Self-Enhancement 1

RECEIVED - 7 OCT 1997 Running head: SELF-ENHANCEMENT

Alternative Conceptualizations of Self-Enhancement

Virginia Sau Yee Kwan

Chinese University ofHong Kong

A thesis submitted to the Department ofPsychology of the Chinese University of Hong Kong in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master ofPhilosophy

Degree in Psychology.

May, 1997

1 :4X ^ ^ i - - i L i i i i ^ X

57 • ~^ "

\

; � 7 � � i ^ | ^ i^-FF ^^ISHAn r/ ~~7' � C ) .

,x^.wn/ 8、糊 Z�

^ M ^ ^

Self-Enhancement 2

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Michael Harris

Bond, for his advice and guidance in the preparation of this thesis and throughout

these two years. I appreciate Shu Fai Cheung for numerous insightful conversations

regarding this research. I also like to thank Darius Chan and Kwok Leung for their

valuable time and useful comments of an earlier draft. Additionally, I am greatly

indebted to David Kenny for his unfailing support and encouragement to the present

study. All errors, if any, remain my own.

Self-Enhancement 3

Abstract

As different operationalizations of self-enhancement have yielded divergent effects, it

is unclear whether self-enhancement has positive or negative impact on mental health.

The sources of ambiguity were revealed by partitioning a perception rating into

various components. The operationalization used in studies Taylor and Brown (1988)

marshaled to support their argument was confounded with one's socially agreed

standing (i.e., the target effect); whereas the operationalization Colvin, Block and

Funder (1995) used was confounded with one's general tendency to view others (i.e.,

the perceiver effect). A viable alternative was thus proposed using Social Relations

Model analysis (Kenny & La Voie, 1984) to operationalize self-enhancement. The

patterns of correlates for the perceiver and target effects gave insight into explaining

the conflicting findings from previous research. The new measure of self-

enhancement was negatively correlated with social adjustment. The external

correlates of this refined measure made theoretical sense, providing empirical support

for the usefulness of the new approach.

\

Self-Enhancement 4

Alternative Conceptualizations of Self-Enhancement

A long-standing assumption about mental health is that one of its components

is the ability to discern reality. Accurate perceptions of one's self and surroundings

have been considered as essential for adaptive functioning and well-being (Jahoda,

1953; Maslow, 1950). So, almost nothing at first appeared more difficult to believe

than Taylor and Brown's (1988) revolutionary notion of positive illusions. In their

1988 review, they integrated research showing the positive value for three illusions,

viz., overly positive self-evaluations, exaggerated perceptions of control, and

unrealistic optimism. These positive illusions are regarded as useful in promoting

individual's mental health and social adjustment.

This new perspective on positive illusions has drawn considerable attention.

The survey done by Colvin and Block (1994) showed that there were over 250

citations for Taylor and Brown (1988) within a four year period. Additionally, there

were as many as 429 citations found for Taylor and Brown (1988) within another four

year period (see Social Science Citation Index from Jan. 1993 to Jan. 1997). As

Colvin and Block (1994) remarked, "the seemingly widespread acceptance ofTaylor

and Brown's formulation suggests that a mental health ‘paradigm shift’ is under way

or imminent" (pA).

The Puzzle

Colvin and Block (1994) posed critical questions about the methodology ofthe

studies and about the logic Taylor and Brown drawn in supporting their argument.

They concluded that the positive links between positive illusions and psychological

well-being were unwarranted. In response to Colvin and Block's criticisms, Taylor

Self-Enhancement 5

and Brown (1994) have softened their position on depressive realism, but they again

asserted their standpoint on the relation between positive illusions and mental health.

As a consequence, careful attention has been raised to refining the prominent

construct of self-enhancement. In Colvin, Block, and Funder (1995, 1996)，and

Zuckerman and Knee (1996), the primary concem is the lack of a well-grounded

operationalization in studying overly positive self-evaluation. Colvin et al. (1995)

identified problems with the criteria against what the self-evaluation was compared in

the studies Taylor and Brown marshaled in supporting their proposition. More

specifically, they pointed out that those studies faultily compared self-ratings to

normative criteria (i.e., asking participants to compare themselves with "a

hypothetical generalized other", or "most other people"; e.g., Alicke, 1985; Brown,

1986, Buunk & Van Yperen, 1991; Svenson, 1981). Instead of using such normative

criteria, Colvin et al. (1995) compared self-ratings with a rather different external

criterion-social consensus. That is, they compared self-ratings with either a group of

peer-ratings or observer-ratings (see John & Robins, 1994; Lewinsohn, Mischel,

Chaplin, & Barton, 1980). Contrary to the results from Taylor and Brown's

formulation, self-enhancement grounded in social consensus was found negatively

correlated with both interpersonal and psychological adjustment (Colvin et al., 1995).

These two approaches thus yielded dramatically different results. The crucial

link between positive illusions and well-being has created what William James

described as "a bloomin, buzzin' confusion"! There is the question of, "who will be

able to view both sides of the question with impartiality[?]" (Charles Darwin, 1898

[1936], p.368). The tremendous number of citations has certainly not informed us of

Self-Enhancement 6

everything that we should know about these important phenomenon. As Block and

Colvin (1994) responded to Taylor and Brown's (1994) reply,

The differing interpretations of the relation between positive illusions and

well-being held by S.E. Taylor and J.D. Brown and C.R. Colvin and J. Block

cannot be reconciled. The authors urge motivated readers to evaluate their

respective formulations closely and develop their own conclusion (p.28).

"Where there is smoke, there must be fire". Although dramatic, an example

of self-enhancment of the NBA player Michael Jordan on body height can give a

simple test to these two approaches. According to Taylor and Brown's formulation, if

there is a (positive) discrepancy between Jordan's self-rating and his ratings ofothers'

body height, one will then call it self-enhancement. Let's say, Jordan rates himselfa

"5" and rates others a "3" on a 7-point Likert scale with anchors of l-"extremely

short", and 7-"extremely tall". Needless to say, Jordan does not enhance his height.

Actually, Jordan is tall, there is obviously something wrong with this formulation.

Taylor and Brown's (1988) formulation did not take into account Jordan's actual

height when studying self-enhancement. On the other hand, according to Colvin et.

al.'s formulation, if there is a (positive) discrepancy between Jordan's self-rating and

others' ratings of Jordan's height, one will thus call it self-enhancment. Again, Jordan

rates himself a "5” and others rate him a "7". Following Colvin et. al.'s (1995)

formulation, Jordan self-effaces on his height. A paradox thus appears: Jordan self-

enhances under Taylor and Brown's formulation; whereas Jordan self-effaces under

Colvin et. al.'s formulation. However, it is notjustified to determine whether Jordan

self-enhances without considering his actual height (or a standing that is socially

agreed). Likewise, one cannot be sure whether Jordan self-effaces without

Self-Enhancement 7

considering how he generally rates others. It thus seems that neither of these previous

two formulations is conceptually adequate. To propose a re-formulation then is the

purpose of the present investigation.

Decomposition

Previous research has not empirically compared these two approaches in a

single study. Perhaps the only way to solve this puzzle and search a re-formulation is

to focus attention on the fundamental elements in their formulations, and make these

two approaches confront one another with a stringent test. Following a componential

tradition (see Cronbach, 1955; Cronbach, Gleser, Nanda, & R_ajamtnam, 1972; Gage

& Cronbach, 1955; Kenny, 1994; Kenny & La Voie, 1984; Malloy & Kenny, 1986;

Shavelson & Webb, 1991), the present study attempts to disentangle various effects

which contribute to the variation in these operationalizations.

"Who?" "Whom?" "How?" and "What?" these basic probes give hints to study

the sources of variation involved in self- and other-perception. To tap the fundamental

components of person perception, it is crucial to ask: (1) Who is the perceiver? (2)

Whom does the perceiver rate? (3) How is the relationship between a particular

perceiver and a particular target? (4) What is the general perception ofaperson in

seeing others?

More specifically, four basic components of a perception rating have been

identified in the studies of interpersonal perception. The following descriptions for

these components of a perception rating on a particular trait, called the Social

Relations Model (SRM; Kenny & La Voie, 1984), are summarized from that previous

work (see Kenny, 1994; Kenny & Albright, 1987; Kenny & La Voie, 1984):

Rating = Constant + Perceiver + Target + Relationship^

Self-Enhancement 8

The constant (C) term can be thought as a general response set across a

number of different raters on this particular trait: the tendency for people to rate all

targets on this trait at a particular level. This term can be either positive or negative in

direction. In a group context, (C) is the grand mean of the ratings across group

members on a given trait.

Perceiver (P) denotes how a rater views a particular trait across targets relative

to the other traits that are being rated. The rating is influenced by how a perceiver

generally views others. Some perceivers tend to view others in a positive way, but the

reverse is true for other perceivers. Similarly, as for the perception of a personality

trait like talkative, some people may generally see others as loquacious, and some see

others as rather quiet.

Target (T) denotes the tendency for raters to view a particular target as higher

or lower on a particular trait than other targets. The magnitude ofthe rating reflects

the standing that is agreed across raters for a given target on this particular trait.

