Reactions to unfavorable personal evaluations as a function of the evaluator's perceived adjustment.

Jones, Edward E.; Hester, S.; Farina, Amerigo; Davis, Keith E.

doi:10.1037/h0047311

Cited by 32 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After all, self-presenters who claim that they are superior to others may judge others favorably while reckoning that they are still a little bit better. One explanation evokes the presence of a strong social norm against negativity in descriptions of groups and individuals (Jones, Hester, Farina, & Davis, 1959;Mae & Carlston, 2005;Sutton, Elder, & Douglas, 2006).…”

Section: Limitations and Future Research Directionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Self-enhancement Provokes Dislike: The Hubris Hypothesis and the Aversiveness of Explicit Self-superiority Claims

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most people believe that they are in many respects superior to others. When they publicly express their superiority, they may do so in an explicitly or implicitly comparative manner ("I am better than others" vs. "I am good"). According to the hubris hypothesis, observers dislike explicit self-superiority claims, because these suggest a negative view of others and hence of the observers. The results of two experiments were consistent with the hubris hypothesis.Participants evaluated explicit self-superiority claimants more unfavorably than implicit selfsuperiority claimants (Experiments 1-2). They attributed less warmth, but not less competence, to explicit than implicit self-superiority claimants (Experiment 2), and this occurred to the extent that participants inferred a negative view of others (Experiments 1-2) and hence of them (Experiment 2).Keywords: self-enhancement, superiority, self-presentation, social comparison, hubris hypothesis HUBRIS HYPOTHESIS 3 Why Self-Enhancement Provokes Dislike:The Hubris Hypothesis and the Aversiveness of Explicit Self-Superiority Claims People believe that, in many respects, they are better and behave better than others (Alicke & Govorun, 2005;Sedikides & Alicke, 2012). These self-superiority beliefs have been linked with diverse interpersonal consequences, ranging from social acceptance to social rejection (Hoorens, 2011;Sedikides, Hoorens, & Dufner, 2015). We argue that the interpersonal consequences of self-superiority beliefs hinge, in part, on the manner in which they are expressed.People may convey self-superiority beliefs by claiming that they are "better than others." Alternatively, they may do so by claiming that they are "good." Borrowing terms introduced by Alicke (2007), we call these "explicit self-superiority claims" and "implicit self-superiority claims," respectively (cf. Hoorens & Van Damme, 2012). Although it is tempting to refer to the latter as non-comparative rather than implicitly comparative (cf. Hoorens, Pandelaere, Oldersma, & Sedikides, 2012), we have come to prefer the explicit-implicit distinction because even seemingly non-comparative self-judgements involve social comparison (Corcoran & Mussweiler, 2010). Performance success is typically defined as doing better than others (Gaines, Duvall, Webster, & Smith, 2005). Also, socially comparative information often influences selfjudgments more than any other type of information (Goolsby & Chaplin, 1988;Klein, 2003;Wood & Wilson, 2003; but see Moore & Klein, 2008). Socially comparative information even influences self-judgments, affect, and behavioral intentions in those cases where objective standards are available and relevant (Klein, 1997).There are good reasons to assert, therefore, that both explicit and implicit self-superiority claims rest upon the belief of being superior to others. Still, observers dislike explicit, but not implicit, self-superiority claims and claimants . But why do they do so?The answer cannot be that explicit, relative to implicit, self-superiority claims communic...

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Future Research Directionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Self-enhancement Provokes Dislike: The Hubris Hypothesis and the Aversiveness of Explicit Self-superiority Claims

