S
Self-Enhancement Motives
Miranda Giacomin1 and Christian Jordan2
1
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
2
Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON,
Canada
Definition
The motivation to maximize the positivity of
one’s self-views
Introduction
Self-enhancement is believed to be a fundamental
motive to increase the positivity of one’s self-
views (for a review, see Alicke and Sedikides
2009). Self-enhancement can be conceptualized
as a motive to bring one’s self-views in line with a
desired end state, one’s ideal self, or one’s aspira-
tions with respect to self-views. Self-enhancement
tendencies are instrumental psychological
responses aimed at promoting positive self-
views, and they are believed to be driven by a
desire to attain or maintain self-esteem. That is,
the self-enhancement motive is believed to guide
people toward situations in which they believe
they will excel or situations in which they can
promote their positive qualities, which will help
them increase their self-esteem.
# Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 2017
V. Zeigler-Hill, T.K. Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1168-1
Although some individuals may be more pre-
disposed to self-enhancement than others, every-
one has the propensity to self-enhance. People
self-enhance in order to regulate their self-esteem
or in response to situational pressures. Individuals
will often employ self-enhancement strategies
after recognizing that their perceived abilities do
not coincide with their perceived aspirations. For
example, people may rate themselves higher on a
series of attributes (e.g., trustworthiness) as a way
to feel closer to their aspirational level on those
particular traits. To the extent that people are
motivated to maintain their positive self-views,
they may employ a variety of psychological strat-
egies to do so.
Self-enhancement can occur in a variety of
ways. A few examples include exaggerating
one’s virtues, claiming that one’s successes are a
reflection of ability whereas failures are due to
external circumstances, or preferentially remem-
bering positive rather than negative information
about oneself. People are believed to engage in
these self-enhancing responses in order to regulate
or enhance their self-esteem or positive self-
image. It is important to note that self-
enhancement primarily occurs in personally
important domains. That is, people self-enhance
in areas that are important to them but are less
likely to exaggerate their abilities in domains that
they perceive to be unimportant. The following
section describes in more detail a variety of strat-
egies individuals use to self-enhance.
2 Self-Enhancement Motives
Strategies for Self-Enhancement
Research on self-enhancement suggests that there
are numerous strategies people use to self-
enhance (Sedikides and Gregg 2008). Most com-
monly, people exaggerate their abilities and vir-
tues or hold positive illusions about themselves.
The “better-than-average” effect refers to the ten-
dency for a majority of people to rate themselves
as being above average on a wide variety of pos-
itive traits, attributes, and dimensions compared to
their peers (e.g., Alicke 1985; Taylor and Brown
1988; Sedikides and Gregg 2008). If, for example,
90% of people rate themselves as above average
in their driving abilities, this effect is logically
impossible as a majority of people cannot be
better than average, by definition. It is more likely
that most people are in fact average, or score close
to the statistical average, across most dimensions.
Importantly, people often view themselves more
favorably than objective standards would warrant.
That is, people tend to rate themselves higher on
specific positive traits or dimensions than do
knowledgeable peers, close others, or neutral
observers (e.g., Colvin et al. 1995). This effect is
at least partially driven by the desire to maintain a
favorable self-view (for alternative views, see
Chambers and Windschitl 2004; Heine and
Hamamura 2007).
Another common self-enhancement strategy is
the self-serving attribution bias, which involves
taking credit for successes (i.e., self-
enhancement) but also denying responsibility for
failures (which is a form of self-protection; see
entry on the self-protection motive). People have a
tendency to attribute successful task outcomes to
their own ability, while discounting the external
forces that may have played a role (e.g., luck). For
example, a soccer player who scores three goals
during a game may attribute this positive outcome
to his natural ability, not considering that a home
field advantage might have contributed to his per-
formance. This self-serving bias is particularly
interesting because neutral observers typically
make internal attributions for others’ behavior,
regardless of the outcome’s valence (e.g., attrib-
uting both wins and losses to a player’s ability)
and so make more even-handed judgments about
others. The self-serving bias is also exacerbated
when the positive outcome occurs in a personally
important domain relative to a personally
unimportant domain (Campbell and Sedikides
1999). People make more internal attributions
for their successes (e.g., their own ability, deter-
mination) as a way to reinforce their positive self-
images.