Taking talkative as an example, the social reality or truth of whether a target talks a

lot is salient to perceivers. Given a certain number of interactions, the consensus of

the target's standing in talkativeness across a group of perceivers should be quite high.

Relationship (R) is a dyadic measure of the relationship effect between the

rater and the target. It is the interaction term of the perceiver and target effects. It can

be understood as how a target is uniquely perceived on a particular trait by the

particular rater. Again, using talkative as an example, after the effects ofaperceiver's

general tendency in seeing others and the target's socially defined standing are taken

into account, the perception of a particular target may still differ. It is because the

relation between each of the perceiver-target dyad influences the making o fa

Self-Enhancement 9

perception rating, a particular perceiver sees that particular target differently. For

instance, Amy may perceive Betty is talkative, but it may not hold true when Cathy

perceives Betty.

Likely, the salience of the above aspects of perception varies from trait to trait.

The difference is apparent when considering a very different trait from talkative, say

kindness. Although one's perception of a target's degree ofkindness is also influenced

by the same effects, the relative importance of each effect for that perception may

vary. Possibly, the importance of the relationship between the perceiver and the target

(i.e., the relationship effect) may play a more important role in rating the degree of

kindness than in rating traits like talkative. Moreover, the effect of target's standing

and the effect of the general tendency ofhow a perceiver sees others in terms of

kindness may diminish as the effect of relationship increases.

Operationalizations of Self-Enhancement (SE)

Tuming to the two aforementioned formulations, they use different criterion

measures when comparing the self-rating to index self-enhancement. One way to

define self-enhancement is "people see themselves more positively than they are seen

by others" (Kenny, 1994, p.206). Thus, SE can be operationalized as the difference^

between a self-measure and a criterion measure (cf., Colvin et al.，1995). The self-

measure is the self-perception on a given trait, and the criterion measure is then an

averaged score that is given by a group of others.

Self-Enhancement 10

Consider,

Rater

Self Others

p \ ^ �

Self f ^ ^ 5 i ^ _ Xos ) H

Ratee

Others \ Xso Xoo

V ^ z

V

This approach thus corresponds to the horizontal dimension (H),

SE(H) = Xss - Xos

Note: X is the trait being rated. The first lower case represents the rater, the second case represents the ratee; 's' is the abbreviation for self, 'o' is the abbreviation for others.

An alternative way to define self-enhancement is people seeing themselves

more positively than they see others (cf.，Taylor & Brown, 1988). In order to make the

two operationalizations comparable for testing, a minor modification is made here.

Instead ofusing a generalized other as a criterion measure (e.g., Alick, 1985; Brown,

1986), SE is operationalized as the difference between one's self-rating and an

averaged rating given by one to each ofhis/her group members (e.g., Falbo，Poston,

Triscari, & Zhang, 1997).

This approach corresponds to the vertical dimension (V),

Self-Enhancement 11

SE(V) = Xss - Xso

Confounded operationalizations of self-enhancement. To visualize the

problems associated with these existing measures of self-enhancement, consider the

following computations. The self-perception rating on trait X (Xss), self is both the

rater and the target. According to the Social Relations Model,

Xss = Cs + Ps + Ts + Rss … �

The average rating of oneself that is given by others ( X o s ) , all others in a

group are the raters, but the self is the ratee.

J^s= Co + To+ Ts + Y^s -―�

The average rating oneself gives to others ( X s o ) , self is the rater, but all

others in a group are the ratees.

mo= Co + Fs + Yo + ~R^o … �

Note: symbols Cs, Ps Ts, and Rss indicate that values vary across individuals; symbols Po, Ros, To, and Rso indicate that values are the means across group members. By definition, they can be assumed to be zero ifratings are obtained across many raters and targets.

Given that,

SE(H) = Xss - Xos,

S E ( H ) = � - �

Thus,

SE(H) = (Cs - Co) + {Ps-To) + � R s s - J^s)

= {CS-Co) + Ps + Rss

Similarly,

SE(V) = Xss - Xso,

Self-Enhancement 12

S E ( V ) = � _ �

Thus,

SE(V) = (Cs _ Co) + {Ts-7b) + (Rss-R^)

=(Cs - Co) + Ts + Rss

The above analysis reveals the confounding problems associated with these

two operationalizations. They show that SE(H) comprises three major parts, viz., (Cs -

Co), Ps, and Rss. (Cs - Co) is the difference in mean between self-measure and

others,_rating in a group. Ps represents the general tendency of a rater in evaluating a

given trait across targets. Rss represents the individual difference in the relationship

effect: it is the unique self-perception on trait X.

SE(V) also comprises three major parts, viz., (Cs - Co), Ts, and Rss. Ofthese,

Ts represents the target's standing that is agreed across group members on trait X.

Clearly, neither the perceiver effect (i.e., Ps) nor the target effect (i.e., Ts) can

reflect whether a person self-enhances or self-effaces. Conceptually, Ps reflects how

one generally views others, Ts reflects how one is viewed by others. In addition to the

mean difference between self-rating and other's-rating for each group, both SE(H) and

SE(V) consist oftwo conceptually distinctive constructs that vary across individuals.

Indeed, these two typically used measures are impure. As Cronbach (1955) asserted,

Our analysis has shown that any such measure may combine and thereby

conceal important variables, or may depend heavily on unwanted components.

Only by careful subdivision of global measures can an investigator hope to

know what he is dealing with. Our analysis makes especially clear that the

investigator of social perception must develop more explicit theory regarding

Self-Enhancement 13

the constructs he intends to study, so that he can reduce his measures to the

genuinely relevant components (p.l91).

Failure to separate these components makes interpretation of these operationalizations

ambiguous. More importantly, one cannot be confident of what the operationalization

of self-enhancement is intended to measure. Using these confounded measures is

equal to tapping different mixtures when they all claim to be looking at the same

compound. It casts doubt on the authenticity of the conclusion that one draws from

those anomalous findings.

An Alternative Measure of SE

A common characteristic may provide a clue to search an “unconfounded”

measure of self-enhancement. That is, both confounded operationalizations contain

the portion called the relationship effect. The relationship effect is a relationship-

oriented measure which taps the interaction effect between perceiver and target. The

relationship effect is largely based on how a perceiver sees a target in terms oftheir

role relationships (Kashy, 1992; Kenny, 1994; Steiner, 1955). In the case ofself-

perception, Rss reflects the extent to which one's view of him-/herself cannot be

explained by the perceiver and target effects (Kenny, 1994). Therefore, the

relationship effect (Rss) is an idiosyncratic view by the selfon trait X. It reflects how

one uniquely perceives himyTierself as different from others.

In congruence with the most frequently used difference score method, the

relationship effect can be understood as the discrepancy between a self-measure and

the sum ofthe perceiver and target effects when the group difference is removed. The

aforementioned equations can be written as follows.

Xss = Cs + Ps + Ts + Rss

Self-Enhancement 14

Thus,

Rss = Xss - Cs - Ps - Ts

Thus, when the effects ofboth perceiver and target (i.e., the criterion measure)

are controlled, as Rss increases, the self-rating also goes up. Whereas, as Rss

decreases, the self-rating also goes down. It thus seems that Rss can reflect the degree

ofbias in self-perception, and that is the central meaning of self-enhancement.

Therefore, the relationship effect (Rss) is proposed to be an individual difference

measure of self-enhancement.

A double correction. Now, let us reconsider the two confounded

operationalizations of self-enhancement:

SE(H) uses Xss - Xos which comprises both Ps and Rss. Despite Rss, SE(H)

includes a measure of the tendency ofhow a perceiver sees people in general. So, an

individual having a positive (high) score on SE(H) may imply that he/she is a self-

enhancer. However, a positive score on SE(H) may reveal a general tendency to see

people in a favorable manner as well. Therefore, if SE(H) is high, the rater may not

be self-enhancing at all; he/she may bejust other-enhancing^

The measure SE(V) uses Xss - Xso which also involves two components, Ts

and Rss. This measure of self-enhancement is confounded with the perceiver's

standing on this trait. Similarly, a perceiver with a high score on SE(V) may imply

that he/she is a self-enhancer. However, if the perceiver is "really" high on a trait or

traits, it is not self-enhancing to see him-/herself as higher than others.

At present, using social relations model analysis (SRM, Kenny & La Voie,

1984) is possible to partition person perception into various components. A more

precise operationalization can be obtained by elimination of the above ambiguities

Self-Enhancement 15

from the existing measures. As a double correction, this approach can separate the

confounding perceiver effect from SE(H). At the same time, the confounding target

effect can be separated from SE(V).

Purposes of the Studv

Concerning the potentially pervasive impact of self-enhancement on both

psychological and social functioning, the present study will investigate the relations

among various ways to operationalize self-enhancement and a battery of theoretically

related constructs. Because this is the first study using the social relations model

analysis to study self-enhancement, with no previous basis for comparison, it is

exploratory in nature. Therefore, no specific hypothesis will be made on the

relationships between those various measures and self-enhancement.