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The findmgs of the present report are also relevant to still another conceptual point This concerns the confusion of liking, lovmg, and bemg attracted to another with positive evaluation of his attnbutes by an mdividual and the consequent blurring of the distinctions among these vanables Favorable evaluation of another's attnbutes and likmg for that other have often, if not characteristically, m the psychological literature on mterpersonal attraction been presented as more or less mterchangeable terms, measures of hkmg or attraction commonly used employing subject's ratings of the target person's personal attnbutes as an index to the degree of liking felt for him by the subject (eg, Byrne & Nelson, 1965, Jones, Hester, Farina, & Davis, 1959, Walster, Walster, Abrahams, & Brown, 1966. There is, of course, no denymg that positive evaluation of another's attributes is strongly and closely related to liking or love for him or her (c f Centers*) That point is not at issue Nor is it bemg insisted that evaluative responses may not be properly employed as items mdicial of at-traction, m the sense that the former may be predictive of the latter But the findmgs reported m this paper surely mdicate that the assumption of equivalence is not at all warranted, for even where attraction is presumably maximally positive evaluation IS f oimd to be influenced by other motivational dynamics…”

Section: Resttlts and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the loved one: The motivational congruency factor¹

1971

Journal of Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In descnbmg tlie functional significance of perception m mterpersonal relations, Heider (1958b) pointed out that the perceiver was oriented toward three salient mterpersonal goals, control, evaluation, and communion. "Perception," he mamtamed, "leads to evaluation,"an observation not only strongly confirmed m this writer's personal experience but importantly supported m the work of Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957) This latter mdicates a dominance of the evaluative factor m person perception. In another place Heider outhned what has subsequendy been elaborated upon as cognitive consistency or balance theory m interpersonal perception. "We also want to attam stable and orderly evaluations, we want to find the good and bad distributed m a simple and consistent fashion The codification m terms of positive and negative value is simpler when the positive features are grouped m one umt and the negative ones m another umt. For mstance, there is a tendency to see only the positive traits tn a person we like" (1958a, p 25) 'Heider had earher (1944), m his classic paper, "Social Perception and Phenomenal Causahty," given considerable attention to the "dynamic state of the person" and to his attitudes, emotions, vsoshes, and needs as well, argumg that these strongly influenced perception, evaluation, and attnbution, citmg die earlier work of Murray (1933), Sears (1937), and Maslow (1942 m support of his contention A wealth of research findmgs, mainly laboratory m ongm, have subsequendy confirmed his view and demonstrated the effects of a variety of situationally created dynamic factors m perception and evaluation, thus strongly supporting the idea that temporarily mduced motivational forces may shape evaluative responses Yet, perhaps because the elegant

show abstract

“…[1][2][3] Social interaction theory suggests that it is the abnormal behaviour demonstrated by psychiatric patients that produces the rejection by others. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors contributing to difficulty with psychiatric disorder among junior medical staff

Solar

2002

Australas Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study examines the attitudes and difficulties that junior medical staff, working in the emergency department of a teaching hospital, have in relation to psychiatric disorders. Method: Systematic textual analysis of nine in-depth interviews.Results: Three major categories identified were emotional difficulty with patient interaction, uncertainty and pessimism. Conclusion:Those doctors able to self reflect and adjust their level of emotional distance appropriately had less emotional difficulty interacting with psychiatric patients. They were also more comfortable in dealing with the issue of uncertainty associated with psychiatric disorder. There was a worrying level of pessimism regarding prognosis in psychiatric disorder.

show abstract

Reactions to unfavorable personal evaluations as a function of the evaluator's perceived adjustment.

Cited by 32 publications

References 5 publications

Why Self-enhancement Provokes Dislike: The Hubris Hypothesis and the Aversiveness of Explicit Self-superiority Claims

Why Self-enhancement Provokes Dislike: The Hubris Hypothesis and the Aversiveness of Explicit Self-superiority Claims

Evaluating the loved one: The motivational congruency factor¹

Factors contributing to difficulty with psychiatric disorder among junior medical staff

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Reactions to unfavorable personal evaluations as a function of the evaluator's perceived adjustment.

Cited by 32 publications

References 5 publications

Why Self-enhancement Provokes Dislike: The Hubris Hypothesis and the Aversiveness of Explicit Self-superiority Claims

Why Self-enhancement Provokes Dislike: The Hubris Hypothesis and the Aversiveness of Explicit Self-superiority Claims

Evaluating the loved one: The motivational congruency factor1

Factors contributing to difficulty with psychiatric disorder among junior medical staff

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Evaluating the loved one: The motivational congruency factor¹