Christian self-enhancement.

Abstract

People overestimate themselves in domains that are central to their self-concept. Critically, the psychological status of this “self-centrality principle” remains unclear. One view regards the principle as an inextricable part of human nature and, thus, as universal and resistant to normative pressure. A contrasting view regards the principle as liable to pressure (and subsequent modification) from self-effacement norms, thus questioning its universality. Advocates of the latter view point to Christianity’s robust self-effacement norms, which they consider particularly effective in curbing self-enhancement, and ascribe Christianity an ego-quieting function. Three sets of studies examined the self-centrality principle among Christians. Studies 1A and 1B (N = 2,118) operationalized self-enhancement as better-than-average perceptions on the domains of commandments of faith (self-centrality: Christians ≫ nonbelievers) and commandments of communion (self-centrality: Christians > nonbelievers). Studies 2A–2H (N = 1,779) operationalized self-enhancement as knowledge overclaiming on the domains of Christianity (self-centrality: Christians ≫ nonbelievers), communion (self-centrality: Christians > nonbelievers), and agency (self-centrality: Christians ≈ nonbelievers). Studies 3A–3J (N = 1,956) operationalized self-enhancement as grandiose narcissism on the domains of communion (self-centrality: Christians > nonbelievers) and agency (self-centrality: Christians ≈ nonbelievers). The results converged across studies, yielding consistent evidence for Christian self-enhancement. Relative to nonbelievers, Christians self-enhanced strongly in domains central to the Christian self-concept. The results also generalized across countries with differing levels of religiosity. Christianity does not quiet the ego. The self-centrality principle is resistant to normative pressure, universal, and rooted in human nature.

Perceiving Self, Others, and Events Through a Religious Lens: Mahayana Buddhists vs. Christians

“…As to attributional styles, our finding – more religious Christians are more likely to make self-serving attributions – is consistent with the self-centrality tendency observed in the previous literature (e.g., Epley et al, 2009; Gebauer et al, 2017), and its counterpart – more religious Mahayana Buddhists are less likely to make self-serving attributions – adds to the literature by showing that such a self-centrality tendency is not shared across religions. Albert Einstein once said that “ Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of Nature, and therefore, this holds for the action of people.…”

“…For example, the image-based RMET employed in previous studies requires a perceptual understanding of facial expressions, whereas the cartoon-based Yoni test employed in our study requires a cognitive understanding of situations. Additionally, because more religious Christians are more prone to self-enhancement biases (Sedikides and Gebauer, 2010; Gebauer et al, 2017), they might overstate their mentalizing abilities when answering to questions such as “I really enjoy caring for other people,” “I find it easy to put myself in somebody else’s shoes,” and “I am good at predicting what someone will do” in the EQ questionnaire, thus showing a positive relationship between mentalizing and religious belief.…”

“…First, the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) is a popular measure of the ToM ability but actually measures emotion recognition rather than the ToM ability (Oakley et al, 2016). Second, another popular measure of the ToM or cognitive empathy (Dvash and Shamay-Tsoory, 2014) is the Empathy Quotient (EQ) questionnaire (Lawrence et al, 2004; Wakabayashi et al, 2006), which can be subject to socially desirable responses and self-enhancement biases (e.g., Preti et al, 2011), particularly if responders are religious (Sedikides and Gebauer, 2010; Gebauer et al, 2017).…”

“…Because Christians tend to be more self- and God-centered than other-centered (Han et al, 2008; Epley et al, 2009; Gebauer et al, 2017), we expect Christians to be more inclined toward self-serving attributions and less accurate in the ToM tasks than are Mahayana Buddhists. Moreover, we expect both the SSB and the ToM ability to be functions of religiosity.…”

Agentic narcissism, communal narcissism, and prosociality.

“…Gebauer et al (2015) as well asGebauer et al (2017) reported some analyses based on this data set. However, they tested none of the hypotheses or relations with which this study is concerned.5 We combined two samples (Studies 2A and 2B from Gebauer et al, 2017) that used the same study set-up.…”