Cognitive-processing mechanisms also filter
how information is encoded and remembered in
self-serving ways. These self-enhancement ten-
dencies involve, for example, selectively recalling
positive (rather than negative) feedback about
oneself (Sanitioso and Wlodarski 2004; Swann
and Read 1981). People also remember past
events in a variety of ways that accentuate the
positivity of their self-views. Often people per-
ceive positive past events to be subjectively closer
in time than more negative events, even though
the events occurred objectively around the same
time in the past (Wilson and Ross 2001). Individ-
uals who distance themselves from past mistakes
or transgressions may even derogate a “past” self
to enhance their current self-view. Thus, people
engage in a variety of cognitive strategies that
appear to be motivated by self-enhancement and
serve to increase self-esteem.
Is Self-Enhancement Adaptive?
Considering that self-enhancement is believed to
be a fundamental motive driven by the desire to
view oneself more positively, researchers have
been widely interested in whether self-
enhancement is adaptive or maladaptive. Conven-
tional psychological wisdom led researchers to
initially expect that maintaining accurate self-
views, both positive and negative, is most benefi-
cial for psychological well-being. This view, how-
ever, was called into question by research on
“positive illusions,” which suggests that self-
enhancement might actually be beneficial to
well-being. Researchers have examined the adap-
tiveness of self-enhancement strivings in two pri-
mary domains: psychological well-being and
interpersonal relationships.
Well-Being
Self-enhancement makes people feel better about
themselves, which has been linked to a variety of
Self-Enhancement Motives
positive psychological outcomes (Taylor and
Brown 1988; Taylor et al. 2003; for an alternative
viewpoint, see Colvin and Block 1994). For
example, self-enhancement is positively related
to subjective well-being, positive affect, and hap-
piness. Perhaps not surprisingly, self-
enhancement is also positively related to self-
esteem. In addition to facilitating positive out-
comes, self-enhancement seems to buffer against
negative outcomes and may serve a stress-
buffering function. Research suggests that self-
enhancement is associated with decreased anxi-
ety, depression, and neuroticism. Even after fac-
ing extreme adversities (e.g., traumatic loss),
people who self-enhance to a greater extent were
rated as better psychologically adjusted by mental
health experts (Bonanno et al. 2002). Thus, hav-
ing positive illusions about the self does seem to
facilitate well-being and buffer against the effects
of negative outcomes.
Interpersonal Relationships
Despite research suggesting that self-
enhancement is psychologically adaptive for the
individual, it may also cause maladaptive inter-
personal outcomes (Colvin et al. 1995; Crocker
and Park 2004; Paulhus 1998; Robins and Beer
2001). Researchers have found that self-
enhancement is related to short-term benefits but
comes with long-term interpersonal costs. People
tend to initially be drawn to self-enhancers as they
appear confident, charismatic, and charming.
Over time, however, they come to view self-
enhancers more negatively. Indeed, Paulhus
(1998) found that strangers rated self-enhancing
individuals as more likeable initially, but 7 weeks
later rated those same individuals as less likeable
than their less self-enhancing peers. Colvin et al.
(1995) also found that people evaluated self-
enhancers more negatively over time, labelling
them as more deceitful, untrustworthy, and irrita-
ble than those who self-enhanced less. Individuals
who self-enhanced also seemed to lack an under-
standing of social conventions as they tended to
brag more, interrupt, and act more irritable than
those who did not self-enhance. Although people
might be initially attracted to individuals who self-
3
enhance, these positive first impressions are often
short-lived.
Is self-enhancement adaptive? The answer to
this question appears to be twofold: Self-
enhancement may provide an individual with a
buffer from psychological stress which increases
their self-esteem and overall psychological well-
being; however, people’s self-enhancement ten-
dencies may also negatively impact their interper-
sonal relationships as, over time, self-enhancers
tend to be less well-liked than those who self-
enhance less. Understanding the contextual
boundaries of these effects may provide insight
into the situations in which self-enhancement is
adaptive and when it is maladaptive.
Additional Considerations
Although everyone may have a fundamental
motive to self-enhance, different aspects of per-
sonality or culture may influence the strength of
the self-enhancement motive. The moderators of
self-enhancement that have received the most
empirical attention are culture, self-esteem, and
narcissism.
