Says Who? Credibility Effects in Self-Verification Strivings

Research shows that people prefer self-consistent over self-discrepant feedback—the self-verification effect (Swann, 1983, 2012). It is not clear, however, whether the effect stems from striving for self-verification or from the preference for subjectively accurate information. We argue that people self-verify because they find self-verifying feedback more accurate than self-discrepant feedback. We thus experimentally manipulated feedback credibility by providing information on its source: a student in the control condition and an experienced psychologist in the experimental condition. In line with our expectations, the results of two preregistered studies with 342 preselected participants showed that people self-verified only in the control condition. In the experimental condition, the effect disappeared (or reversed in Study 1). Study 2 showed that individual differences in credibility (epistemic authority) ascribed to self and psychologists matter as well. These findings suggest that feedback credibility, rather than the desire for self-verification, often drives the self-verification effect.

Worsening of Self-Reported Symptoms Through Suggestive Feedback

Previous studies found that misleading feedback may increase self-reported symptoms. Does this reflect social demand or internalized misinformation? We investigated whether suggestive misinformation may escalate symptoms when it is provided in a context that minimizes social demand. Eighty participants completed the Checklist for Symptoms in Daily Life twice. Between test and retest, participants were given standardized symptom feedback through a bogus computer program that allegedly produced an analysis of their symptom ratings. The feedback pertained to randomly selected symptom ratings of participants: accurate feedback on four ratings (controls) and manipulated feedback (i.e., misinformation) on two other ratings (i.e., targets), which we increased by two full-scale points. Forty-nine (66%) participants accepted both target manipulations, of whom 35 (71%) confabulated explanations for the inflated ratings. Critically, at retest, participants who accepted the misinformation increased their ratings for target symptoms dramatically, whereas ratings for control symptoms and relevant ratings by participants who rejected the misinformation increased moderately. Our findings may help to understand iatrogenic effects of psychotherapy.

Identity and Power Use in Exchange Networks

We introduce a theoretical argument about how the fairness identity influences exchange behaviors in negotiated exchange networks. To test this argument, we use data from a laboratory experiment. Results demonstrate that by providing manipulated feedback that is inconsistent with the fairness identity standard ( actual appraisals), inequality changes in the direction that counteracts the feedback. In addition, when high power actors think their high power exchange partners view them as either more or less fair than how they see themselves ( reflected appraisals), inequality again changes in the direction that counteracts the nonverifying feedback. We discuss how considering both identity and exchange processes yields new insights into exploitative behavior in exchange.

Judging Bias in Synchronized Swimming: Open Feedback Leads to Nonperformance-Based Conformity

The purpose of this experiment was to determine whether the open feedback system used in synchronized swimming (i.e., the judges hear and see each others’ scores after having rated each performance) leads to unwanted (i.e., nonperformance-based) conformity in the scoring by judges. Twenty judges in synchronized swimming were randomly divided into four panels of five judges. They had to rate 60 performances of the same imposed figure, the barracuda twirl: 30 performances in Phase 1 and 30 in Phase 2. Two independent variables were orthogonally manipulated: feedback (or none) during Phase 1 and feedback (or none) during Phase 2. In line with the hypotheses, the variation of scores given in Phase 1 was significantly smaller when the judges had received feedback than when they had not received feedback. Moreover, the variation of the scores given in Phase 2 remained significantly smaller among the judges who had received feedback in Phase 1 but not in Phase 2, compared with judges who had not received feedback in either phase. These results indicate that the scoring of judges in synchronized swimming is strongly and lastingly influenced by immediate feedback.

Feedback on Ability in Counseling, Self-Efficacy, and Persistence on Task

Self-efficacy in counseling varied with randomly manipulated feedback on ability, such that the 29 college students who received negative feedback on their ability reported lower self-efficacy than those 16 who received positive feedback. Persistence on task, however, was not related to the type of feedback received.