However, it is expected that different ways of measuring self-enhancement

would show different results and patterns of external correlates. The correlates of

SE(V) and SE(H) will be confounded with Ts and Ps respectively. The support ofthe

usefulness for the new approach is that the external correlates between the new

unconfounded measure will make more theoretical sense. In addition, discriminant

patterns of correlates among self-enhancement and another two conceptually

distinctive components--the perceiver effect and the target effect are expected. A close

examination ofhow these three effects correlate with various constructs can provide

more details to understand the reasons for the previous conflicting evidence.

Method

Participants

The present study was conducted in a realistic, academic group setting. One

hundred and twenty-eight students from the Chinese University ofHong Kong

Self-Enhancement 16

participated in the study as partial fulfillment of their social psychology course

requirements. For these 98 females and 30 males, their ages ranged from 19 to 22

years old.

Experimental Design

A round robin design (Wamer, Kenny, & Stoto, 1979) was used in the present

study. All participants grouped themselves with 3 or 4 other students. Of the 24

groups formed, there were 22, 5-member groups and 2, 4-member groups. In this

design, each participant was required to make personality judgments of all other group

members in the group after they had worked together for 3 months, and each

participant was also rated by all other group members (Kenny, 1994). Additionally,

their self-ratings were collected for analysis.

Ofnote, all participants were required to complete three group assignments

with their group members. In addition to the regular class meeting, each group got

together at least an hour per week on average. It ensured that they all had adequate

opportunities to manifest their personality and observe one another (see Paulhus &

Reynolds, 1995).

Instruments

A broad variety of instruments was included to establish the nomological

network for self-enhancement. A total of 11 different indices were derived from two

categories of measures. As can be seen in Table 1，they were 8 self-report measures

and 3 member-report measures. A detailed description of each instrument is given in

alphabetical order as follows:

Insert Table 1 about here

Self-Enhancement 17

Collective self-esteem scale. The collective self-esteem scale (CSES;

Luhtanen & Crocker，1992) consisted of four, 4-item subscales, a total of 16 items.

The race-specific form of the CSES (Crocker, Luhtanen, Blaine & Broadnax, 1994)

was used. The membership esteem subscale evaluated how participants perceived

their worthiness as members of the Hong Kong Chinese group; the private esteem

subscale evaluated participants' perception ofhow good Hong Kong Chinese are;

public esteem subscale evaluated participants' perception ofhow others view Hong

Kong Chinese; and the importance to identity subscale evaluated the importance of

being Hong Kong Chinese to participants' self-concept. All responses were made on a

7-point Likert-type scale with anchors of l-"strongly disagree", and 7-"strongly

agree". The alpha coefficients of these four subscales showed an acceptable level of

internal consistency ranging from .63 for the membership subscale to .86 for the

public subscale (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992). An averaged score for all 4 subscales of

collective self-esteem was computed for further analyses.

Individual group grade. All participants had leamt some important

information about other members' skills and shortcomings by completing their group

assignments. Thus, each group designed its own evaluation form to evaluate each of

their member's contributions to the group assignments. The criteria and the weight of

each criterion in the evaluation form were independently chosen by each group. The

most frequently selected criteria were variants of participation, responsibility,

creativity, attentiveness, and communication skills. All participants rated themselves

and each member in their groups based on those criteria. The averaged score from all

Self-Enhancement 18

members was used as each individual's group grade which constituted 20% of the

total course grade.

Individuation scale. The individuation scale (Maslach & Stapp，1985) is a 12-

item 5-point Likert-type scale with anchors l-"not at all willing to do this" and 5-

"very much willing to do this". The scale measure an individual's willingness to act

differently from others in public situations. A single individuation factor was derived

from this 12-item scale by Maslach and Stapp's (1985) study with an American

sample. A 2-factor solution with factors labeled "taking the lead" and "seeking

attention", was advanced in a study done with a Hong Kong Chinese sample (Kwan,

Gan，& Bond, 1996). Both the 1-factor (a=.81) and the 2-factor solution (a=.84 for

taking the lead, and a = 8 5 for seeking attention) showed a high level internal 4

consistency.

Interpersonal attraction inventory. The Interpersonal Attraction Inventory was

designed to investigate to what extent the participants liked each member oftheir

groups. The participants were asked to rate each group member on a 7-point scale

with anchors l-"really dislike" and 7-"really like". A liking score for each participant

was thus computed by averaging the ratings that were given by all their group

members.

Interpersonal Relationship Harmony Inventory. The Interpersonal

Relationship Harmony Inventory (Kwan, Bond, & Singelis，in press) was used to

evaluate the degree of an individual's achieved interpersonal relationship harmony.

The participants were asked to specify the target's name, gender and relation for each

ofthe five most important, dyadic relationships in their life. Then, participants

indicated the degree ofharmony characterizing each relationship on a 7-point Likert-

Self-Enhancement 19

type scale with anchors l-"very low" and 7-"very high". A relationship harmony

index for each relationship was then calculated by averaging the five relationship

harmony scores.

NEO Five-Factor Inventory. The 60-statement NEO Five Factor Inventory

CNEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) consists of five, 12-item personality factors,

namely Neuroticism，Extroversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness.

The NEO-FFI is a well-validated and widely-used personality measurement in the

United States, and it has proved to have a high level of internal consistency in the

Hong Kong Chinese sample, the mean alpha reliability coefficients of the five factors

was .73 (Kwan et al., in press).

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale

(RSES) is a 10-item measure of global, personal self-esteem. Responses were made

on a 4-point scale with anchors of l-"strongly disagree", and 4-"strongly agree". The

alpha coefficient for this scale was .80.

Sino-American Person Perception Scale (SAPPS\ The SAPPS (Yik & Bond,

1993) was composed ofboth indigenous and imported personality trait items, and

consists o f32 bipolar adjective scales comprehensively measuring the perceived

dimensions of personality. There are eight dimensions in the SAPPS, viz., Openness

to Experience, Emotional stability. Extroversion, Application, Intellect, Helpfulness,

Restraint, and Assertiveness. All items are mixed randomly with ha l fof the positive

poles on right side and the remaining half on left side ofthe scale.

All the aforementioned 128 participants were asked to rate themselves and

each group member in their group on the 7-point scales with anchors ofl-"very low"

and 7-"very high". The alpha coefficients of the 8 SAPPS dimensions showed an

Self-Enhancement 20

acceptable level of internal consistency ranging from .67 for Application and

Helpfulness to .86 for Openness to Experience. The mean alpha value of the averaged

peer ratings for these 8 dimensions was .89 (Yik, 1993).

Self-Constmal Scale. The Self-Construal Scale (SCS; Singelis，1994) consists

oftwo subscales that were developed to measure the strength of independent and

interdependent self-construals. The independent subscale contained 16 items that

measure the self-assessed uniqueness of an individual, and the interdependent

subscale contained 15 items that measure the self-assessed connectedness ofan

individual with others. All responses were made on a 5-point, Likert-type scale with

anchors of l-"strongly disagree", and 5-"strongly agree’,. An acceptable level of

internal consistency for these two subscales of .59 for the independent and .55 for the

interdependent respectively for Hong Kong Chinese samples has been reported

(Singelis, Bond, Lai, & Sharkey, 1995).

Satisfaction with Life Scale. Life satisfaction was assessed by a 6-item,

Likert-type scale. The first 5 items were from the Satisfaction With Life Scale

(SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffm, 1985; Pavot & Diener, 1993) and the

last item was chosen from the Delighted-Terrible Scale (D-T Scale; Andrews &

Withey, 1976). All six items have been widely used and well-validated across

nations. The alpha coefficient for this composite scale was .90 (Diener & Diener,

,1995; Diener, Diener, & Diener，1995). Responses for the SWLS were made on a 7-

point scale with anchors of l-"strongly disagree" and 7-"strongly agree". Responses

for the D-T Scale were indicated on a 10-point scale with anchors l-"terrible" and 7-

"delighted", with the options of 8-"neutral", 9-"never thought about it" and 10-"does

Self-Enhancement 21

not apply to me". Responses ranging from 8 to 10 were counted as missing data in

the analyses.

Procedure

All the instruments were administered at two different time periods during the

term. First, as indicated in Table 1, participants were asked to fill out 8 self-report

measures in the first week of the term (T1) before the groups' formation. Second, all

three member-report measures were collected in the twelfth week of the term (T2).

All member-report ratings were made privately, and confidentiality was guaranteed

such that each participant's responses would be kept completely anonymous, and they

would be used only for research purposes.

Results

The following social relations model analyses were conducted using

SOREMO (Kenny, 1995). The advantages of analyzing data within the social

relations model have been summarized previously (see Kenny, 1994, in press, for

details). Use ofthe SRM allows a decomposition analysis, as it can partition a

perception rating into components. As noted earlier, a perception rating is defined as

the sum offour components, viz., constant, perceiver, target, and relationship.

Moreover, within SRM, all statistical analyses were controlled for group differences

(see Kenny & La Voie, 1984, Kenny, in press). As each individual group possibly

holds different norms and standards for evaluation, the group means will thus vary

across groups. So, it is essential to control for such group differences when

investigating individual differences in self-enhancement.