Culture
Across all cultures, people appear to want to max-
imize their successes and maintain positive self-
images, as well as minimize failures and protect
themselves from negative self-images. Cultures,
however, broadly differ along a continuum from
collectivist to individualistic. Collectivist cultures
(e.g., East Asian), tend to self-enhance less, and
less openly, than individualistic cultures (e.g.,
North America; Heine and Hamamura 2007). Col-
lectivist cultures, however,) tend to prioritize
group memberships, social roles, and close rela-
tionships more than individualistic cultures and
may self-enhance to a greater extent in these
domains (Sedikides et al. 2003). In this way, cul-
ture may impact the strategies individuals use to
self-enhance (for a review, see Sedikides et al.
2015). Because collectivist cultures value
maintaining harmony and group membership,
they tend to self-enhance more on personally
important attributes including communal traits
such as loyalty and trustworthiness. Individualis-
tic cultures, however, emphasize independence
4 Self-Enhancement Motives
and self-sufficiency and tend to self-enhance more
on agentic traits (e.g., authority, confidence;
Sedikides et al. 2003; but see also Heine 2005).
Thus, individuals from different cultures may
manifest their self-enhancement motives differ-
ently (Gaertner et al. 2012; also see entry on
cultural differences in self-esteem).
Self-Esteem
A person’s characteristic level of self-esteem is
likely related to the strength of their self-
enhancement motive and the self-enhancement
strategies they employ. For example, individuals
with high self-esteem tend to self-enhance more
frequently than their low self-esteem counterparts
(Campbell and Sedikides 1999). Indeed, those
high in self-esteem are more concerned with
enhancing their public image, whereas those low
in self-esteem are more concerned with protecting
the public image they already have. Those high in
self-esteem are more likely to make downward
social comparisons after a failure (i.e., choosing
to compare to a worse-off other), whereas those
low in self-esteem are more likely to make down-
ward social comparisons after success (Wood
et al. 1994). Thus, low self-esteem individuals
do self-enhance, but only when there is little risk
of being disappointed or success is relatively
guaranteed. Although all individuals may strive
to maintain relatively positive self-views, those
with differing levels of self-esteem may do so in
different contexts or for different reasons.
Narcissism
A variety of personality traits are linked to greater
self-enhancement. For example, there are individ-
ual differences in self-deceptive enhancement
(a form of overconfidence; Paulhus 1998). The
most well-studied individual difference associated
with self-enhancement, however, is narcissism.
Individuals high in narcissism tend to have gran-
diose, over-inflated self-views (Campbell and
Foster 2007). Previous research, for example, sug-
gests that narcissists rate themselves as more intel-
ligent and more attractive than others (Gabriel
et al. 1994), and narcissism is associated with
more positive predictions of final course grades
among students, but is unrelated to the actual
grades attained (Farwell and Wohlwend-Lloyd
1998). Thus, narcissists are individuals who are
strongly guided by the self-enhancement motive
and engage in many self-enhancing strategies as a
way to build their narcissistic esteem.
Conclusion
Self-enhancement is the motivation to increase the
positivity of one’s self-views. The self-
enhancement motive may influence a wide variety
of social, affective, and cognitive functions. It
may cause a variety of cognitive biases. Most
people rate themselves as being better than aver-
age on positive traits, they remember their suc-
cesses better than their failures, make downward
social comparisons, and take credit for successes
while denying responsibility for failures. Self-
enhancement may promote better psychological
well-being, but it is also linked to negative inter-
personal consequences.
Cross-References
▶ Cultural Differences in Self-Esteem
▶ Self-Protective Motive
References
Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined
by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,
1621–1630. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.6.1621.
Alicke, M. D., & Sedikides, C. (2009). Self-enhancement
and self-protection: What they are and what they do. -
European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 1–48.
doi:10.1080/10463280802613866.
Bonanno, G. A., Field, N. P., Kovacevic, A., & Kaltman,
S. (2002). Self-enhancement as a buffer against
extreme adversity: Civil war in Bosnia and traumatic
loss in the United States. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 28, 184–196. doi:10.1177/
0146167202282005.
