Preprint of "Is Accurate, Positive, or Inflated Self-Perception Most Advantageous for Psychological Adjustment? A Competitive Test of Key Hypotheses"

Abstract

Empirical research on the (mal-)adaptiveness of favorable self-perceptions, self-enhancement, and self-knowledge has typically applied a classical null-hypothesis testing approach and provided mixed and even contradictory findings. Using data from five studies (laboratory and field, total N = 2,823), we employed an information-theoretic approach combined with Response Surface Analysis to provide the first competitive test of six popular hypotheses: that more favorable self-perceptions are adaptive versus maladaptive (Hypotheses 1 and 2: Positivity of self-view hypotheses), that higher levels of self-enhancement (i.e., a higher discrepancy of self-viewed and objectively assessed ability) are adaptive versus maladaptive (Hypotheses 3 and 4: Self-enhancement hypotheses), that accurate self-perceptions are adaptive (Hypothesis 5: Self-knowledge hypothesis), and that a slight degree of self-enhancement is adaptive (Hypothesis 6: Optimal margin hypothesis). We considered self-perceptions and objective ability measures in two content domains (reasoning ability, vocabulary knowledge) and investigated six indicators of intra- and interpersonal psychological adjustment. Results showed that most adjustment indicators were best predicted by the positivity of self-perceptions, there were some specific self-enhancement effects, and evidence generally spoke against the self-knowledge and optimal margin hypotheses. Our results highlight the need for comprehensive simultaneous tests of competing hypotheses. Implications for the understanding of underlying processes are discussed.Humberg, S., Dufner, M., Schönbrodt, F. D., Geukes, K., Hutteman, R., Küfner, A. C. P., van Zalk, M. H. W., Denissen, J. J. A., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2019). Is accurate, positive, or inflated self-perception most advantageous for psychological adjustment? A competitive test of key hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(5), 835–859. doi:10.1037/pspp0000204

Response Surface Analysis in Personality and Social Psychology: Checklist and Clarifications for the Case of Congruence Hypotheses

“…Furthermore, one can test the conditions for a congruence effect simultaneously instead of one by one by putting them all in a single model test (Edwards, 2002; Schönbrodt, 2016b). RSA can also be used for testing several competing hypotheses against each other (Burnham & Anderson, 2002; Humberg, Dufner, et al, 2017), and RSA can be adapted to fit complex data structures such as multilevel (e.g., Nestler, Humberg, & Schönbrodt, 2017) or dyadic data (Nestler et al, 2015; Schönbrodt, Humberg, & Nestler, 2017).…”

Self-Enhancement and Psychological Adjustment: A Meta-Analytic Review

“…Very few studies have considered nonlinear relations (Dufner et al, 2013), and therefore it was not possible to integrate these scarce results in a systematic manner. Future research could address such questions by relying on newly developed techniques (Humberg, Dufner, Schönbrodt, Geukes, Hutteman, Küfner, et al, 2017; Humberg, Dufner, Schönbrodt, Geukes, Hutteman, van Zalk, et al, 2017) that zero in on the precise trajectory of the relation between SE and adjustment. Also, individual-level meta-analysis that pools raw data across studies might reach the necessary resolution to identify reliably nonlinear trends.…”