Perception Components

Self-Enhancement 22

It is critical to examine how the present approach contributes to the

understanding of self-enhancement and person perception over and above that based

on the previously used operationalizations. As noted earlier, use of SRM allows a

decomposition analysis, partitioning a perception rating into components. In addition

to the new SE index (relationship effect), there are another two types of effect, i.e., the

perceiver and the target effects. The perceiver effect refers to the general tendency of

a perceiver to see targets as high or low on a given trait; the target effect refers to the

standing on a trait for a target that is agreed across perceivers.

Variance partitioning. As can be seen in Table 2，the perceiver effect for the 8

SAPPS dimensions ranged from .04 for Assertiveness to .40 for Intellect, with an

average of .20. For the target effect, the values ranged from . 18 for Intellect to .60 for

Extroversion, with an average of .38. The relationship effect ranged from .34 for

Extroversion to .54 for Emotional Stability, with an average of .43. In general, all

three effects accounted for substantial portions of variance.

Insert Table 2 about here

Stable variance. Each of the above effects should be sub-divided into stable

and unstable components in the SRM. Stable variance reflects how consistent and

reliable the effect is across indicators, but unstable variance corresponds to the

variance that is unique to a specific indicator. In order to separate the unstable

variance from the stable variance, two indicators were used for each ofthe 8 SAPPS

dimensions. Two items were aggregated to form each indicator. The items were

aggregated on the basis of the results from a within-dimension factor analysis. The

Self-Enhancement 23

items with the highest and lowest loadings were averaged to form the first indicator,

the items with the second highest and the second lowest loadings were averaged to

form the second indicator (see Mathieu & Farr, 1991).

Table 3 shows both the stable and unstable variance for the above three

effects. Overall, the amount of variance for these three effects that are stable across

indicators was still substantial. On average, stable perceiver effects, target effects, and

relationship effects accounted for 15%, 27%, and 22%, respectively, ofthe total

variance in trait perception. The findings suggest that certain perceivers generally

gave harsh or lenientjudgments in their appraisals of others. Simultaneously, there

was a high consensus that particular targets were viewed in consistent ways across

different perceivers. Besides, a substantial proportion of the variance in perception

was accounted for by the unique relationship that perceivers have with the targets.

Insert Table 3 about here

A Single SE Index

According to the self-enhancement theory, people seek positive information

about themselves to enhance their self-esteem (Swann, Pelham, & Kmll，1989). The

drive for self-enhancement is closely related to the favorability ofthe dimension that

is being rated. So, an additional sample of 47 students from the same school was

recruited to evaluate the favorability of the 64 traits listed in the SAPPS. Responses

were made on a 7-point Likert scale with anchors of l-"very unfavorable" and 7-"very

favorable". The mean favorability rating of the positive ends for these 8 dimensions

are significantly more favorable than the corresponding negative pole (i.e., 4.76 vs

Self-Enhancement 24

3.87 for Openness to Experience, 5.63 vs 2.34 for Emotional stability, 4.63 vs 2.98 for

Extroversion, 5.49 vs 2.16 for Application, 5.88 vs 2.18 for Intellect, 5.48 vs 2.32 for

Helpfulness, 5.64 vs 2.77 for Restraint, and 4.78 vs 2.85 for Assertiveness, all at ^<

.01).

Then, a self-enhancement index for each of the 8 SAPPS dimensions was

obtained by subtracting the mean ratings of the group, the perceiver and the target

effects from the corresponding self-rating on the SAPPS dimension. The results from

an unweighted least squares factor analysis of these 8 SE indices showed that a single

factor with all 8 dimensions positively loaded accounted for 30.8% ofthe total

variance. A single SE index was thus computed by averaging these 8 SE indices. The

alpha reliability coefficient of this single self-enhancement index was acceptable, .68.

Therefore, a single SE index, respresented an favorability index, scored in positive

direction was chosen to illustrate the findings for presentation simplicity and ease of

comparison.

Recovering the SE(V) & SEfH)

The major purpose of the present analyses was to partition out an

unconfounded measure of self-enhancement from those confounded measures.

Likewise, by putting the confounding components back into the present SE index, the

two aforementioned SE indices, i.e., SE(H) and SE(V), could be "recovered". Then, it

would be possible to examine the relations among various ways to index SE.

To recover the SE(H), we simply subtract the target effect from the

corresponding self-reported SAPPS dimension. Then, repeat this procedure to get the

SE(V) by subtracting the perceiver effect from the corresponding score on the self-

Self-Enhancement 25

reported SAPPS dimension. For ease of comparison, a single index for each of these

8 SE(H) and 8 SE(V) indices was computed by averaging these 8 indices.

Table 4 shows the intercorrelations among various ways to index SE. The new

SE index was moderately correlated with the previously used SE indices. Comparing

the correlations between the recovered SE(H) and SE(V) indices with the previously

used SE(H) and SE(V) indices, an almost perfect correlation^ was found for these two

indices, r = .94,_p<.01

Insert Table 4 about here

Additionally, the aforementioned residual method to index self-enhancement

was highly correlated with the difference score method. SE(V) was correlated with

SE(Vr), r= .83, e<.01, and SE(H) was also highly correlated with SE(Hr), r=.90,

n < . o i .

External Correlates

The old anomalies. As can be seen in Table 5, the old anomalies were found.

When using the SE(V) operationalization, Taylor and Brown's (1988) proposition was

supported: a positive relation between self-enhancement and life satisfaction was

found. Likewise, when using SE(H) operationalization, the similar negative outcomes

ofColvin et al.'s (1995) were evidenced: e.g.，the group performance ofthose who

self-enhance was evaluated as low by their group members.

Taking into consideration all other findings, there were even more perplexing

patterns emerging from these two confounded measures. When using SE(V), those

who self-enhance reported a higher degree of interpersonal relationship harmony and

Self-Enhancement 26

life satisfaction, but at the same time they were liked less by peers. Similarly, when

using SE(H), self-enhancement was positively correlated with relationship harmony,

but negatively correlated with others' evaluation of one's group performance and

achieved liking.

Insert Table 5 about here

Solving the puzzles. The 8 perceiver and target effects were averaged to create

two single indices for the perceiver effect and the target effect. As expected, SE(V)

was moderately correlated with the target effect,j;= .31, and SE(H) was also

moderately correlated with the perceiver effect, r= .28, ^<.01. The results confirm

that SE(V) is confounded with the target effect, and SE(H) is confounded with the

perceiver effect.

Table 5 shows the external correlates among personality factors, self-concept,

and social impact indices with the refined SE index, the perceiver effect, and the

target effect. Comparing the patterns of external correlates for the above three

measures with the patterns of SE(H) and SE(V), there was supportive evidence for the

present approach. The correlation patterns of the target and perceiver effects gave

insight into explaining how these confounded operationalizations obscured some real

correlations and created some false ones.

Perceiver effect. The single index for the perceiver effect denotes the general

tendency of a perceiver to see others high or low across the 8 SAPPS dimensions.

Not surprisingly, the more favorably a perceiver tends to see others, the higher his or

her degree of reported relationship harmony. Additionally, those with a high

Self-Enhancement 27

perceiver effect were liked by others more, and they also reported having a higher

level ofAgreeableness and Conscientiousness, both integrative, social dimensions of

personality.

Target effect. The target effect denotes the standing of the target that was

agreed across perceivers for the eight personality dimensions. All the positive poles

ofthe 8 SAPPS dimensions were rated as favorable, so the higher the standing o f a

target on these traits, the more desirable the person is in the eyes of others. This target

effect was positively correlated with self-reported Extroversion, Openness to

Experience，and Agreeableness, but negatively correlated with Neuroticism. With

respect to the social impact indices, the target effect was positively related to the

group performance rating that was given to the target by others. Additionally, the

target effect was positively correlated with one's level oflife satisfaction, personal

self-esteem, and collective self-esteem. One's positive reputation in the eyes ofothers

has important implications for one's mental health. It is understandable then that the

target effect correlates with Taylor and Brown's (1988) measure of self-enhancement,

i.e., SE(V).

Self-enhancement. The refined SE index for each SAPPS dimension was

calculated by subtracting the perceiver and target effects from the self-rating, and with

the group mean controlled. As noted earlier, a single index was computed by

averaging the relationship effects across the personality dimensions.

As can be seen in Table 5, the refined measure of self-enhancement was

neither associated with one's level oflife satisfaction nor with one's degree of

interpersonal relationship harmony. It is possible that the correlation between SE(H)

and relationship harmony arosed from the confound of SE(H) with the perceiver

Self-Enhancement 28

effect, for it was not self-enhancement but rather the perceiver effect which positively

correlated with relationship harmony. On the other hand, the confound with the target

effect can explain why only SE(V) but not SE(H) and the refined SE was significantly

correlated with life satisfaction. Moreover, the confound with the target effect

obscured the negative impact of self-enhancement on other-rated group performance

when using SE(V) to index self-enhancement.

By unconfounding the perceiver effect and the target effect from SE(H) and

SE(V) respectively, these misleading correlations disappeared and the obscure

correlations emerged. It was found that the refined measure of self-enhancement was

positively correlated with Extroversion and Conscientiousness, but negatively

correlated with Neuroticism. Additionally, refined self-enhancement was positively

correlated with an independent self-construal and personal self-esteem. With respect

to the two social indices, refined SE was negatively correlated with both: those who

self-enhance were less liked by others; and their group performance was evaluated as

lower by those others.