Campbell, W. K., & Foster, J. D. (2007). The narcissistic
self: Background, an extended agency model, and
ongoing controversies. In C. Sedikides & S. Spencer
(Eds.), Frontiers in social psychology: The self. Phila-
delphia: Psychology Press.
Self-Enhancement Motives
Campbell, W. K., & Sedikides, C. (1999). Self-threat mag-
nifies the self-serving bias: A meta-analytic integration.
Review of General Psychology, 3, 23–43. doi:10.1037/
1089-2680.3.1.23.
Chambers, J. R., & Windschitl, P. D. (2004). Biases in
social comparative judgments: The role of non-
motivated factors in above-average and comparative-
optimism effects. Psychological Bulletin, 130,
813–838. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.813.
Colvin, C. R., & Block, J. (1994). Do positive illusions
foster mental health? An examination of the Taylor and
Brown formulation. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 3–20.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.3.
Colvin, C. R., Block, J., & Funder, D. C. (1995). Overly
positive self-evaluations and personality: Negative
implications for mental health. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 68, 1152–1162. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.68.6.1152.
Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-
esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 392–414. doi:10.
1037/0033-2909.130.3.392.
Farwell, L., & Wohlwend-Lloyd, R. (1998). Narcissistic
processes: Optimistic expectations, favorable self-
evaluations, and self-enhancing attributions. Journal
of Personality, 66, 65–83. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.
00003.
Gabriel, M. T., Critelli, J. W., & Ee, J. S. (1994). Narcis-
sistic illusions in self-evaluations of intelligence and
attractiveness. Journal of Personality, 62, 143–155.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00798.x.
Gaertner, L., Sedikides, C., & Cai, H. (2012). Wanting to
be great and better but not average: On the pancultural
desire for self-enhancing and self-improving feedback.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 521–526.
doi:10.1177/0022022112438399.
Heine, S. J. (2005). Where is the evidence for pancultural
self-enhancement? A reply to Sedikides, Gaertner, and
Toguchi (2003). Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 89, 531–538. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.
4.531.
Heine, S. J., & Hamamura, T. (2007). In search of East
Asian self-enhancement. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Review, 11, 4–27. doi:10.1177/
1088868306294587.
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adap-
tiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5),
1197–1208. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1197.
Robins, R. W., & Beer, J. S. (2001). Positive illusions about
the self: Short-term benefits and long-term costs.
5
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,
340–352. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.340.
Sanitioso, R. B., & Wlodarski, R. (2004). In search of
information that confirms a desired self-perception:
Motivated processing of social feedback and choice of
social interactions. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 30, 412–422. doi:10.1177/
0146167203261882.
Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. P. (2008). Self-enhancement:
Food for thought. Perspectives on Psychological Sci-
ence, 3, 102–116. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.
00068.x.
Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Toguchi, Y. (2003).
Pancultural self-enhancement. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 84, 60–79. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.84.1.60.
Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., Luke, M. A., O’Mara, E. M., &
Gebauer, J. E. (2013). A three-tier hierarchy of self-
potency: Individual self, relational self, collective self.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 48,
235–295.
Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Cai, H. (2015). On the
panculturality of self-enhancement and self-protection
motivation: The case for the universality of self-esteem.
Advances in Motivation Science, 2, 185–241. doi:10.
1016/bs.adms.2015.04.002.
Swann, W. B., & Read, S. J. (1981). Acquiring self-
knowledge: The search for feedback that fits. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1119–1128.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.6.1119.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-
being: A social psychological perspective on mental
health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210. doi:10.
1037/0033-2909.103.2.193.
Taylor, S. E., Lerner, J. S., Sherman, D. K., Sage, R. M., &
McDowell, N. K. (2003). Portrait of the self-enhancer:
Well adjusted and well liked or maladjusted and friend-
less? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,
165–176. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.165.
Wilson, A. E., & Ross, M. (2001). From chump to champ:
People’s appraisals of their earlier and present selves.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,
572–584. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.4.572.
Wood, J. V., Giordano-Beech, M., Taylor, K. L., Michela,
J. L., & Gaus, V. (1994). Strategies of social compari-
son among people with low self-esteem: Self-
protection and self-enhancement. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 67, 713–731. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.67.4.713.