A Robust Negative Relationship Between Self-Reports of Social Skills and Performance Measures of Social Intelligence

Abstract

Does claiming to be more socially skilled than average reflect above average social intelligence? People may define social skill subjectively or idiosyncratically, and feedback about one's own level of social intelligence or specific social skills may be inconsistent or biased. This suggests that people's self-evaluations of their own social skills may fail to predict-or even negatively predict-their performance on skill-based tests of social intelligence. In one exploratory study and one preregistered replication study (total N = 927), people who reported that they have better social skills than average performed worse on three skill-based tests of social intelligence than people who did not claim to be above average (d Study1 = 0.46, d Study2 = 0.58). This pattern did not emerge when considering participants' comparative judgments of their own general intelligence and performance on two tests of cognitive ability. We discuss the complexities of accurately assessing one's own social skills, the obstacles associated with measuring the construct of social intelligence using self-reports, and the strategic implications of claiming to be more socially skilled than average.