Discussion

Generally, the old anomalies were found through empirically testing the

correlates with a battery of constructs in the current sample. When using the SE(V)

operationalization, Taylor and Brown's (1988) findings were replicated. A positive

relation between self-enhancement and one's psychological adjustment was found.

On the other hand, when using the SE(H) operationalization, a similar finding to

Colvin et al.'s (1995) was also replicated: self-enhancement was found to have a

negative impact on one's social relationships.

Self-Enhancement 29

By applying the social relations model framework, the present work has

clarified the inconsistency between previous studies and refined the measurement of

self-enhancement. The correlations deriving from the new approach are clear and

make more theoretical sense as patterns of correlates. A close examination ofthese

effects is very suggestive, and allows us to solve the old puzzle. More importantly,

the differential patterns of correlates among the refined SE, the perceiver, and the

target effects add to our understanding of the relations between person perception and

their external correlates. As evidenced by their discriminant correlation patterns, each

of the refined SE, the perceiver effect, and the target effect may be differentiated from

one another, and reflect different psychological meanings.

The Perceiver Effect

The magnitude of the perceiver effect likely reflects the standards that one

holds when evaluating others. A high perceiver effect implies a tendency to rate others

leniently on various dimensions. Whereas, a low perceiver effect reflects that the rater

is harsh when evaluating others (DePaulo，Kenny, Hoover, Webb, & Oliver, 1987).

Generally, the perceiver effect relates to various variables that are interpersonal in

nature. Those who showed a high perceiver effect report themselves to be more

agreeable and conscientious. They regarded themselves having a higher degree of

relationship harmony. In retum, they were also liked by peers more.

However, to understand the nature of the perceiver effect, some cautions are

needed. There are at least three different ways to account for the perceiver effect (see

Kermy, 1994 for details). First, the perceiver effect reflects a response set ofarater.

It can reflect an inclination to choose a large or a small number in responding. So, if

it is merely such a response bias, it carries no psychological meaning. Previous

Self-Enhancement 30

research (e.g., Albright, Kenny, & Malloy, 1988; Dantchik, 1985) and the results of

this study discussed below suggest however that the perceiver effect has

psychological meanings.

Second, a general stereotype explanation has been postulated. The generalized-

other interpretation hold that the perceiver effect reflects the global view o f a

perceiver that applies to others (see Kenny, 1994). When a person has a high

perceiver effect across a variety of favorable traits, it reflects that he/she is an

optimistic perceiver who generally sees others in a favorable manner. The tendency of

seeing others in a positive way matches a specific feature of the title character in

Pollyanna, a novel written by Eleanor Porter (1913). So, the present use o f a single

index for the perceiver effects reflects the extent that how favorably a perceiver sees

people in general. It can be conceptualized as a “Global Pollyanna Effect" (Matlin &

Stang, 1978; Paulhus & Reynolds, 1995).

Given the positive correlates of the perceiver effect with certain ofthe big five

personality factors like Agreeableness, the Pollyanna effect appears to reflect the

warm and sympathetic nature of an individual. Likewise, those with a higher

Pollyanna effect reported having a high degree of interpersonal relationship harmony,

and they were also better liked by others. It will be recalled that complete

confidentiality was guaranteed to the raters minimizing the social pressure in

responding to the questionnaires. This procedural arrangement ensured that their

group members had no means of knowing how one another made thejudgments. So,

the Pollyanna effect not only manifests itself in responding to a questionnaire, but also

in a variety of social interactions. Probably, this effect is driven by one's internal

qualities and exercises a significant impact on one's social adjustment.

Self-Enhancement 31

Third, a more localized view of the stereotype interpretation has gained certain

empirical support. Previous findings showed that the perceiver effect varies across

different types of targets (e.g., Campbell, Miller, Lubetsky, & 0,Connell, 1964;

Kenny, Homer, Kashy, & Chu, 1992, Montogomery, 1984). In a sense, the perceiver

effect merely reflects a rater's view of a particular group of people. In the present

case, the perceiver effect could thus be a reflection of the group stereotype that one

has for his/her group members. Nonetheless, given the significant correlates ofthe

perceiver effect with both global measures like personality and relationship harmony,

and context-specific measures like achieved liking, the group stereotype explanation

does not seem to be the sole cause for the perceiver effect. To have a better

understanding ofhow these three explanations account for the perceiver effect, future

studies should investigate this effect with a variety of global and context specific

measures across various target groups.

Target Effect

The substantial target variance found in the current sample implies a high level

ofconsensus in peerjudgment for personality ratings. It supports the assertion that

the personality perception of others is not merely in the eyes ofthe beholder (see

Dombusch, Hastorf, Richardson, Muzzy, and Vreeland, 1965; Kenny, 1994; Kenrick

& Stringfield, 1980; Marcus, Wilson, & Miller，1996). Although high consensus does

not necessarily ensure accuracy, the target effect is a valid indicator ofthe socially

shared view of a target (Funder, 1987; Kenny, 1991).

When a person has a high target effect across a broad set offavorable traits, it

reflects that he/she is regarded as having a number of desirable qualities by others.

So, an index of the target effect across favorable traits can be understood as a global

Self-Enhancement 32

reputation and social esteem measure. Not surprisingly then, those who receive a high

target effect also have high personal and collective self-esteem. Although speculative,

it is plausible that those with a high target effect more likely appear to be facilitators

or group leaders within a group, and group members also speak highly oftheir group

performance.

Furthermore, the target effect was positively correlated with a number of

personality factors, like (negative) Neuroticism, Extroversion, Openness,

Agreeableness; a measure oflife satisfaction, and social functioning indices like

other-rated group performance. That explains why SE(V) was mistakenly linked to

life satisfaction, Openness to Experience, and collective self-esteem. In particular, the

confound with the target effect contributed to the over-stated relation between SE(V)

and life satisfaction. On the other hand, this confound obscured the negative relation

between refined self-enhancement and other-rated group performance.

So, the provocative notion of positive illusion as suggested by Taylor and

Brown (1988) should be revised: it is not self-enhancement but the target effect which

is associated with the essentials of mental health. It is this socially based measure of

other-esteem and reputation which promotes one's satisfaction with life and facilitates

personal functioning.

Self-Enhancement

A refined measure of self-enhancement was obtained by unconfounding the

perceiver effect and the target effect from SE(H) and SE(V). With respect to the

correlates ofthe refined measurement of self-enhancement, the aforementioned

misleading correlations disappeared and the obscured correlations emerged. This

refined measure of self-enhancement was correlated with Extroversion,

Self-Enhancement 33

Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism. Such psychological traits serve a general self-

starting function, and intrinsically motivate those self-enhancers to achieve and

sustain their activities. As a result, they can feel good about themselves and promote

their personal self-esteem. In congruence with Markus and Kityama's (1991) notion

of self, those with a well-developed independent self-constmal put a high emphasis on

self-worth, and seek a positive view of themselves to enhance their personal

satisfaction. So, refined self-enhancement was positively correlated with the

independent self-constmal. Likewise, those enhancers are more willing to individuate

themselves to get public attention and self-enhancing feedback.

It tumed out, however, that self-enhancement has negative social

consequences for the current Hong Kong Chinese sample. Those self-enhancers were

less liked by peers and their group performance was evaluated badly. It may be that

collectivist cultures put a higher emphasis on group harmony as opposed to personal

satisfaction, self-enhancement is somewhat discouraged (Kwan et al., in press;

Markus & Kitayama, 1991). On the other hand, it may be that self-enhancement is a

two-edge sword in any cultural system.

Future Questions

This research stimulates questions for future studies. First, self-enhancement

was not significantly correlated with the interdependent self-constmal. This finding

deserves more focused attention. Along with many other studies, the present study

asked participants to make evaluations of themselves and of others privately. Since

this so-called self-enhancement is thus only known to us psychologists, the

participants themselves are not conscious of their own or one another's self-

enhancement. It is questionable whether this "private" self-enhancement has a very

Self-Enhancement 34

threatening effect on the interdependent self-construal as postulated in self-construal

theory. Perhaps it is necessary to compare social and psychological consequences

caused by public versus private types of self-enhancement across social contexts in

the future.

Self-enhance or self-efface? Another esoteric question is whether positive

illusions are really "pervasive, enduring, and systematic" (Taylor & Brown, 1988) or

merely “limited, transient, and haphazard" (Colvin & Block, 1994). Contrary to the

typical findings obtained in the West, a general tendency to self-enhance has not been

replicated in many Asian samples (e.g., Heine & Lehman，1995; Kashima & Triandis,

1986; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Takata, 1992; Yik, Bond, & Paulhus, 1996).

However, it is premature to conclude that self-enhancement is absent in collectivist

cultures. Yu and Murphy (1993) failed to replicate Farh，Dobbins, and Cheung's

(1991) modesty-bias finding ofTaiwanese. Additionally, a general self-enhancement

tendency was also found in a PRC children sample (Falbo et al., 1997).

