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

Abstract

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...

Investigating the Relationship Between Self-Perceived Moral Superiority and Moral Behavior Using Economic Games

“…In other words, self-perceived moral superiority was mainly driven by how individuals viewed the morality of other people, not themselves, and greater moral cynicism about these others tended to be associated with lower monetary transfers. This supports our speculation on both counts, and is consistent with two areas of prior work: the first, that observers interpret expressions of self-superiority as condemnation of others, rather than egregious self-flattery (Van Damme et al, 2016;Van Damme et al, 2017), and, the second, that individuals condition their behavior in these games on whether they think others will behave in kind (Krueger & Acevedo, 2007).…”

Impression mismanagement: People as inept self‐presenters

“…Impression mismanagement occurs when people are oblivious to hubris, namely, the impact that their self‐aggrandizing displays can have on the audience's self‐views. A program of research systematically varied an actor's self‐presentations (using different types of self‐enhancing and non‐self‐enhancing claims) and assessed the inferences that observers make about the actor (e.g., liking) and also the inferences that they make about the actor's opinion of others in general as well as of observers in particular (Hoorens, Pandelaere, Oldersma, & Sedikides, ; Hoorens, Van Damme, Helweg‐Larsen, & Sedikides, ; van Damme, Hoorens, & Sedikides, ).…”

Foundations of Arrogance: A Broad Survey and Framework for Research

“…Explicit statements of superiority, as in our Component 5, tend to make an individual disliked (e.g., Van Damme, Hoorens, & Sedikides, 2016). Some research explores complex or difficult language by professional groups, sometimes perceived by laypeople as arrogant (Janicki, 2002).…”