Social Psychology. Daniel W. Barrett

after, or simultaneously with the ratings of their peers, their self-ratings were typically higher than their peer ratings.

      Conclusion: College students continue to believe that they are better than the average college student.

      Source: Adapted from Guenther, C. L., & Alicke, M. D. (2010). Deconstructing the better-than-average effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 755–770.

      Self-Serving Attributional Bias: Taking credit for one’s successes but blaming outside factors for one’s failures

      The Bias Blind Spot: Being Biased About Being Biased

      One of the most interesting self-serving biases is the bias people have about being biased. While acknowledging that the average American exhibits many of the biases described in this section, people tend to believe they and they alone are somehow immune to those very same biases, including the self-serving bias! Pronin, Lin, and Ross (2002) found that people exhibit this bias blind spot for several different types of cognitive biases. Instances of this blindness often occur in the context of negotiations, wherein the conflicting parties are unable to identify their own biases but are quick to do so in their adversaries (Frantz, 2006). Even when people admit to having biases in theory, they tend to deny them in specific situations (West, Meserve, & Stanovich, 2012).

      Think Again!

      1 How is self-esteem different from self-concept?

      2 What are two ways do you enhance your self-esteem?

      3 What is the bias blind spot? Do you think you have this bias?

      SELF-PRESENTATION: DISPLAYING ONESELF

      We’ve already seen that the self-concept is the sum total of what you believe about yourself—your attributes, qualities, competencies, and so forth—and how self-esteem represents your evaluation of your self-concept. There is a third aspect to the self that is also important in building and shaping who we are: our interpersonal self, which is the self we present to others (Burusic & Ribar, 2014). We manage our self-image and protect our self-esteem through tactical self-presentation or impression management. Impression management represents our efforts to project the image that we wish others to have of us (Bourdage, Wiltshire, & Lee, 2015; Ogunfowora, Bourdage, & Nguyen, 2013; Schlenker, 2000). The specific tactics that we choose will partially depend on how we imagine other people perceive and judge us, which in turn can affect our sense of self. We engage in self-presentational strategies so that others will see us as we see ourselves, which of course requires that we attempt to take the perspective of others to gain insight into our self-presentation (Leary & Allen, 2011). There are several goals of self-presentation: We want others to like us, to see us as competent, and to verify or affirm the self (Jones, 1990; Swann, 1990; Uziel, 2010).

      Self-Monitoring

      When you walk into class or a party, how much do you think about the impressions you are making on others? Do you wonder how others perceive your actions and appearance? If you do this a lot, then you are probably high in self-monitoring. Self-monitoring is the extent to which people chronically think about how they appear to others and, as a consequence, change their appearance and behavior to fit the circumstances (Abell & Brewer, 2014; Choi, Moon, & Chun, 2015; Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). People who are low in self-monitoring tend to be less concerned about others’ perceptions of them and usually act in similar ways across situations (Kurt, Inman, & Argo, 2011). For instance, do you know someone who behaves in pretty much the same way no matter what setting she is in—perhaps is loud, profane, unkempt, and dressed in a baseball cap, T-shirt, and jeans regardless of the situation? She would be a low self-monitor. Compare her with a high self-monitor, who carefully selects his clothing and hairstyle to match social situations and tries hard to fit in with whomever he is with.

      A high self-monitor tends to express different attitudes to different audiences—even if it entails endorsing attitudes that he doesn’t hold—and is more likely to mimic the behavior of others (Estow, Jamieson, & Yates, 2007; Leary & Allen, 2011). In contrast to low self-monitors, high self-monitors are more likely to act in accordance with social norms and are better able to read and respond to the interpersonal cues and emotions of others (Fuglestad & Snyder, 2010; Snyder, 1974). Differences between high and low self-monitors extend to romantic relationships—where the former focus more on surface characteristics such as physical attractiveness—and advertising—where image-oriented ads appeal to those at the high end of the scale (Snyder & DeBono, 1985). Some of my students have argued that self-monitoring is undesirable because it is overly conformist. However, they backpedal a bit when they realize how frequently they self-monitor and how important matching the behavior of others and fitting in are.

      Bias Blind Spot: Believing that one is immune to cognitive biases that affect others

      Interpersonal Self: Way we present ourselves to other people

      Impression Management: Efforts to project the image of the self that a person wants others to have

      Self-Monitoring: Extent to which people chronically think about how they appear to others and, as a consequence, change their appearance and behavior to fit the circumstances

      The Spotlight Effect and the Illusion of Transparency

      How would you feel if you were asked, while wearing a T-shirt with a large headshot of Justin Bieber, to enter a room with 6 college students, all of whom could potentially notice your shirt (and are unlikely to be Bieber fans)? Perhaps a bit embarrassed? How many of them would likely remember who was on your shirt? Well, if you were like the participants in a set of studies by Gilovich, Medvec, and Savitsky (2000), you’d think that more people took note of it than actually did. Irrespective of our dispositional self-monitoring level, many of us overestimate the extent to which other people are observing and noticing us—something called the spotlight effect (Gilovich et al., 2000; Lawson, 2010). In one study, participants wore a T-shirt displaying the somewhat embarrassing image of Barry Manilow when they entered a room of college students (See Figure 4.4). Participants later estimated that 46% of observers would remember the celebrity on the T-shirt, when in fact only 23% did. People similarly exaggerate how many others notice when they wear a nonembarrassing shirt or make positive or negative contributions to a group discussion or engage in another social blunder (Epley, Savitsky, & Gilovich, 2002; Gilovich et al., 2000). In effect, people tend to think they are in a veritable social spotlight.

      A related phenomenon occurs with respect to how strongly we believe that others can “read” our emotions or detect lies that we utter merely by looking at our facial expressions. Social psychologists call this the illusion of transparency (Gilovich, Savitsky, & Medvec, 1998; Holder & Hawkins, 2007). For example, participants in one study were asked to hide their expressions of disgust while drinking unpleasant fluids and subsequently overestimated how many observers accurately perceived their true reaction (Brown & Stopa, 2007; Gilovich et al., 1998; MacInnis, Mackinnon, & MacIntyre, 2010). Both the spotlight effect and the illusion of transparency illustrate the fact that accurately understanding how other people perceive us can be challenging (Gilovich & Savitsky, 1999).

      Figure 4.4 The Spotlight Effect

      Source: Adapted from Gilovich, T., Medvec, V. H., & Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own actions and appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 211–222.

      Spotlight Effect: Overestimation of the extent to which other people are observing and noticing one

      Illusion of Transparency: Incorrect belief that others can