As John and Robins (1994) pointed out, self-enhancement is hardly an all or

none phenomena. Merely comparing an overall mean difference is not sufficient, and

it is somehow an overgeneralization. In Table 6，7 out ofthe 8 SAPPS dimensions

showed significant mean differences in the self- and other-ratings in the current

sample. It may thus be concluded that the present Hong Kong Chinese sample

generally self-effaced. However, when looking at the proportion ofself-effacers in the

sample, only an average of 42.67% participants showed self-effacement across the 8

personality dimensions (see Table 7, and cf., Yik et al., 1996). These findings add to

the evidence for individual differences in self-enhancement. More importantly, it

demonstrated that a general cultural effect may manifest in the mean levels, but a

Self-Enhancement 35

broad cultural factor will not explain the individual differences in self-enhancement

(Yu & Murrphy, 1993). In future, a more culture-general model is needed to study

individual differences in self-enhancement.

Insert Tables 6 & 7 about here

Conclusion

The editor of Journal ofApplied Psychology, R. M. Guion (1988) once noted

that,

The introduction of new ideas into the literature is often followed by a

polarization of opinion; some hail the contribution as a major advance and

others denounce it as a false trail...I urge readers to follow Bacon's advice:

‘Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, but to

weigh and consider'... [likewise], read not to be entertained or to take sides, but

to broaden perspective (p. 665).

So, the present work started from comparing Taylor and Brown's (1988) and Colvin,

Block, and Funder's (1995) formulations and then moving toward to clarify the

inconsistency between previous findings. By applying the social relations model

analysis (SRM; Kenny & La Voie, 1984), a refined measurement ofself-enhancement

was proposed. This SRM approach empowered us to study this important concept

with more precision and to resolve a prior contradiction. It is hoped that the present

findings and other yet-to-be established links can add to our understanding ofself-

enhancement and person perception. Researchers can hence begin to build a

，T?Ks T . k ? � : � v , : , i . ^. fr:-、- _ • : • •• •J , c •'• __

Self-Enhancement 36 V ^

- theoretical and empirical framework for explaining the unconfounded effect of self-

enhancement.

i ： ‘

, 、’ -••

、•“. ,—., .-；‘ 、、

、

似：.../1 -s . ,

Self-Enhancement 37

Footnotes

1. In addition to these 4 components, there is an error term which reflects the measurement error across replications (Kenny, 1994).

2. Due to the psychometric problems for the discrepancy index (i.e., suffers from relatively low reliability and is confounded with the variables that comprise the index (see, Cohen & Gohen，1983; Cronbach & Furby, 1970), some studies have used a standardized residual score by regressing other-ratings on the self-ratings to index self-enhancement (e.g., Farh & Dobbins, 1989; John & Robins, 1994; Wells & Sweeney, 1986; Yik, Bond, & Paulhus, 1996). However, it is controversial whether the residual method makes psychological sense. The potential problems associated with the residual method have been documented (see Colvin, Block & Funder, 1996; Rogosa, 1988;Rogosa&Willett, 1983, 1985; Zuckerman and Knee, 1996). Since the major focus of the present study is the widely used discrepancy indices, the correlates of the residual method to index self-enhancement will be provided for reference only.

3. Concerning the problem associated with observer harshness or leniency, John and Robins (1994) used rankings instead of ratings to eliminate the effect ofobservers. When using rankings, the perceiver effect is equal to zero. So, that procedure can eliminate the confounding perceiver effect from SE(H). Additionally, standardizing constructs across participants can also eliminate the perceiver effect (Bemieri, Zuckerman, Koestner, & Rx)senthal，1994). However, researchers should pay attention to the trade-offs associated with using these methods (see Kenny, 1994).

4. There are two reasons causing this tiny discrepancy. First, a person's selfratings are set aside in computing the means for all the person's ratings in a group within the SRM framework (Kenny, 1994). Second, there is a bias created by the missing data.

Self-Enhancement 38

References

Albright, L., Kenny, D. A., & Malloy, T. E. (1988). Consensus in personality

judgments at zero acquaintance. Joumal ofPersonalitv and Social Psychology. 55.

387-395.

Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability

and controllability of trait adjectives. Joumal ofPersonalitv and Social Psychology.

49,1621-1630.

Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators ofwell-being：

America's perception oflife quality. New York: Plenum Press.

Bemieri, F. J” Zuckerman, M., Koestner, R., & Rosenthal, R. (1994).

Measuring person perception accuracy: Another look at self-other agreement.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 20^4). 367-378.

Block, J., & Colvin, C. R. (1994). Positive illusion and well-being revisited:

Separating fiction from fact. Psychological Bulletin. 116fl l 28.

Brown, J. D. (1986). Evaluations of self and others: Self-enhancement biases

in socialjudgments. Social Cognition, 4. 353-376.

Buunk, B. P., & Van Yperen, N. W. (1991). Referential comparisons,

relational comparisons, and exchange orientation: Their relation to marital

satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 709-717.

Campbell, D. T., Miller, N., Lubetsky，J., & 0'Conndl, E. J. (1964).

Varieties of projection in trait attribution. Psychological Monographs. 78. (Whole

No. 592).

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regressiony^correlation

analysis for the behavioral analyses (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Self-Enhancement 39

Colvin, C. R.，& Block，J. (1994). Do positive illusions factor mental health?

An examination of the Taylor and Brown formulation. Psychological Bulletin.

H6(1), 3-20.

Colvin, C. R., Block, J., & Funder, D. C. (1995). Overly positive self-

evaluations and personality: Negative implications for mental health. Joumal of

Personality and Social Psychology. 68(61 1152-1162.

Colvin, C. R., Block, J., & Funder, D. C. (1996). Psychometric truths in the

absence ofpsychological meaning: A reply to Zuckerman and Knee. Joumal of

Personality and Social Psychology. 10(6\ 1252-1255.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCme, R. R. (1992). The Revised NEO Personality

Inventory nSTEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory fNEO-FFD professional

manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R., Blaine, B., & Broadnax, S. (1994). Collective self-

esteem and psychological well-being among white, black, and Asian college students.

Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin. 20(51 503-513.

Cronbach, L. J. (1955). Processes affecting scores on "understanding of

others" and assumed similarity". Psychological Bulletin. 52G� . 177-193.

Cronbach, L. J., & Furby:L. (1970). How should we measure "change"--or

should we? Psychological Bulletin. 74. 68-80.

Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C.，Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The

dependability ofbehavioral measurements: Theory of generalizabilitv for scores and

profiles. New York: Wiley.

Dantchik, A. (1985). Idiographic approaches to personality assessment.

Unpublished manuscript, Arizona State University.

Self-Enhancement 40

Darwin, C. (1936). On the origin of species. New York: The Modem Library.

DePaulo, B. M.，Kenny, D. A., Hoover, C. W., Webb, W .， & Oliver, P. V.

(1987). Accuracy ofperson perception: Do people know what kinds of impressions

they convey? Joumal ofPersonalitv and Social Psvchology.52r2). 303-315.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin. 95GV 542-

575.

Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-culture correlates oflife satisfaction

and self-esteem. Joumal ofPersonalitv and Social Psychology. 68(4). 653-663.

Diener, E.，Diener, M.，& Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting the subjective

well-being of nations. Joumal ofPersonalitv and Social Psychology. 69f5). 851-864.

Diener,E.,Emmons,R.A.，Larsen,R.J.,&Griffm,S. (1985). The

satisfaction with life scale. Joumal ofPersonalitv Assessment. 49(l). 71-75.

Dombusch, S. M., Hastorf, A. H., Richardson, S. A., Muzzy, R. E.，&

Vreeland, R. S. (1965). The perceiver and the perceived: Their relative influence on

categories of interpersonal cognition. Joumal ofPersonalitv and Social Psychology.

1(5), 434-440.

Falbo, T.，Poston, D. L. Jr., Triscari, R. S., & Zhang，X. (1997). Self-

enhancing illusions among Chinese schoolchildren. Joumal ofCross-Cultural

Psychology. 2S(2X 172-191.

Farh, J. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1989). Effects ofself-esteem on leniency bias

in self-reports of performance: A structural equation model analysis. Personnel

Psychology, 42, 835-850.

Self-Enhancement 41

Farh, J. L., Dobbins, G. H., & Cheng, B. S. (1991). Cultural relativity in

action: A comparison of self-ratings made by Chinese and U.S. workers. Personnel

Psychology. 44. 129-147.

Funder, D. C. (1987). Errors and mistakes: Evaluating the accuracy of social

judgment. Psychological Bulletin. 101. 75-90.

Gage, N. L., & Cronbach, L. J. (1955). Conceptual and methodological

problems in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 62, 411-422.

Guion, R. M. (1988). Editor's note. Journal ofApplied Psychology. 73(4\

665-672.

Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1995). Cultural variation in unrealistic

optimism: Does the West feel more invulnerable than the East. Joumal ofPersonalitv

and Social Psychology. 68(4). 595-607.

Jahoda, M. (1953). The meaning of psychological health. Social Casework.

M, 349.

John, 0 . P., & Robins, R. W. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception:

Individual differences in self-enhancement and the role ofnarcissism. Joumal of

Personality and Social Psychology. 66(W 206-219.

