self-Righteousness Measure (SRM; Falbo and Belk, 1985) to measure rigidity of belief systems. Finally, we used a general measure of several personality traits: the Myers-Briggs Inventory (Myers and McCaulley, 1985).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Individual differences related to two types of memory errors: word lists may not generalize to autobiographical memory

Wilkinson

Hyman

1998

Appl. Cognit. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments we investigated individual differences related to memory errors. In Experiment 1, we conducted an exploratory study of several factors possibly related to the tendency to change source monitoring decisions for an autobiographical memory. We found that only the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) was related to this autobiographical memory error. In Experiment 2, we used both the autobiographical memory task and a word list task as measures of memory. Aspects of the DES were related to errors in both measures and imagery vividness was related to errors in the word list study. The tendency to change a source judgement for an autobiographical memory was not related to the number of errors in a word list task. Performance on word lists may not be a good predictor of an individual's performance in everyday memory tasks because the two may be based on different underlying processes. Copyright © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences related to two types of memory errors: word lists may not generalize to autobiographical memory

Wilkinson

Hyman

1998

Appl. Cognit. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ten cognitive and personality assessment tools were employed. These were, in alphabetical order, the : Creative Imagination Scale (CIS; Wilson and Barber, 1978); Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES; Bernstein and Putnam, 1986);Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT;Oltman et al, 1971); Marlowe±Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSD; Crowne and Marlowe, 1960); Self Righteousness Scale (SRS; Falbo and Belk, 1985); Subjective Memory Questionnaire (SMQ; Bennett-Levy and Powell, 1980); a verbal¯uency task (VFLUENCY); a vocabulary test (VOCAB) verbal subscore from the Scholastic Aptitude Test (VSAT); and the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ; Marks, 1973). The cognitive and personality measures are described separately below.…”

Section: Individual Dierences Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in susceptibility to memory illusions

Winograd

Peluso

Glover

1998

Appl. Cognit. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forty-two individuals studied sixteen word lists, each of which converged on a common list associate that was not studied. Ten measures of individual dierences in cognition and personality were also administered. The tendency to intrude words in recall and to falsely recognize distractor words in a recognition memory test were signi®cantly correlated with reports of dissociative experiences and vivid mental imagery. It is argued that the memory errors, as well as the reports of dissociative experiences, re¯ect diculties in source monitoring, in particular, in the discrimination of events that originate externally from those that originate internally. #The extent to which memories are accurate re¯ections of past events is a question of great current interest, as well as one with an interesting history (see Roediger, 1996, andSchacter, 1995 for historical reviews). Much recent eort has been aimed at determining the bases upon which individuals decide they are accurately remembering (e.g. Johnson et al., 1993;Johnson and Raye, 1981), and at examining the extent of individuals' phenomenological experiences during remembering (Gardiner, 1988;Tulving, 1985). Just within the last decade, an entirely new focus of study has emerged from this literature in which both the objective and subjective dierences between accurate memories and inaccurate memories are being explored. The majority of this research has centred on the study of memory illusions, and how aspects of the content of inaccurate memories may dier from accurate memories (e.g. Mather et al., in press;Roediger and McDermott, 1995). The motivation for the present research was to examine the extent to which individual dierences in memory performance and phenomenological experiences of remembering might distinguish people who are more susceptible to memory illusions from those who are less susceptible.As Roediger et al. (1998) point out, it is possible not only to distinguish between the susceptibilities of populations, such as young versus old people, but also to identify individual dierences in susceptibility within populations. The literature on the relationship between individual dierences in cognition and personality and the tendency to produce memory errors is not extensive. In general, errors have been CCC 0888±4080/98/SI00S5±23 $17.50 examined in three related areas of research, eyewitness memory, source memory, and autobiographical memory. As there are a number of commonalities between these areas and the present research, each will be brie¯y discussed below. Following a review of this literature, we will turn to the rationale for our experiment. MEMORY ILLUSIONS IN THE LITERATURESchooler and Loftus (1993) provide a thorough review of studies investigating the relationship between various cognitive and personality measures and the extent to which they predict accuracy and suggestibility in eyewitness memory tasks. Among the measures reviewed are ®eld dependence, locus of control, hypnotic suggestibility, introversion±extroversion, working memory, and intel...

show abstract

“…Given past research (Brandt et al, 2015;Raimi et al, under review;Toner et al, 2013), we expected that there would be a curvilinear relationship between political ideology and environmental belief superiority, and wanted to test whether a similar relationship would emerge between political ideology and environmental moral exporting. With its focus on being unresponsive to others' viewpoints, environmental belief superiority should be more strongly linked to self-righteousness (Falbo & Belk, 1985) and dogmatism (Altemeyer, 2002) as compared to environmental moral exporting. However, we also expected that environmental moral exporting would relate to social vigilantism more strongly than environmental belief superiority does (Saucier & Webster, 2010).…”

Section: Current Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participants reported their own self-righteousness, captured with the four-item self-righteousness scale (Falbo & Belk, 1985). Participants indicated the extent to which they agreed with each item using a 1 (-disagree very strongly‖) to 9 (-agree very strongly‖) response scale (α = .46; M = 3.50, SD = 1.26; e.g., -People who disagree with me are wrong‖).…”

Section: Self-righteousnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental peer persuasion: How moral exporting and belief superiority relate to efforts to influence others

Maki

Raimi

2017

Journal of Environmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional research on environmental behavior has explored the predictors of behavior change as a function of intervention efforts from an authority. The current research examines selfreported environmental behavior outside of these contexts, and in particular demonstrates the value in asking who attempts to influence the environmental behaviors of their peers. Environmental moral exporting and environmental belief superiority both related to efforts to influence the environmental behaviors of others, albeit in different ways. People high in moral exporting were more active in their efforts to influence the environmental behaviors of others, preferred a two-way dialogue between individuals, and enjoyed such interactions. Alternatively, individuals high in environmental belief superiority put relatively less effort into influencing others, compared to those high in environmental moral exporting, and tended to avoid environmental conversations. When individuals high in environmental belief superiority did have those conversations, they were likely to get frustrated and attempted to dominate the conversations. This research demonstrates the value in asking who tries to influence the environmental behavior of others and how they do so.

show abstract

A Short Scale to Measure Self-Righteousness

Cited by 28 publications

References 1 publication

Individual differences related to two types of memory errors: word lists may not generalize to autobiographical memory

Individual differences related to two types of memory errors: word lists may not generalize to autobiographical memory

Individual differences in susceptibility to memory illusions

Environmental peer persuasion: How moral exporting and belief superiority relate to efforts to influence others

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About