Idiosyncratic Trait Definitions and Self-Serving Assessments
This study tests whether people favor themselves partly by choosing their own criteria for a trait. It compares self-ratings made with personal criteria, another participant’s criteria, and no instruction about criteria; the excerpt describes predictions rather than results.
THE IDEA
STUDY 3: LINKING IDIOSYNCRATIC TRAIT DEFINITIONS WITH SELF-SERVING ASSESSMENTS
The previous studies demonstrated that people distort their self-assessments to the extent that the domain in question is ambiguous. However, it did not directly document that people are relying on idiosyncratic definitions in those appraisals; that is, that different individuals are considering divergent criteria and evidence when providing self-appraisals. That documentation was the aim of Study 3. In this study, we compared the self-appraisals of subjects who were allowed to generate freely their own criteria of evaluation against those forced to consider someone else’s set of criteria. If people do generate idiosyncratic evidence, then the evaluations of the latter group should be lower than those of the first.
Specifically, in this study we asked subjects to provide self-evaluations under three different conditions. Initially, all subjects provided estimates of their percentile ranking among Cornell students in three different domains: athletics, artistic talent (including the performing arts), and activity in extracurricular activities. These three domains were chosen because pretests indicated that subjects tend to cite unambiguous evidence and criteria when considering these domains. In an own-criteria condition, subjects were asked to list the evidence and criteria they thought of when evaluating themselves before offering a second set of percentile estimates. In a yoked-criteria group, the subjects provided a second set of estimates after considering the criteria generated by an individual in the own-criteria group. The last condition was a control group, in which subjects merely offered a second set of estimates with no specific instructions. We expected that the second set of self-assessments offered by subjects in the control and own-criteria groups would not differ from their initial estimates, whereas those of the yoked group would be significantly lower.
When to use it
During performance reviews, managers should provide clear, shared criteria to reduce self-serving bias in employee self-assessments.
In teamwork, acknowledging that each member may define 'success' differently can help align expectations and reduce conflict.
Educators can ask students to use a shared rubric so differences between self-assessment and other assessments can be discussed against stated criteria.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Athletic Self-Rating
As a hypothetical illustration, a student rates himself highly as an athlete because he values effort and enjoyment. A rubric emphasizing competition results might produce a lower rating. The difference shows why the criteria matter; it is not a reported outcome from this excerpt.
Artistic Ability
An amateur artist might emphasize creativity when rating her ability, while someone else emphasizes technique. Comparing the ratings requires making those criteria explicit rather than assuming either person is judging the same thing.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
How might your own definitions of a trait or skill be different from someone else's?
In what areas of your life might you be using idiosyncratic criteria that lead to self-serving assessments?
Can you recall a time when considering another person's perspective or criteria changed your self-evaluation?
Often confused with
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Heuristics and Biases The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, Daniel Kahneman)