Humble Self-Enhancement

Eriksson, Kimmo; Funcke, Alexander

doi:10.1177/1948550613484179

Cited by 22 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Three key findings were observed. First, consistent with previous research (Eriksson & Funcke, 2014;Rowatt, Ottenbreit, Nesselroade, & Cunningham, 2002;Sedikides & Gebauer, 2010), religious participants showed evidence of self-enhancement. Specifically, when evaluating themselves in terms of warmth and extraversion, they tended to evaluate themselves higher than did non-religious participants, even after controlling for how they generally rate others and how others rate them.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Judgments of Religiosity following Minimal Interaction

Meagher

2016

Archive for the Psychology of Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the current study, unacquainted groups of both religious Christians and nonreligious atheists/agnostics rated themselves and each other on a number of attributes, including religiosity and morality. A Social Relations analysis revealed small, but statistically significant levels of consensus for impressions of religiosity. Subsequent correlations indicated that groups relied on the target's gender and race to reach consensus. Analyses of participants’ idiosyncratic ratings revealed similarity between religious and non-religious perceivers in terms of their association of high morality with religiousness. Religious identification did moderate the relationship between religiosity and emotional stability, as well as between religiosity and extraversion. These results indicate that group stereotypes for religiosity are largely shared among both adherents and non-adherents.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Judgments of Religiosity following Minimal Interaction

Meagher

2016

Archive for the Psychology of Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We would, therefore, expect based on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) that the perceived self-other differences is larger when rating the values of a disliked outgroup than when rating the values of one's own country, because seeing oneself as higher on important values might increase the feeling of superiority toward the outgroup. Indeed, it was found that religious people see other religious ingroup members even more positively than themselves (Eriksson & Funcke, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Perception of Family, City, and Country Values Is Often Biased

Hanel

Wolfradt

Coelho

et al. 2018

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People often make inferences about the values of other people in their families, cities, and countries, but there are reasons to expect systematic biases in these inferences. Across four studies (N = 1,763), we examined people’s perceptions of the values of their families, fellow citizens of the cities in which they live, and compatriots across three nations (Brazil, Germany, the United Kingdom). Our results show that people systematically misperceive comparison groups’ values. People underestimate the importance that their compatriots ascribe to more important values and overestimate the importance of less important values. This occurs in comparison with their own values, the actual values of the people living in the same city and the actual values of their compatriots. The effect sizes were medium to large. Furthermore, the results occurred independently of participants’ culture, time spent in the culture, and the underlying value model used. These results consistently show that people’s speculations about values in their community and society are biased in a self- and family favoring direction. In addition, we found that the structure of values (e.g., as proposed by Schwartz) holds for perceived family, fellow citizens of the cities in which they live, and compatriots’ values. Overall, our findings suggest that the values of other people are more selfless than is often believed.

show abstract

“…Second, the controls reduced the possible impact of ingroup bias (in this case, overly positive perceptions of an acquaintance who shares one's faith; Eriksson & Funcke, 2014;Johnson, Ro-30-area-level religiosity watt, & LaBouff, 2012). Finally, controlling for informants' selfreports could effectively control for individual differences in in formants' general scale use (e.g., acquiescence tendency, Zuckerman, Knee, Hodgins, & Miyake, 1995;extreme scoring, Hui & Triandis, 1989).…”

Section: Study 2: Cross-sectional Informant Reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-cultural variations in Big Five relationships with religiosity: A sociocultural motives perspective.

Gebauer

Bleidorn

Gosling

et al. 2014

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

108

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A sociocultural motives perspective (SMP) on Big Five relationships is introduced. According to the SMP, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness elicit assimilation to sociocultural norms, Openness elicits contrast from these norms, and Extraversion and Neuroticism are independent of sociocultural assimilation and contrast. Due to sociocultural assimilation, then, relationships of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness with an outcome wax (become more positive or less negative) with that outcome's increasing sociocultural normativeness. Due to sociocultural contrast, relationships of Openness with an outcome wane (become less positive or more negative) with that outcome's increasing sociocultural normativeness. We tested the SMP using religiosity as our outcome. Study 1 included 4 cross-sectional self-report data sets across 66 countries (N = 1,129,334), 50 U.S. states (N = 1,057,342), 15 German federal states (N = 20,885), and 121 British urban areas (N = 386,315). Study 2 utilized informant-report data across 37 countries (N = 544,512). Study 3 used longitudinal data across 15 German federal states (N = 14,858). Results consistently supported the SMP. Relationships of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness with religiosity were more positive in religious sociocultural contexts than in secular contexts. Relationships of Openness with religiosity were more negative in religious sociocultural contexts than in secular contexts. At a more general level, the SMP offers theory-driven explanations for cross-cultural variations in Big Five relationships with their outcomes.

show abstract

Humble Self-Enhancement

Cited by 22 publications

References 19 publications

Judgments of Religiosity following Minimal Interaction

Judgments of Religiosity following Minimal Interaction

The Perception of Family, City, and Country Values Is Often Biased

Cross-cultural variations in Big Five relationships with religiosity: A sociocultural motives perspective.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About