People found false feedback about their personality more accurate and appealing than the real one, even if it consisted of vague and unspecific diagnoses that could fit just about anyone

How well do we know ourselves? Disentangling self-judgment biases in perceived accuracy and preference of personality feedback. Sabina Trif, Claudia Rus, Elena Manole, Octavian Calin Duma. Psihologia Resurselor Umane, Vol. 20 No. 2 (2022), Dec 6, 2022. https://doi.org/10.24837/pru.v20i2.518

Abstract: Despite personality measurement and feedback being pervasive practices, there are self-judgment biases that may impair their usage. We set out to analyze the differences between two kinds of false feedback and real feedback on personality regarding perceived accuracy and preference. We propose that there would be no differences between false and real feedback regarding perceived accuracy, but we expect differences regarding feedback preference. A sample of 146 students completed the IPIP-50 instrument that measured the Big 5 Factors and received three kinds of feedback - a general one (Barnum effect as false feedback), a positive one (Better-than-average effect as false feedback), and a real one. They rated each regarding accuracy and preference. Results indicate differences regarding both dependent variables. Participants perceive false feedback as more accurate than the real one. Moreover, they prefer positive feedback over the other two, and general feedback compared to the real one. We discuss both theoretical and practical implications, alongside a series of limitations and future research directions.

Keywords: personality, Barnum effect, better-than-average effect, psychometrics