Are Actual and Perceived Intellectual Self–enhancers Evaluated Differently by Social Perceivers?

Dufner, Michael; Denissen, Jaap J. A.; Sedikides, Constantine; Zalk, Maarten van; Meeus, Wim; Aken, Marcel A. G. van

doi:10.1002/per.1934

Cited by 24 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dufner et al (2013) reported that the use of self-deception to obtain social benefits is often not guaranteed, but also requires certain self-conditions and social conditions. In daily life, high self-control individuals tend to improve their skills and comprehensive qualities by means of hard study to obtain higher social status and social resources.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Self-Control and Social Status on Self-Deception

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of self-control and social status on self-deception. The present study adopted a forward-looking paradigm to investigate how self-control and social status influence self-deception. In Experiment 1, participants were asked to complete 10 questions, after they predicted and completed 40 questions (commonsense judgment materials) either with or without answer hints. The results indicated that the participants had higher predicted scores under conditions with answer hints compared with conditions without answer hints and that the predicted scores were much higher than the actual scores under conditions with answer hints. In Experiment 2, individuals with different self-control traits were chosen to perform the operation and induction of the perception of social status and then complete tests such as Experiment 1. The results showed that differences in the predicted scores between conditions with answer hints and those without answer hints were observed to be greater in individuals with low self-control traits than in individuals with higher self-control traits, however, such differences between individuals with higher and low self-control traits were only observed in conditions with low social status perception, not in the conditions with high social status perception. The findings indicated that compared with individuals with high self-control, low self-control individuals tended to produce more self-deception. In addition, high social status in the individuals’ perception could restrain the influence of low self-control on self-deception, while low social status in the individuals’ perception could increase the self-control’s influence on self-deception.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Self-Control and Social Status on Self-Deception

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, compared to low self-enhancers, high self-enhancers are liked less by well-acquainted peers (Paulhus, 1998). Similarly, people who overestimate their status in a group are liked little by the other group members (Anderson, Ames, & Gosling, 2008) (but see Dufner et al, 2013;Taylor, Lerner, Sherman, Sage, & McDowell, 2003a).…”

Section: Christian Self-enhancement 72mentioning

confidence: 99%

Christian self-enhancement.

Gebauer

Sedikides

Schrade

2017

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People overestimate themselves in domains that are central to their self-concept. Critically, the psychological status of this “self-centrality principle” remains unclear. One view regards the principle as an inextricable part of human nature and, thus, as universal and resistant to normative pressure. A contrasting view regards the principle as liable to pressure (and subsequent modification) from self-effacement norms, thus questioning its universality. Advocates of the latter view point to Christianity’s robust self-effacement norms, which they consider particularly effective in curbing self-enhancement, and ascribe Christianity an ego-quieting function. Three sets of studies examined the self-centrality principle among Christians. Studies 1A and 1B (N = 2,118) operationalized self-enhancement as better-than-average perceptions on the domains of commandments of faith (self-centrality: Christians ≫ nonbelievers) and commandments of communion (self-centrality: Christians > nonbelievers). Studies 2A–2H (N = 1,779) operationalized self-enhancement as knowledge overclaiming on the domains of Christianity (self-centrality: Christians ≫ nonbelievers), communion (self-centrality: Christians > nonbelievers), and agency (self-centrality: Christians ≈ nonbelievers). Studies 3A–3J (N = 1,956) operationalized self-enhancement as grandiose narcissism on the domains of communion (self-centrality: Christians > nonbelievers) and agency (self-centrality: Christians ≈ nonbelievers). The results converged across studies, yielding consistent evidence for Christian self-enhancement. Relative to nonbelievers, Christians self-enhanced strongly in domains central to the Christian self-concept. The results also generalized across countries with differing levels of religiosity. Christianity does not quiet the ego. The self-centrality principle is resistant to normative pressure, universal, and rooted in human nature.

show abstract

“…And low‐to‐moderate confidence (cf. self‐enhancement) is more socially attractive than overconfidence (Dufner et al., ). These considerations agree with the Aristotelian idea that virtue results from a balance between excess and deficiency (e.g., Grant & Schwartz, ; Imhoff & Koch, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Oliveira¹,

Garcia‐Marques²,

Garcia‐Marques

et al. 2019

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Are Actual and Perceived Intellectual Self–enhancers Evaluated Differently by Social Perceivers?

Cited by 24 publications

References 70 publications

The Influence of Self-Control and Social Status on Self-Deception

The Influence of Self-Control and Social Status on Self-Deception

Christian self-enhancement.

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About