Kashima, Y., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). The self-serving bias in attributions as

a coping strategy: A cross-cultural study. Joumal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 17.

83-97.

Kashy，D. A. (1992). Levels of analysis of social interaction diaries:

Separating the effects ofperson，partner, day, and interaction (Doctoral dissertation,

University of Connecticut, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International. 53. 608A.

Self-Enhancement 42

Kenny, D. A. (1991). A general model of consensus and accuracy in

interpersonal perception. Psychological review. 98(21 155-163.

Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis.

New York: Guilford Press.

Kenny, D. A.(1995). SOREMO version v.2: A FORTRAN program for the

analysis ofround-robin data structures. Unpublished manuscript, University of

Connecticut.

Kenny, D. A. (in press). Prospects for applying the social relations model to

person perception. Psychological Inquiry.

Kenny, D. A.，& Albright，L. (1987). Accuracy in interpersonal perception: A

social relations analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 102GX 390-402.

Kenny, D. A., Homer, C., Kashy, D. A., & Chu, L. (1992). Consensus at zero

acquaintance: Replication, behavioral cues, and stability. Journal ofPersonalitv and

Social Psychology, 62. 88-97.

Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1984). The Social Relations Model. In L.

Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 142-182).

Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Kenrick, D. T., & Stringfield, D. 0 . (1980). Personality traits and the eye of

the beholder: Crossing some traditional philosophical boundaries in the search for

consistency in all of the people. Psychological Review. 8 7 0 1 88-104.

Kwan, V.S.Y., Bond, M.H., & Gan, Y.Q. (1996). Looking within and bevond

individuation in a collectivist culture. Unpublished manuscript, Chinese University of

Hong Kong.

Self-Enhancement 43

Kwan, V. S. Y.，Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (in press). Pancultural

explanations for life satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem.

Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1991). Self-esteem and intergroup comparisons:

Toward a theory of collective self-esteem. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social

comparison: Contemporary theorv and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Luhtanen, R., & Crocker，J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-

evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 18.

302-318.

Lewinsohn, P. M., Mischel, W., Chaplin, W., & Barton，R. (1980). Social

competence and depression: The role of illusory self-perceptions. Joumal of

Abnormal Psychology. 89. 203-212.

Mathieu, J. E., & Farr，J. L. (1991). Further evidence for the discriminant

validity ofmeasures of organizational commitment, job involvement, andjob

satisfaction. Joumal of Applied Psychology. 76(11 127-133.

Malloy, T. E., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The Social Relations Model: An

integrative methodology for personality research. Joumal ofPersonalitv. 54. 199-225.

Marcus, D. K., Wilson, J. R., & Miller，R. S. (1996). Are perceptions of

emotion in the eye of the beholder? A social relations analysis ofjudgments of

embarrassment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 22(12). 1220-1228.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama，S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for

cognitive, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review. 98(2). 224-253.

Maslach, C” & Stapp, J. (1985). Individuation: Conceptual analysis and

assessment. Joumal ofPersonalitv and Social Psychology. 49GV 729-738.

Self-Enhancement 44

Maslow, A. H. (1950). Self-actualizing people: A study ofpsychological

health. Personality, Symposium No. 1, 11-34.

Matlin, M. W., & Stang, D. J. (1978). The Pollvanna Principle: Selectivity in

language, memorv. and thought. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.

Montogmery, B. (1984). Individual differences and relational interpendences

in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 11. 33-60.

Paulhus, D. L., & Reynolds, S. (1995). Enhancing target variance in

personality impressions: Highlighting the person in person perception. Joumal of

Personality and Social Psychology. 69(6�. 1233-1242.

Pavot, W., & Diener., E. (1993). Review ofthe satisfaction with life scale.

Psychological Assessment. 5, 164-172.

Rogosa, D. (1988). Myths about longitudinal research. In K. W. Schaie, R. T.

Campbell, W. Meredith, & S. C. Rawlings (Eds.), Methodological issues in aging

research (pp. 171-209). New York: Springer.

Rogosa, D., & Wilett, J. B. (1983). Demonstrating the reliability ofthe

difference score in the measurement of change. Joumal ofEducational Measurement.

20, 335-343.

Rogosa, D., & Willett，J. B. (1985). Understanding correlates ofchange by

modeling individual differences in growth. Psvchometrika, 50. 203-228.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizabilitv theorv. A primer.

Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc.

Self-Enhancement 45

Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent

self-construals. Personalitv and Social Psychology Bulletin. 20f51 580-591.

Singelis, T. M., Bond, M. H.，Lai, S. Y., & Sharkey, W. F. (1995).

Unpackaging culture's influence on self-esteem and embarrassabilitv: The role ofself-

construals. Unpublished manuscript, University ofHawaii at Manoa.

Steiner, I. (1955). Interpersonal behavior as influenced by accuracy of social

perception. Psychological Review. 62. 268-274.

Svenson, 0 . (1981). Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow

drivers? Acta Psvchologica, 47. 143-148.

Swann, W. B. Jr., Pelham, B. W., & Kmll, D. S. (1989). Agreeable fancy or

disagreeable truth? Reconciling self-enhancement and self-verification. Joumal of

Personality and Social Psychology. 57(5). 782-791.

Takata, T. (1992). Self-depreciative social comparison in Japan. Paper

presented at the International Conference on Emotion and Culture, Eugene, OR.

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social

psychological perceptive on mental health. Psychological Bulletin. 103(2). 193-210.

Taylor, S. E.，& Brown, J. D. (1994). Positive illusions and well-being

revisited: Separating fact from fiction. Psychological Bulletin. 116nV 21-27.

Wamer, R. M.，Kenny, D. A., & &oto, M. (1979). A new round robin

analysis of variance for social interaction data. Joumal ofPersonalitv and Social

Psychology, 37(10), 1742-1757.

Wells, L. E., & Sweeney，P. D. (1986). A test ofthree models ofbias in self-

assessment. Social Psychology Quarterly. 49. 1-10.

Self-Enhancement 46

Yik, M. S. M. (1993). Self- and peer ratings of personality traits: Evidence of

convergent and discriminant validity among Hong Kong university students.

Unpublished master thesis: Chinese University ofHong Kong.

Yik, M., & Bond, M. H. (1993). Exploring the dimensions ofChinese person

perception with indigenous and imported constructs: Creating a culturally balanced

scale. International Joumal ofPsvchology. 280). 75-95.

Yik, M. S. M.，Bond, M. H .，& Paulhus, D. L. (1996). Do Chinese self-

enhance or self-efface? Unpublished manuscript: University ofBritish Columbia.

Yu, J., & Murrphy, K. R. (1993). Modesty bias in self-ratings ofperformance:

A test of the cultural relativity hypothesis. Personnel Psychology. 46. 357-363.

Zuckerman, M., & Knee，C. R. (1996). The relation between overly positive

self-evaluation and adjustment: A comment on Colvin, Block, and Funder (1995).

Joumal ofPersonalitv and Social Psychology. 70(6). 1250-1251.

Self-

Enha

ncem

ent

47

Tabl

e 1.

Tw

o D

iffer

ent C

ateg

orie

s of

Mea

sure

s Em

ploy

ed in

the

Pres

ent

Stud

y

Mea

sure

s In

stru

men

ts

Self-

Rep

ort M

easu

res

Col

lect

ive

Self-

Este

em S

cale

(1)

In

divi

duat

ion

Scal

e (1

) In

terp

erso

nal R

elat

ions

hip

Har

mon

y In

vent

ory

(1)

NEO

Fiv

e Fa

ctor

Inv

ento

ry (

1)

Ros

enbe

rg S

elf-

Este

em S

cale

(1)

Sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith L

ife

Scal

e (1

) Se

lf-C

onst

rual

Sca

le (

1)

Sino

-Am

eric

an P

erso

n Pe

rcep

tion

Scal

e (1

)

Peer

-Rep

ort M

easu

res

Indi

vidu

al G

roup

Gra

de (

2)

Inte

rper

sona

l Attr

actio

n In

vent

ory

(2)

Sino

-Am

eric

an P

erso

n Pe

rcep

tion

Scal

e (2

)

Note

: (1

) rep

rese

nts

that

the

mea

sure

was

adm

inis

trate

d at

the

first

wee

k of

the

term

(T1

). (2

) rep

rese

nts

that

the

mea

sure

was

adm

inis

trate

d at

the

twel

fth

wee

k of

the

term

(T2

).

I

Self-

Enha

ncem

ent

48

Tabl

e 2

Rel

ativ

e V

aria

nce

Parti

tioni

ng.

Var

iabl

e Pe

rcei

ver

Effe

ct

Targ

et E

ffec

t R

elat

ions

hip

Effe

ct

Ope

nnes

s to

Exp

erie

nce

.09*

.4

3*

.48

Emot

iona

l Sta

bilit

y .1

0*

.36*

.5

4 Ex

trove

rsio

n .0

6*

.60*

.3

4 A

pplic

atio

n .2

5*

.35*

.4

0 In

telle

ct

.40*

.1

8*

.42

Hel

pful

ness

.3

8*

.23*

.3

9 R

estra

int

.25*

.3

6*

.39

Ass

ertiv

enes

s .0

4 .5

2*

.44

1 M

ean

.20

.38

.43

Note

, N

=128

, *p<

.05.

