Trait Ambiguity and Self-Serving Assessments
The described study tests whether ambiguous traits allow more favorable self-assessments than narrowly defined traits. The proposed explanation is that a broad trait offers more ways to select evidence that makes oneself look good.
THE IDEA
STUDY 1: TRAIT AMBIGUITY AND SELF-SERVING ASSESSMENTS
Study 1 explores one preliminary prediction growing from the notion of idiosyncratic evidence in self-assessment. Specifically, people were expected to provide more favorable self-appraisals to the extent that the characteristic in question was ambiguous. By ambiguous, we mean something close to what Hampson, John, and Goldberg (1986) refer to as trait breadth; that is, the trait can refer to any number of behaviors or characteristics (e.g., sophisticated) as opposed to just a few (e.g., tall). Toward that end, subjects were presented with a list of characteristics that were either ambiguous (e.g., sensitive, sophisticated, insecure, inconsistent) or rather unambiguous (e.g., punctual, studious, clumsy, wordy). Subjects were asked to rate themselves on these characteristics relative to their peers. It was predicted that subjects would self-enhance more on ambiguous traits (that is, rate themselves high on positive traits and low on negative ones) than on unambiguous characteristics.
When to use it
When conducting performance reviews, be aware that employees may overrate themselves on ambiguous competencies like 'innovation' or 'strategic thinking' due to self-serving bias.
In job interviews, candidates' self-assessments of ambiguous traits (e.g., 'people skills') should be interpreted with caution, as they may be inflated.
When setting development goals, define observable indicators for broad traits so you can check progress against specific evidence.
In educational settings, use clear rubrics for traits like 'participation' to minimize the influence of ambiguity on self-grading.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Ambiguous vs Unambiguous Traits in Self-Assessment
Participants rated themselves relative to peers on ambiguous traits such as 'sophisticated' and 'insecure' and narrower traits such as 'punctual' and 'clumsy'. The researchers predicted greater self-enhancement on ambiguous traits. This passage describes the task and prediction without reporting the results.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of a time when you gave yourself a high rating on a vague trait like 'creativity' or 'leadership'. How might the ambiguity of the trait have influenced your self-assessment?
Identify a trait you consider unambiguous (e.g., height or punctuality). Are your self-assessments on that trait more objective? Why or why not?
How could awareness of trait ambiguity help you evaluate yourself more accurately in professional or personal settings?
References
- Trait breadth and the self-enhancement effect — Hampson, John, and Goldberg (1986)
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Heuristics and Biases The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, Daniel Kahneman)