Self-deception and impaired categorization of anomaly

Jordan B. Peterson; Erin Driver-Linn; Colin G. DeYoung

doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00158-1

Self-deception and impaired categorization of anomaly

Jordan B. Peterson, Erin Driver-Linn, Colin G. DeYoung

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

15 Scopus citations

Abstract

One hundred and forty community volunteers were prescreened for upper and lower quartile scores using the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding [BIDR; Paulhus, D.L. (1988). Assessing self-deception and impression management in self-reports: The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Unpublished manual. Vancouver, British Columbia; University of British Columbia, Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social-psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1991], and classified into stable High (n = 14) and Low (n = 15) self-deception groups using the Self-Deceptive Enhancement subscale of the BIDR. Participants identified normal and anomalous computer-displayed playing cards [following Bruner, J. & Postman, L. (1949). Journal of Personality, 18, 206-223], presented for short (∼ 16 ms), then increasingly longer durations. High and low self-deceivers identified the normal cards equally rapidly. Highs, however, took twice as many trials as lows (M = 11.21, S.D. = 9.65, vs. M = 5.00, S.D. = 3.87) to identify the anomalous card correctly twice (t [16.85] corrected for unequal variances = -2.25, P = 0.019, one-tailed). Self-deception thus appears associated with impaired categorization of anomaly.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	327-340
Number of pages	14
Journal	Personality and Individual Differences
Volume	33
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00158-1
State	Published - Jul 19 2002
Externally published	Yes

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Preparation of this article was made possible by a Knox Fund Grant from Harvard University and by support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We thank Daniel Higgins and Adrianne Seiffert for help in programming and modifying this task, and Mike Michaud and Mike McGarry for help in executing the study. We are also grateful to Deborah Yeh, Karen Ruggiero, and several anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of this article. Finally, we are very grateful for statistical assistance from Robert Rosenthal.

Keywords

Anomaly
Categorization
Exploration
Information processing
Self-deception

Publisher link

10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00158-1

Find It

Find It at U of M Libraries

Cite this

@article{9d3c2ed5bb01490c97b65a4a178b5fcc,

title = "Self-deception and impaired categorization of anomaly",

abstract = "One hundred and forty community volunteers were prescreened for upper and lower quartile scores using the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding [BIDR; Paulhus, D.L. (1988). Assessing self-deception and impression management in self-reports: The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Unpublished manual. Vancouver, British Columbia; University of British Columbia, Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social-psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1991], and classified into stable High (n = 14) and Low (n = 15) self-deception groups using the Self-Deceptive Enhancement subscale of the BIDR. Participants identified normal and anomalous computer-displayed playing cards [following Bruner, J. & Postman, L. (1949). Journal of Personality, 18, 206-223], presented for short (∼ 16 ms), then increasingly longer durations. High and low self-deceivers identified the normal cards equally rapidly. Highs, however, took twice as many trials as lows (M = 11.21, S.D. = 9.65, vs. M = 5.00, S.D. = 3.87) to identify the anomalous card correctly twice (t [16.85] corrected for unequal variances = -2.25, P = 0.019, one-tailed). Self-deception thus appears associated with impaired categorization of anomaly.",

keywords = "Anomaly, Categorization, Exploration, Information processing, Self-deception",

author = "Peterson, {Jordan B.} and Erin Driver-Linn and DeYoung, {Colin G.}",

note = "Funding Information: Preparation of this article was made possible by a Knox Fund Grant from Harvard University and by support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We thank Daniel Higgins and Adrianne Seiffert for help in programming and modifying this task, and Mike Michaud and Mike McGarry for help in executing the study. We are also grateful to Deborah Yeh, Karen Ruggiero, and several anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of this article. Finally, we are very grateful for statistical assistance from Robert Rosenthal.",

year = "2002",

month = jul,

day = "19",

doi = "10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00158-1",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "33",

pages = "327--340",

journal = "Personality and Individual Differences",

issn = "0191-8869",

publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Self-deception and impaired categorization of anomaly

AU - Peterson, Jordan B.

AU - Driver-Linn, Erin

AU - DeYoung, Colin G.

N1 - Funding Information: Preparation of this article was made possible by a Knox Fund Grant from Harvard University and by support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We thank Daniel Higgins and Adrianne Seiffert for help in programming and modifying this task, and Mike Michaud and Mike McGarry for help in executing the study. We are also grateful to Deborah Yeh, Karen Ruggiero, and several anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of this article. Finally, we are very grateful for statistical assistance from Robert Rosenthal.

PY - 2002/7/19

Y1 - 2002/7/19

N2 - One hundred and forty community volunteers were prescreened for upper and lower quartile scores using the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding [BIDR; Paulhus, D.L. (1988). Assessing self-deception and impression management in self-reports: The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Unpublished manual. Vancouver, British Columbia; University of British Columbia, Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social-psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1991], and classified into stable High (n = 14) and Low (n = 15) self-deception groups using the Self-Deceptive Enhancement subscale of the BIDR. Participants identified normal and anomalous computer-displayed playing cards [following Bruner, J. & Postman, L. (1949). Journal of Personality, 18, 206-223], presented for short (∼ 16 ms), then increasingly longer durations. High and low self-deceivers identified the normal cards equally rapidly. Highs, however, took twice as many trials as lows (M = 11.21, S.D. = 9.65, vs. M = 5.00, S.D. = 3.87) to identify the anomalous card correctly twice (t [16.85] corrected for unequal variances = -2.25, P = 0.019, one-tailed). Self-deception thus appears associated with impaired categorization of anomaly.

AB - One hundred and forty community volunteers were prescreened for upper and lower quartile scores using the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding [BIDR; Paulhus, D.L. (1988). Assessing self-deception and impression management in self-reports: The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Unpublished manual. Vancouver, British Columbia; University of British Columbia, Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social-psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1991], and classified into stable High (n = 14) and Low (n = 15) self-deception groups using the Self-Deceptive Enhancement subscale of the BIDR. Participants identified normal and anomalous computer-displayed playing cards [following Bruner, J. & Postman, L. (1949). Journal of Personality, 18, 206-223], presented for short (∼ 16 ms), then increasingly longer durations. High and low self-deceivers identified the normal cards equally rapidly. Highs, however, took twice as many trials as lows (M = 11.21, S.D. = 9.65, vs. M = 5.00, S.D. = 3.87) to identify the anomalous card correctly twice (t [16.85] corrected for unequal variances = -2.25, P = 0.019, one-tailed). Self-deception thus appears associated with impaired categorization of anomaly.

KW - Anomaly

KW - Categorization

KW - Exploration

KW - Information processing

KW - Self-deception

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037135235&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037135235&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00158-1

DO - 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00158-1

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0037135235

SN - 0191-8869

VL - 33

SP - 327

EP - 340

JO - Personality and Individual Differences

JF - Personality and Individual Differences

IS - 2

ER -

Self-deception and impaired categorization of anomaly

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Publisher link

Find It

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this