Please including the following information in your paper. Begin your write-up by explaining the purpose of the article, including a summary of the hypothesis or hypotheses. Please address in your write-up whether you feel the authors provide sufficient background information in their literature review for you to understand the theories used in the study and how they relate to the proposed hypotheses. Examine the methods used to test or examine the researchers’ predictions. Please explain whether you feel the methods chosen adequately address the concepts identified for study by the hypotheses. Why or why not? If multiple hypotheses are examined, provide several examples. Next, explain your understanding of the major findings of the study and whether the proposed hypotheses were supported or refuted. What alternative explanations are possible? Alternative explanations are often addressed by research authors, but you may also add your own ideas if they fail to address your observations in the article. Finally, address in your write-up whether you believe this article makes a valuable contribution to the body of knowledge in this area, and provide at least one suggestion for a future research endeavor (either your own idea or one that is suggested by the authors) Your paper should be typed and double-spaced, with appropriate margins and typeface (12-pt font). The assignment is for a two to three page paper (Note: 2 pages is the minimum); Citation reminder – There will only be one primary source for this paper (the article that you are reading), but you still need to cite that source as appropriate in the course of your write-up. If you quote from the article, you need to indicate the quote using quotation marks and provide a parenthetical citation for that quote as well, including the author name(s), year, and page #. In addition, even when you paraphrase an idea from the article, you must cite the source of that idea. Please make a specific effort to cite the authors & year in the introductory paragraph to your paper making it clear that the summary to follow discusses the content of the article referenced. Accordingly, you should also include the complete APA style reference of your reviewed article at the end of your paper. This paper is to be written in a formal style. Please refrain from 1st-person references such as "I think" or "in my opinion". You may provide your analytical opinion as requested via simple statements such as, "This article does make a valuable contribution to the science of embodied cognition because. . . " without saying the words, "I think..." Please use active voice writing when possible, avoiding overuse of the "be" verbs (i.e. "is" "was") SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2002, 30(6), 625-630 © Society for Personality Research (Inc.) DOI 10.2224/sbp.2002.30.6.625 DOES SELF-SERVING BIAS CANCEL THE BARNUM EFFECT? DANY J. MACDONALD AND LIONEL G. STANDING Bishop’s University, Cana.

1. Please including the following information in your paper.
Begin your write-up by explaining the purpose of the article,
including a summary of the hypothesis or hypotheses. Please
address in your write-up whether you feel the authors provide
sufficient background information in their literature review for
you to understand the theories used in the study and how they
relate to the proposed hypotheses.
Examine the methods used to test or examine the researchers’
predictions. Please explain whether you feel the methods chosen
adequately address the concepts identified for study by the
hypotheses. Why or why not? If multiple hypotheses are
examined, provide several examples.
Next, explain your understanding of the major findings of the
study and whether the proposed hypotheses were supported or
refuted. What alternative explanations are possible? Alternative
explanations are often addressed by research authors, but you
may also add your own ideas if they fail to address your
observations in the article.
Finally, address in your write-up whether you believe this
article makes a valuable contribution to the body of knowledge
in this area, and provide at least one suggestion for a future
research endeavor (either your own idea or one that is suggested
by the authors)
Your paper should be typed and double-spaced, with appropriate
margins and typeface (12-pt font). The assignment is for a two
to three page paper (Note: 2 pages is the minimum);
Citation reminder – There will only be one primary source for
this paper (the article that you are reading), but you still need to
cite that source as appropriate in the course of your write-up. If
you quote from the article, you need to indicate the quote using
quotation marks and provide a parenthetical citation for that
quote as well, including the author name(s), year, and page #. In
addition, even when you paraphrase an idea from the article,
you must cite the source of that idea.

