How well do we know ourselves? Disentangling self-judgment biases in perceived accuracy and preference of personality feedback
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24837/pru.v20i2.518Keywords:
personality, Barnum effect, better-than-average effect, psychometricsAbstract
Despite personality measurement and feedback being pervasive practices, there are self-judgment biases that may impair their usage. We set out to analyze the differences between two kinds of false feedback and real feedback on personality regarding perceived accuracy and preference. We propose that there would be no differences between false and real feedback regarding perceived accuracy, but we expect differences regarding feedback preference. A sample of 146 students completed the IPIP-50 instrument that measured the Big 5 Factors and received three kinds of feedback - a general one (Barnum effect as false feedback), a positive one (Better-than-average effect as false feedback), and a real one. They rated each regarding accuracy and preference. Results indicate differences regarding both dependent variables. Participants perceive false feedback as more accurate than the real one. Moreover, they prefer positive feedback over the other two, and general feedback compared to the real one. We discuss both theoretical and practical implications, alongside a series of limitations and future research directions.
Downloads
References
Alicke, M. D., & Govorun, O. (2005). The Better-Than-Average Effect. In M. D. Alicke, D. A. Dunning, & J. I. Krueger (Eds.), The Self in Social Judgment (pp. 85–106). Psychology Press.
Allport, G. W. (1960). Personality and social encounter: Selected essays. Oxford, England: Beacon.
Andersen, P., & Nordvik, H. (2002). Possible Barnum Effect in the Five Factor Model: Do Respondents Accept Random Neo Personality Inventory–Revised Scores as Their Actual Trait Profile? Psychological Reports, 90(2), 539–545. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2002.90.2.539
Beins, B. C. (1993). Using the Barnum Effect to Teach About Ethics and Deception in Research. Teaching of Psychology, 20(1), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2001_6
Christian, J. K., & Bringmann, W. G. (1982). Comparison of Computerized versus Standardized Feedback and Accurate versus Inaccurate Feedback. Psychological Reports, 50(3_suppl), 1067–1070. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1982.50.3c.1067
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5
Dana, R. H., & Fouke, H. P. (1979). Barnum statements in reports of psychological assessment. Psychological Reports, 44(3_suppl), 1215-1221. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1979.44.3c.1215
De Fruyt, F., & Wille, B. (2013). “Hey, This is not like me!” Convergent validity and personal validation of computerized personality reports. European Review of Applied Psychology, 63(5), 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2013.07.001
Dickson, D. H., & Kelly, I. W. (1985). The ‘Barnum Effect’ in Personality Assessment: A Review of the Literature. Psychological Reports, 57(2), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1985.57.2.367
Downey, J. L. (1999). Sex and the Barnum Effect: A Reply to Layne. Psychological Reports, 84(2), 424–426. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1999.84.2.424
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological science in the public interest, 5(3), 69-106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x
Fichten, C. S., & Sunerton, B. (1983). Popular Horoscopes and the “Barnum Effect.” The Journal of Psychology, 114(1), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1983.9915405
Fischer, C. T. (2000). Collaborative, individualized assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 74(1), 2-14. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA740102
Forer, B. R. (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: a classroom demonstration of gullibility. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(1), 118–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059240
Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.197
Furnham, A., & Schofield, S. (1987). Accepting personality test feedback: A review of the Barnum effect. Current Psychology, 6(2), 162–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686623
Furnham, A., & Varian, C. (1988). Predicting and accepting personality test scores. Personality and Individual Differences, 9(4), 735-748. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(88)90063-3
Glick, P., Gottesman, D., & Jolton, J. (1989). The Fault is not in the Stars: Susceptibility of Skeptics and Believers in Astrology to the Barnum Effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15(4), 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167289154010
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26
Greene, R. L. (1977). Student acceptance of generalized personality interpretations: A reexamination. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45(5), 965–966. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.45.5.965
Guerrettaz, J., & Arkin, R. M. (2016). Distinguishing the subjective and the objective aspects of self‐concept clarity. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(4), 219-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12243
Halperin, K., Snyder, C. R., Shenkel, R. J., & Houston, B. K. (1976). Effects of source status and message favorability on acceptance of personality feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 85–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.61.1.85
Harris, M. E., & Greene, R. L. (1984). Students’ Perception of Actual, Trivial, and Inaccurate Personality Feedback. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(2), 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4802_13
Harvey, V. S. (2005). Variables affecting the clarity of psychological reports. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20196
Holmes, C. B., Buchannan, J. A., Dungan, D. S., & Reed, T. (1986). The Barnum effect in Luscher color test interpretation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42(1), 133-136. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(198601)42:1%3C133::AID-JCLP2270420122%3E3.0.CO;2-7
Iliescu, D., Popa, M., & Dimache, R. (2019). Adaptarea românească a Setului Internaţional de Itemi de Personalitate: IPIP-Ro. Psihologia Resurselor Umane, 13(1), 83–112.
