How well do we know ourselves? Disentangling self-judgment biases in perceived accuracy and preference of personality feedback

Q4 Psychology

Psihologia Resurselor Umane Pub Date : 2022-12-06 DOI:10.24837/pru.v20i2.518

S. Trif, C. Rus, Elena Manole, Octavian Calin Duma

{"title":"How well do we know ourselves? Disentangling self-judgment biases in perceived accuracy and preference of personality feedback","authors":"S. Trif, C. Rus, Elena Manole, Octavian Calin Duma","doi":"10.24837/pru.v20i2.518","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":37470,"journal":{"name":"Psihologia Resurselor Umane","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psihologia Resurselor Umane","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24837/pru.v20i2.518","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

我们对自己了解多少?自我判断偏差在感知准确性和人格反馈偏好中的解耦

尽管人格测量和反馈是普遍的做法，但自我判断的偏见可能会损害它们的使用。我们开始分析两种虚假反馈和真实反馈在感知准确性和偏好方面的差异。我们认为虚假反馈和真实反馈在感知准确性方面没有差异，但我们期望反馈偏好方面存在差异。146名学生完成了测量五大因素的IPIP-50工具，并收到了三种反馈——一般反馈(巴纳姆效应作为假反馈)，积极反馈(高于平均水平的效果作为假反馈)和真实反馈。他们根据准确性和偏好对每一个都进行了评分。结果表明两个因变量存在差异。参与者认为虚假反馈比真实反馈更准确。此外，他们更喜欢积极的反馈而不是其他两种，更喜欢一般的反馈而不是真实的反馈。我们讨论了理论和实践意义，以及一系列的局限性和未来的研究方向。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Psihologia Resurselor Umane Psychology-Clinical Psychology

CiteScore

0.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Psihologia Resurselor Umane Journal is the official journal of the Association of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (APIO). PRU is devoted to publishing original investigations that contribute to an understanding of situational and individual challenges within an organizational context and that bring forth new knowledge in the field. The journal publishes primarily empirical articles and also welcomes methodological and theoretical articles on a broad range of topics covered by Organizational, Industrial, Work, Personnel and Occupational Health Psychology. Audience includes scholars, educators, managers, HR professionals, organizational consultants, practitioners in organizational and employee development.