2. Please make a specific effort to cite the authors & year in the
introductory paragraph to your paper making it clear that the
summary to follow discusses the content of the article
referenced. Accordingly, you should also include the complete
APA style reference of your reviewed article at the end of your
paper.
This paper is to be written in a formal style. Please refrain from
1st-person references such as "I think" or "in my opinion". You
may provide your analytical opinion as requested via simple
statements such as, "This article does make a valuable
contribution to the science of embodied cognition because. . . "
without saying the words, "I think..." Please use active voice
writing when possible, avoiding overuse of the "be" verbs (i.e.
"is" "was")
SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2002, 30(6), 625-
630
© Society for Personality Research (Inc.)
DOI 10.2224/sbp.2002.30.6.625
DOES SELF-SERVING BIAS CANCEL
THE BARNUM EFFECT?
DANY J. MACDONALD AND LIONEL G. STANDING
Bishop’s University, Canada

3. This study was aimed at examining whether individuals believe
in the reality of positive
personality traits more readily than negative traits, when these
are falsely ascribed to them in a
bogus feedback situation. 27 participants filled out a personality
test, then a list of traits was
presented for them to rate how well each one described their
own personality. A 7-point scale was
used to assess the perceived accuracy for each supposed trait.
The statements, demand
characteristics, and genders were compared for their effects on
perceived accuracy of ascribed
traits. The results indicate that the type of trait presented to the
participant affected the rating in
relative terms, according to the principle of self-serving bias,
whereas gender and demand
characteristics showed no significant effect. It appears that the
self-serving bias is powerful
enough to cancel the usual Barnum effect, in which subjects
typically show marked gullibility for
statements about themselves.
Keywords: self-serving bias, Barnum effect, personality traits,
demand characteristics, gender

4. Past studies of the „Barnum effect‟ have consistently
demonstrated that
individuals have a strong tendency to accept bogus feedback of
personality tests
(Forer, 1949; Layne, 1998; Standing & Keays, 1986), habitually
displaying a high
level of gullibility. This problem is of interest since it can give
an insight into the
ways people perceive themselves. The latter two studies
mentioned above used
computer assessments of personality traits to demonstrate that
individuals will have
a high tendency to accept positive statements about themselves,
even if these
statements are inaccurate.
The main interest in the present study is to determine, using a
computerized
personality test, whether or not people will accept positive
statements, but reject
Dany J. MacDonald and Lionel G. Standing, Department of
Psychology, Bishop‟s University,
Québec, Canada.

5. The authors express their thanks to Yannick Chartier-Verpaelst,
who kindly assisted in data collection.
Appreciation is due also to reviewers including Dr. David
Myers, Department of Psychology, Hope
College, Holland, MI, USA; and Dr. Paul Valliant, Department
of Psychology and Sociology,
Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.
Please address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. L.
Standing, Department of Psychology,
Bishop‟s University, Québec, Canada J1M 1Z7. Phone: (819)-
822-9600, ext. 2456; Fax: (819)-822-
9661; Email: [email protected]
625
626 THE BARNUM EFFECT
negative statements about themselves, so as to test for a
relationship between the
Barnum effect and the phenomenon of self-serving bias.
According to many
studies, people show a pervasive tendency towards self-serving
bias: to perceive
themselves favorably, no matter what the objective evidence

6. (e.g., Johnson,
Gain, Falke, Hayman, & Perillo, 1985; Ross & Sicoly, 1979).
Can this tendency
cancel out the usual Barnum process when the two processes are
pitted in opposition?
Typical studies of the Barnum effect have used traits which are
essentially positive,
although Snyder and Shenkel (1976), for example, have found
that
people more readily accept favorable as compared to
unfavorable Rorschach-
based statements about themselves, whereas ratings for other
people‟s traits did
not show this bias.
In the present study, a high level of acceptance for positive
traits only would
indicate that self-serving bias is more powerful than the Barnum
effect and in effect
can replace it. Conversely, a high rating for both negative and
positive traits would
suggest that the Barnum effect is present, and eliminates the
usual self-serving
bias. Neutral traits are also used in this study.

