When Praising Yourself Insults Others: Self-Superiority Claims Provoke Aggression

Abstract

We tested the prediction, derived from the hubris hypothesis, that bragging might serve as a verbal provocation and thus enhance aggression. Experiments 1 and 2 were vignette studies where participants could express hypothetical aggression; Experiment 3 was an actual decision task where participants could make aggressive and/or prosocial choices. Observers disliked an explicit braggart (who claimed to be "better than others") or a competence braggart as compared with an implicit braggart (who claimed to be "good") or a warmth braggart, respectively. Showing that explicit and competence bragging function as verbal provocations, observers responded more aggressively to the explicit and competence braggart than to the implicit and warmth braggart, respectively. They did so because they inferred that an explicit and a competence braggart viewed other people and them negatively, and therefore disliked the braggart. Rather than praising the self, braggarts are sometimes viewed as insulting others.

Investigating the Relationship Between Self-Perceived Moral Superiority and Moral Behavior Using Economic Games

“…In other words, SPMS was mainly driven by how individuals viewed the morality of other people, not themselves, and greater moral cynicism about these others tended to be associated with lower monetary transfers. This supports our speculation on both counts and is consistent with two areas of prior work: the first, that observers interpret expressions of self-superiority as condemnation of others, rather than egregious self-flattery (Van Damme, Deschrijver, Van Geert, & Hoorens, 2017; Van Damme, Hoorens, & Sedikides, 2016), and, the second, that individuals condition their behavior in these games on whether they think others will behave in kind (Krueger & Acevedo, 2007).…”

On the Popularity of Agentic and Communal Narcissists: The Tit-for-Tat Hypothesis

“…Future research should compare the explanatory power of this novel hypothesis against complementary hypotheses. Such complementary hypotheses may include (a) lack of empathy and, thus, antagonism (Back et al, 2013; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001); (b) lack of self-insight and, thus, bragging (Palmer, Ramsey, Morey, & Gentzler, 2016; Van Damme, Deschrijver, Van Geert, & Hoorens, 2017); (c) hubristic pride and, thus, insulting body language (van Osch, Zeelenberg, Breugelmans, & Brandt, 2018); and (d) shameless self-promotion and, thus, envy in others (Rentzsch & Gross, 2015; Rentzsch, Schröder-Abé, & Schütz, 2015; Rentzsch, Schütz, & Schröder-Abé, 2011).…”

Clarifying the structure and nature of left-wing authoritarianism.

“…The first participant is then provided with a pool of 30 puzzles—10 labeled easy, 10 labeled medium, and 10 labeled hard—and asked to choose 11 of the 30, with more difficult puzzles indicating greater aggression. The task has been successfully administered both online and in-person in numerous studies (e.g., Barlett & Anderson, 2011; Gentile et al, 2009; Van Damme et al, 2017). Meta-analytic evidence suggests that the Tangram Help/Hurt task is correlated with trait aggression and (reversed) prosociality, and experimental evidence indicates that situational primes influence task scores (e.g., Saleem et al, 2015; Saleem et al, 2017).…”