Tes

ts o

f sig

nific

ance

for t

he re

latio

nshi

p ef

fect

s wer

e no

t sho

wn

beca

use

the

rela

tions

hip

varia

nce

equa

ls to

1 m

inus

the

sum

oft

he o

ther

two

effe

cts.

I

Self-

Enha

ncem

ent

49

Tabl

e 3

Rel

ativ

e V

aria

nce

Parti

tioni

ng: S

tabl

e /U

nsta

ble

Var

iabl

e Pe

rcei

ver

Targ

et

Rel

atio

nshi

p St

able

/Uns

tabl

e St

able

/Uns

tabl

e St

able

/Uns

tabl

e

Ope

nnes

s to

Exp

erie

nce

.07/

.02

.35/

.04

.29/

.25

Emot

iona

l Sta

bilit

y .0

6/.0

3 .2

6/.0

5 .2

8/.3

1 Ex

trove

rsio

n .0

6/.0

0 .5

2/.0

1 .1

9/.2

2 A

pplic

atio

n .2

0/.0

3 .3

0/.0

0 .1

9/.2

9 In

telle

ct

.33/

.01

.13/

.04

.20/

.30

Hel

pful

ness

.2

6/.1

0 .1

7/.0

2 .1

7/.2

8 R

estra

int

.18/

.06

.29/

.03

.21/

.24

Ass

ertiv

enes

s .0

1/.0

5 .1

0A06

.2

5/.2

4

Mea

n .1

5/.0

4 .2

7/.0

3 .2

2/.2

7

Note

. N=1

28.

.I

, ,

.. .: ---

:.

-

: .

••

；^

〜：

-，

—

•

•.一..-

--.

--". ‘

•‘.-

‘〜~~，

~-

‘ “

~~

"~

" "•*

~'—

—^

——

~—

•

• .-

‘見'-

•""'•'*'

‘ “

•""

^ '•'

‘ I

‘ •

•‘“

-

一.

.‘

」•

l-*"_

"•“

""'"

" ‘

••

Self

-Enh

ance

men

t 50

Tabl

e 4

Inte

rcor

rela

tions

am

ong

Var

ious

Way

s to

Ind

ex S

elf-

Enha

ncem

ent.

i 2

3 4

5 6

7

1.

sE(v

) r

^ 2.

SE

(H)

.58

1.00

3.

SE

(Vr)

.8

3 .7

8 1.

00

4.

SE(H

r)

.71

.90

.96

1.00

5.

R

_SE(

V)

.94

.55

.85

.73

1.00

6.

R

_SE(

H)

.58

.94

.81

.91

.67

1.00

7.

R

efin

ed S

E .6

3 .5

5 .5

4 .5

3 .7

6 .7

0 1.

00

Note

.. N

=128

. SE

(V)=

Xss

- X

so，

SE(H

)=X

ss -

Xos

, SE(

Vr)

and

SE(

Hr)

den

ote

usin

g th

e re

sidu

al m

etho

d to

ind

ex S

E(V

) an

d SE

(H)

resp

ectiv

ely.

R_S

E(V

) an

d R

_SE(

H)

repr

esen

t the

rec

over

ed S

E in

dice

s. R

efin

ed S

E re

pres

ents

the

new

ly p

ropo

sed

self

-enh

ance

men

t in

dex.

The

abo

ve c

orre

latio

ns a

re a

ll si

gnif

ican

t at p

<.01

.

I

• .

, .;.i

._L

t-V

^^

'W-

<atf

ai:i

Li::

.:,A2

:.v..(

X:

--V

：-.

=r .%-

:r-:-

•-• .

. -

=..---

-:-•-

,+ •.

-. ‘

^^

~^'^

― “

--.

• -

-=

— _^

-—=

- .-

"

""

""

™“

.丨

一“

"-

• -

- •.

• '••

“‘

‘

‘

•_',

‘

‘

Self

-Enh

ance

men

t 51

Tabl

e 5

Ref

ined

Sel

f-En

hanc

emen

t and

its

Exte

rnal

Cor

rela

tes

Var

iabl

e R

efin

ed S

E Pe

rcei

ver

T^

SE(V

) S

l^

~

Ach

ieve

d Li

king

-.2

8*

.36*

.1

7 -.2

4*

-.15

Indi

vidu

al G

roup

Gra

de

-.48*

.1

4 .6

2*

-.02

-.27*

In

depe

nden

t Se

lf-C

onst

rual

.2

7*

.07

.17

.37*

.3

4*

Inte

rdep

ende

nt S

elf-

Con

stm

al

-.07

.16

.00

-.05

.04

Ros

enbe

rg S

elf-

Este

em

.29*

.1

2 .2

7*

.44*

.3

9*

Life

Sat

isfa

ctio

n .1

5 -.0

1 .3

0*

.31*

.1

5 In

terp

erso

nal R

elat

ions

hip

Har

mon

y .1

1 .2

3*

.12

.17*

.2

7*

Indi

vidu

atio

n Fa

ctor

1-T

akin

g th

e Le

ad

.33*

.0

6 .1

8 .4

1*

.37*

In

divi

duat

ion

Fact

or 1

-See

king

Atte

ntio

n .2

5*

.02

.18

.29*

.2

2*

Neu

rotic

ism

-.2

5*

-.16

-.26*

-.4

2*

-.39*

Ex

trove

rsio

n .34*

.14

.22*

.45*

45*

Ope

nnes

s to

Exp

erie

nce

.05

-.00

.25*

23

* .1

0 A

gree

able

ness

-.1

3 .1

9*

.23*

-.0

6 -.0

8 C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

.31*

.25*

.04

.29*

44*

Col

lect

ive

Self-

Este

em

.13

.07

.20*

.2

7*

.22*

Note

. N

=128

. *2

<.05

. SE

(V)=

Xss

- X

so, S

E(H

)=X

ss -

Xos

, SE

repr

esen

ts th

e ne

wly

pro

pose

d se

lf-e

nhan

cem

ent

inde

x.

I

Self-

Enha

ncem

ent

52

Tabl

e 6

Self-

Rat

ing

Mea

ns a

nd O

ther

-Rat

ing

Mea

ns f

or th

e 8

SAPP

S D

imen

sion

s

Var

iabl

e Se

lf-R

atin

g O

ther

-Rat

ing

Dif

fere

nce

T-va

lue

Ope

nnes

s to

Exp

erie

nce

4.30

4.

26

.04

.40

Emot

iona

l Sta

bilit

y 3.

86

4.64

-.7

8 -9

.37*

Ex

trove

rsio

n 4.

10

4.60

-.5

0 -4

.57*

A

pplic

atio

n 4.

70

5.10

-.4

0 -4

.30*

In

telle

ct

4.72

4.

94

-.22

-2.2

2*

Hel

pful

ness

4.

42

4.95

-.5

3 -6

.66*

R

estra

int

4.37

4.

79

-.42

-4.8

6*

Ass

ertiv

enes

s 4.

15

4.37

-.2

2 -2

.58*

Note

. N

=128

, *^<

.05.

I

wiiii'' im

oMwri/in

i 'ii lU

_ __.�

�r.4

-:,�j>i<

aeiiii<d

WttH

iiilliMiiiiiM

iftiiiiiiM

iiiiaiiiiiB

iiWiiii—

iMW

iMBih

waiifa_

ii_" i�

i.|丨�

i i«~

"-.•

- -

：—

‘ ‘•‘ iiI'w

iw'cMiiOiw

niwmmtm

mmmmrn

mm-tm

[i*ii m

imm

mm

mm

mm

mrnm

r-.. ^

‘.

一

‘ |

|"

«"

^^

^^

"^

^^

^^

"^

^^

^^

^^

^^

^^

^—

“

Self

-Enh

ance

men

t 53

Tabl

e 7

Prop

ortio

n of

Sel

f-En

hanc

ers a

nd S

elf-

EfFa

cers

Var

iabl

es

% o

f Sel

f-En

hanc

ers

% o

f Sel

f-Ef

face

rs

Ope

nnes

s to

Expe

rienc

e 47

.7%

41

.4%

Em

otio

nal S

tabi

lity

48.4

%

45.3

%

Extro

vers

ion

53.1

%

41.4

%

App

licat

ion

46.1

%

46.1

%

Inte

llect

46

.9%

42

.2%

H

elpf

ulne

ss

53.9

%

40.6

%

Res

train

t 54

.7%

38

.3%

A

sser

tiven

ess

48.4

%

46.1

%

Mea

n 49

.9%

42

.7%

Not

e:

N=1

28.

irr- T ^ -•.,. . .-::.-. .一― •''....'."..- ..,-〜_._._,._., - _-._--._ -•.. --'.•.•-•.小.....• . • •-" ••• • • —-• -• ,:"''j.- i -• . '••. , > •

- < > 4 % ^ 、、,.* •

I

/ I

CUHK L i b r a r i e s 丨

_ _ _ i i

003STa7Tti I