Jelley, R. B. (2021). Using personality feedback for work-related development and performance improvement: A rapid evidence assessment. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 53(2), 175. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/cbs0000230
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102–138). Guilford Press.
Johnson, J. T., Cain, L. M., Falke, T. L., Hayman, J., & Perillo, E. (1985). The "Barnum effect" revisited: Cognitive and motivational factors in the acceptance of personality descriptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(5), 1378–1391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.5.1378
Kwiatkowski, R. (2018). Inside-out and outside-in: The use of personality and 360 degree data in executive coaching. In Executive Coaching (pp. 153-181). Routledge.
Kwan, V. S. Y., John, O. P., Kenny, D. A., Bond, M. H., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Reconceptualizing Individual Differences in Self-Enhancement Bias: An Interpersonal Approach. Psychological Review, 111(1), 94–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.94
Layne, C. (1979). The Barnum effect: Rationality versus gullibility? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 219–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.47.1.219
Layne, C. (1998). Gender and the Barnum Effect: A Reinterpretation of Piper-Terry and Downey’s Results. Psychological Reports, 83(2), 608–610. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1998.83.2.608
Layne, C. (1999). Sex and the Barnum Effect: Rationality versus Helpfulness. Psychological Reports, 85(1), 187–188. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1999.85.1.187
Macdonald, D. J., & Standing, L. G. (2002). Does Self-Serving Bias Cancel the Barnum Effect? Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 30(6), 625–630. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2002.30.6.625
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five‐factor model and its applications. Journal of personality, 60(2), 175-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x
Meehl, P. E. (1956). Wanted—a good cook-book. American Psychologist, 11(6), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044164
Merrens, M. R., & Richards, W. S. (1970). Acceptance of Generalized versus “Bona Fide” Personality Interpretation. Psychological Reports, 27(3), 691–694. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1970.27.3.691
Michels, P. J., & Layne, C. (1980). Inventory Responding Models People’s Acceptance of Feedback “Derived” from Tests and from Interviews. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44(3), 302–306. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4403_14
Mortaza Zare & Carol Flinchbaugh (2019) Voice, creativity, and big five personality traits: A meta-analysis, Human Performance, 32(1), 30-51, https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2018.1550782
Nikolaou, I., & Foti, K. (2018). Personnel selection and personality. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds), The SAGE handbook of personality and individual differences, (vol. 3, pp. 458-474).
Nikolaou, I., & Foti, K. (2018). Personnel selection and personality. In I. Nikolaou, & K. Foti Personnel Selection and Personality (pp. 458-474). SAGE Publications Ltd, https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526470300
Ozer, D. J., & Reise, S. P. (1994). Personality assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 357–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.45.020194.002041
Piper-Terry, M. L., & Downey, J. L. (1998). Sex, Gullibility, and the Barnum Effect. Psychological Reports, 82(2), 571–576. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1998.82.2.571
Rogers, P., & Soule, J. (2009). Cross-Cultural Differences in the Acceptance of Barnum Profiles Supposedly Derived From Western Versus Chinese Astrology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(3), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022109332843
Snyder, C. R., Shenkel, R. J., & Lowery, C. R. (1977). Acceptance of personality interpretations: The “Barnum effect” and beyond. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.45.1.104
Snyder, C. R. (1974). Why horoscopes are true: The effects of specificity on acceptance of astrological interpretations. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30(4), 577–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(197410)30:4<577::AID-JCLP2270300434>3.0.CO;2-8
Stachnik, T., & Stachnik, B. (1980). Acceptance of Non-Specific Astrological Personality Descriptions: An Empirical Demonstration. Psychological Reports, 47(2), 537–538. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1980.47.2.537
Standing, L., & Keays, G. (1987). Do the Barnum Effect and Paranormal Belief Involve a General Gullibility Factor? Psychological Reports, 61(2), 435–438. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1987.61.2.435
Verberne, T. J. P. (1974). Forer Revisited: Acceptability of a Fake Personality Sketch. Psychological Reports, 34(3), 1001–1002. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1974.34.3.1001
Young, H. R., Glerum, D. R., Wang, W., & Joseph, D. L. (2018). Who are the most engaged at work? A meta‐analysis of personality and employee engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(10), 1330–1346. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2303
Zell, E., & Lesick, T. L. (2022). Big five personality traits and performance: A quantitative synthesis of 50+ meta‐analyses. Journal of Personality, 90(4), 559-573. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12683
Zell, E., Strickhouser, J. E., Sedikides, C., & Alicke, M. D. (2020). The better-than-average effect in comparative self-evaluation: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146, 118–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000218
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Psihologia Resurselor Umane
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal,it also allows for use of the work for non-commercial purposes and if others remix, transform or build upon the works found in this journal they must distribute the contributions under the same licence as the original.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See: The Effect of Open Access).
