People engage in self-promotional behavior because they want others to hold favorable images of them. Self-promotion, however, entails a trade-off between conveying one’s positive attributes and being seen as bragging. We propose that people get this trade-off wrong because they erroneously project their own feelings onto their interaction partners. As a consequence, people overestimate the extent to which recipients of their self-promotion will feel proud of and happy for them, and underestimate the extent to which recipients will feel annoyed (Experiments 1 and 2). Because people tend to promote themselves excessively when trying to make a favorable impression on others, such efforts often backfire, causing targets of self-promotion to view self-promoters as less likeable and as braggarts (Experiment 3).
BaumeisterR. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3–26.
2.
BénabouR.TiroleJ. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. The American Economic Review, 96, 1652–1678.
3.
Ben-Ze’evA. (1993). On the virtue of modesty. American Philosophical Quarterly, 30, 235–246.
4.
BermanJ. Z.LevineE. E.BaraschA.SmallD. A. (2015). The braggart’s dilemma: On the social rewards and penalties of advertising prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 52, 90–104.
5.
BussD. M.ChiodoL. M. (1991). Narcissistic acts in everyday life. Journal of Personality, 59, 179–215.
6.
CialdiniR. B.WosinskaW.DabulA. J.Whetstone-DionR.HeszenI. (1998). When social role salience leads to social role rejection: Modest self-presentation among women and men in two cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 473–481.
7.
CooneyG.GilbertD. T.WilsonT. D. (2014). The unforeseen costs of extraordinary experience. Psychological Science, 25, 2259–2265.
8.
EpleyN.GilovichT. (2004). Are adjustments insufficient?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 447–460.
9.
EpleyN.KeysarB.Van BovenL.GilovichT. (2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 312–326.
10.
FeatherN. T. (1993). The rise and fall of political leaders: Attributions, deservingness, personality, and affect. Australian Journal of Psychology, 45, 61–68.
11.
FleissJ. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York, NY: John Wiley.
12.
FreyD. (1978). Reactions to success and failure in public and in private conditions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 172–179.
13.
GodfreyD. K.JonesE. E.LordC. G. (1986). Self-promotion is not ingratiating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 106–115.
14.
GoffmanE. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
15.
GriffinD. W.RossL. (1991). Subjective construal, social inference, and human misunderstanding. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 319–359). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
16.
JonesE. E.PittmanT. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In SulsJ. (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 1, pp. 231–262). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17.
JonesE. E.WortmanC. (1973). Ingratiation: An attributional approach. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
18.
KruegerJ.ClementR. W. (1997). Estimates of social consensus by majorities and minorities: The case for social projection. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 299–313.
19.
KruegerJ. I. (2003). Return of the ego—self-referent information as a filter for social prediction: Comment on Karniol (2003). Psychological Review, 110, 585–590.
LearyM. R.KowalskiR. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and the two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34–47.
22.
LearyM. R.NezlekJ. B.DownsD.Radford-DavenportJ.MartinJ.McMullenA. (1994). Self-presentation in everyday interactions: Effects of target familiarity and gender composition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 664–673.
23.
LoewensteinG. (2000). Emotions in economic theory and economic behavior. The American Economic Review, 90(2), 426–432.
24.
MillsC. (2003). Bragging, boasting, and crowing: The ethics of sharing one’s glad tidings with others. Philosophy & Public Policy Quarterly, 23(4), 7–12.
25.
PowersT. A.ZuroffD. C. (1988). Interpersonal consequences of overt self-criticism: A comparison with neutral and self-enhancing presentations of self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1054–1062.
RossL.WardA. (1995). Psychological barriers to dispute resolution. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 27, pp. 255–304). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
28.
RossL.WardA. (1996). Naive realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In ReedE. S.TurielE.BrownT. (Eds.), Values and knowledge (pp. 103–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
RudmanL. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter-stereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645.
30.
SchlenkerB. R. (1975). Self-presentation: Managing the impression of consistency when reality interferes with self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1030–1037.
31.
SchlenkerB. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
32.
SchlenkerB. R.LearyM. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641–669.
33.
SchlenkerB. R.WeigoldM. F.HallamJ. R. (1990). Self-serving attributions in social context: Effects of self-esteem and social pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 855–863.
34.
SedikidesC. (1993). Assessment, enhancement, and verification determinants of the self-evaluation process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 317–338.
35.
SmithR. H.TurnerT. J.GaronzikR.LeachC. W.Urch-DruskatV.WestonC. M. (1996). Envy and Schadenfreude. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 158–168.
36.
StiresL. K.JonesE. E. (1969). Modesty versus self-enhancement as alternative forms of ingratiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 172–188.
37.
TiceD. M. (1991). Esteem protection or enhancement? Self-handicapping motives and attributions differ by trait self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 711–725.
38.
TiceD. M.BaumeisterR. F. (1990). Self-esteem, self-handicapping, and self-presentation: The strategy of inadequate practice. Journal of Personality, 58, 443–464.
39.
TiceD. M.ButlerJ. L.MuravenM. B.StillwellA. M. (1995). When modesty prevails: Differential favorability of self-presentation to friends and strangers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1120–1138.
40.
Van BovenL.LoewensteinG. (2005). Empathy gaps in emotional perspective taking. In MalleB.HodgesS. (Eds.), Other minds (pp. 284–297). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
41.
Van BovenL.LoewensteinG.DunningD. (2005). The illusion of courage in social predictions: Underestimating the impact of fear of embarrassment on other people. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 130–141.
42.
Van BovenL.LoewensteinG.DunningD.NordgrenL. F. (2013). Changing places: A dual judgment model of empathy gaps in emotional perspective taking. In OlsonJ. M.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 48, pp. 117–171). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
43.
Van BovenL.LoewensteinG.WelchN.DunningD. (2012). The illusion of courage in self-predictions: Mispredicting one’s own behavior in embarrassing situations. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25, 1–12.
44.
WosinskaW.DabulA. J.Whetstone-DionR.CialdiniR. B. (1996). Self-presentational responses to success in the organization: The costs and benefits of modesty. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 229–242.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
