The Effect of Negative Feedback on Positive Beliefs in Self-Deception

Abstract

In the present study, we applied the forward-looking paradigm to examine how positive beliefs appear in self-deception and to further reveal the influence of negative feedback on positive beliefs to decrease self-deception. In Experiment 1, the answer group (with answer hints provided below the test material) and the control group (without answer hints) completed two tests. Participants estimated their Test 1 scores, predicted their performance on the upcoming Test 2 without answer hints, and completed Test 2. Their actual scores on the two tests were recorded. The results showed that the answer group predicted higher Test 2 scores than the control group, but the two groups did not differ in their actual scores. These results showed that the answer group had positive self-deception. In Experiment 2, the two groups were given negative feedback (vs. no feedback) after Test 1, and the changes between their estimated scores on Test 1 and their predicted score and actual score on Test 2 were measured. The results indicated that there was no significant difference in the estimated scores and the predicted score between the two groups under the feedback condition compared with the negative feedback condition. These findings demonstrated that the effectiveness of the forward-looking paradigm can activate participants’ positive beliefs and cheat behaviors by providing the answers to induce self-deception, and negative feedback can decrease the occurrence of self-deception by reducing the positive beliefs of individuals and improving self-awareness to prevent or eliminate the negative impact of self-deception.

Exploring the (Mal)adaptive Consequences of Self-Deceptive Enhancement: A Narrative Review

“…For example, Gramzow et al [22] found that positive illusions about one's GPA were negatively associated with actual future academic performance. Similarly, several studies [20,36,71] using a clever experimental design demonstrated similar negative consequences of SDE for learning, such that individuals who had taken a test with a visible answer key predicted infated test scores on a subsequent test where no answer key would be visible. In the absence of SDE, the researchers reasoned that there would be no diference in predicted scores between the experimental group and control group (who had no answer key) because the experimental group would accurately take into account the boost in initial performance from the answer key that would no longer be available on the future test.…”

“…Tere was also a signifcant interaction between dispositional SDE and the experimental manipulation, such that dispositional self-enhancers were especially prone to taking credit for their answer-key-infated performance [20]. Furthermore, it has been shown that monetary incentives for accurate predictions of performance on the second test do not temper SDE [4], and though corrective feedback can briefy lessen SDE [36], it can be easily reinstated [71].…”

The Effect of Comparative Direction and Comparative Gap on Self-Deception

“…We utilized the “The Prospective Paradigm” to measure participants’ self-deceptive behavior. 18 , 22 , 23 The discrepancy between actual and anticipated performance on the prospective paradigm suggested self-deception. 41 This paradigm consists of 120 red dot plots administered in two separate tests, referred to as Test 1 and Test 2.…”

High Self‐Deceivers Internalize Self‐Presentation of Extraversion Through Biased Evaluation of Their Performance1

“…Self‐deception was observed only when feedback on a performance was vague (Sloman, Fernbach, & Hagmayer, 2010). Further, self‐deception decreased when people received clear negative feedback (Liu et al, 2019).…”