ONE-WAY BETWEEN-GROUPS ANOVA: IS FALSE MODESTY ACTUALLY FLATTERING?

Is False Modesty Actually Flattering?

true

true

true

You must read each slide, and complete any questions on the slide, in sequence.

Welcome

Is False Modesty Actually Flattering?

Authors:

Kelly M. Goedert, Seton Hall University

Susan A. Nolan, Seton Hall University

Kaylise D. Algrim, Seton Hall University

Twitter is full of humblebrags, or bragging masked as complaining: “Our song has just come on the radio in our taxi. Awkward!,” Irish musician Sam Halliday (@samTDCC) laments—only to be one-upped by the Singaporean/Texan celebrity Tila Tequila (@OfficialMsTila) talking about her new Lamborghini, “Man this is SO unfair! Why did the lambo dealership not tell me I’d get pulled over at least once a week in this car? Time for a corolla lol!” (Twisted Sifter, 2011).

With social media’s capacity for self-promotion, humblebragging has taken the Internet by storm. Such statements show a bit of surface humility, while also flattering the humblebragger: “Completing a marathon or taking your shoes off after completing a marathon, which is the real win?” The tactic may seem to lessen the negative association with showing off, but the reality may be the opposite. To investigate this issue, a series of studies looked at the effects of humblebragging on social perception (Sezer, Gino, & Norton, 2018).

C Brandon/Redferns via Getty Images

In a study, participants in a between-groups experiment were randomly assigned to humblebrag, brag, or complain conditions. In the humblebrag condition, participants viewed the following statement (which was an actual Tweet): “I am so bored of people mistaking me for a model.” Participants in the brag condition viewed the same statement without the surface complaining: “People mistake me for a model.” Participants in the complain condition just viewed the statement, “I am so bored.” Participants then rated the targets’ likeability and perceived sincerity on a scale of 1–7, where higher scores indicated higher likeability and perceived sincerity.

This graph shows the mean results for likeability:

image description

The bar graph shows likeability ratings for three conditions. There are three vertical bars rising from the horizontal x-axis—one for humblebrag, one for brag, and one for complain. The y-axis is labeled “Likeability ratings” and the tick marks range from 1 at the bottom to 7 at the top, at intervals of 1. The likeability ratings are about 2.7 for humblebrag, 3.1 for brag, and 3.6 for complain.

Data from: Sezer et al., 2018.

Correct! Participants gave the lowest mean likeability rating to the humblebrag.

Actually, participants gave the lowest mean likeability rating to the humblebrag.

This graph shows the mean results for perceived sincerity:

image description

The bar graph shows perceived sincerity for three conditions. There are three vertical bars rising from the horizontal x-axis—one for humblebrag, one for brag, and one for complain. The vertical y-axis is labeled “Likeability ratings” and the tick marks range from 1 at the bottom to 7 at the top, at intervals of 1. The perceived sincerity ratings are about 2.7 for humblebrag, 3.3 for brag, and 4.4 for complain.

Data from: Sezer et al., 2018.

Correct! Participants perceived the humblebrag to be the least sincere out of the three conditions.

Actually, participants perceived the humblebrag to be the least sincere out of the three conditions.

Recall that participants rated the likeability of someone who said: “I am so bored of people mistaking me for a model” (humblebrag); “People mistake me for a model” (brag); or “I am so bored” (complain). The ANOVA results for the effect of condition on likeability ratings sincerity are shown here:

*F*(2, 298) = 15.02, *p* < .001, *η*^{2} = 0.09

Correct! The p value is less than .001, when it needs to be only less than an alpha level of 0.05 to reject the null hypothesis. So, we can conclude that at least two of the means are statistically significantly different from each other.

Actually, the p value is less than .001, when it needs to be only less than an alpha level of 0.05 to reject the null hypothesis. So, we can conclude that at least two of the means are statistically significantly different from each other.

The ANOVA results for the effect of condition on perceived sincerity are shown here:

*F*(2, 298) = 54.73, *p* < .001, *η*^{2} = 0.27

Correct! The p value is less than .001, when it needs to be only less than an alpha level of 0.05 to reject the null hypothesis. So, we can conclude that at least two of the means are statistically significantly different from each other.

Actually, the p value is less than .001, when it needs to be only less than an alpha level of 0.05 to reject the null hypothesis. So, we can conclude that at least two of the means are statistically significantly different from each other.

Correct! The effect of condition on perceived sincerity had a larger effect size than the effect of condition on likeability ratings—0.27 versus 0.09.

Actually, we can learn from these results that the effect of condition on perceived sincerity had a larger effect size than the effect of condition on likeability ratings—0.27 versus 0.09.

Correct! A between-groups designs means that each participant was in a different condition. Specifically, each participant read only a humblebrag, a brag, or a complaint.

Actually, a between-groups designs means that each participant was in a different condition. Specifically, each participant read only a humblebrag, a brag, or a complaint.

Correct! Both analyses had a scale dependent variable, either likeability rating or perceived sincerity rating, along with one nominal independent variable with more than two levels (humblebrag, brag, and complain).

Actually, they used one-way between-groups ANOVAs (one for likeability and one for perceived sincerity) because both analyses had a scale dependent variable, either likeability rating or perceived sincerity rating, along with one nominal independent variable with more than two levels (humblebrag, brag, and complain).

Earlier, you chose what you found most annoying about social media posts. Now you know the bottom line: If you’re going to brag about something, you might as well be honest about it.

Emanuele Cremaschi/Getty Images

REFERENCES

Sezer, O., Gino, F., & Norton, M. I. (2018). Humblebragging: A distinct and ineffective self-presentation strategy.
*Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114, *52–74.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000108

Twisted Sifter. (2011, May 10). The 50 funniest “humble brags” on Twitter.
*Twisted Sifter. *Retrieved from
https://twistedsifter.com/2011/05/funniest-humble-brags-on-twitter/