7. Gender may be relevant to the Barnum effect. Piper-Terry and
Downey (1998)
found that females described their friends‟ feedback on bogus
personality tests as
being more accurate, a trend which merits further investigation.
The present study raises three questions. The first involves the
difference in
subjects‟ acceptance of positive, negative and neutral
statements. The second
question concerns gender differences, and the third question
examines the
demand characteristics displayed by the participants (Orne,
1962). The hypothesis
for the first question is that there will be a significant
difference between the positive
and negative statements. For the second question, the possibility
of a gender
difference is open. For the third question, demand
characteristics are not predicted to
show an effect, as it is expected that few participants can guess
the main
experimental hypothesis.
METHOD

8. PARTICIPANTS
The study used 27 undergraduate psychology students, solicited
through an
email request. The participants were volunteers, and were
treated according to APA
ethical guidelines.
MATERIALS
An abbreviated version of the Eysenck Personality Inventory
Form B (author,
year) was
administered to the participants in order to create the Barnum
effect. A list of
positive, negative, and neutral traits, created by the
experimenters on the basis of a
pretest, was used as a rating measure of the respondents‟ traits.
The list of traits
THE BARNUM EFFECT

9. 627
included seven positive (Generous, Cheerful, Ambitious,
Assertive, Affectionate,
Optimistic, and Persistent), seven negative (Tense, Impulsive,
Moody, Fearful,
Jealous, Cynical, and Nervous), and four neutral traits
(Worldly, Serious,
Venturesome, and Sensation Seeking). For each trait, the
written instructions asked
the subject, “Please rate to which degree you believe yourself to
have this trait. 1
would imply that you do not agree with this trait, whereas 7
would imply that you
strongly agree with the trait.”
A laptop computer and a printer were used to increase the
plausibility of the
situation. A post-experimental questionnaire was also used in
order to determine
whether or not the participants displayed demand characteristics
(according to
whether they correctly identified the main hypothesis of the
study). A consent form
was given to the subject at the beginning of the experiment and

10. a debriefing was
provided at the end of the study.
PROCEDURE
A psychology laboratory was used for testing. Participantss first
filled out the
consent form, and then the abbreviated version of the
personality questionnaire.
Next, the experimenter sat at the computer (the screen not
visible to the subject)
and randomly typed numbers into an Excel worksheet while
looking at the
personality test. After a few minutes, the experimenter printed
out the bogus list of
traits and gave it to the participant. The participants then rated
each of the 18
traits for perceived accuracy on a 7-point scale. A rating of 1
implied that he/she
strongly disagreed with the trait, and 7 meant that he/she
strongly agreed with
the trait. After the subjects finished with the list of traits, they
were given the
postexperimental questionnaire. This asked them to describe
what they thought

11. the hypothesis of the study was. Finally, the participants were
given the debriefing
form explaining the true purpose of the study, and were thanked
for their
participation.
RESULTS
All statistical tests were performed using SPSS, with α = .05.
An analysis of the ratings by a 3 x 2 x 2 (trait type x gender x
demand) mixed
ANOVA showed that perceived accuracy of ascribed traits was
changed by the
type of trait, F(2, 24) = 7.78, p = .001. The variables of gender
and demand were
insignificant (as predicted), as were all the interactions between
the variables. The
observed power of the trait type variable was .938, and the
effect size
was fairly small, yielding a value of .245. The F values,
significance levels,
effect sizes and observed power for all variables are given in
Table 1.

12. 628 THE BARNUM EFFECT
TABLE 1
F VALUES, SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS, EFFECT SIZES, AND
OBSERVED POWER FOR THE TRAIT,
GENDER, AND DEMAND VARIABLES
Variable F Sig. Eta Square Observed Power
Trait 7.8 .001* .245 .938
Gender 1.1 .311 .043 .168
Demand 1.0 .317 .042 .165
Trait x Gender 1.1 .344 .043 .230
Trait x Demand .006 .994 .000 .051
* p < .05
The descriptive statistics suggest a consistent pattern for the
ratings. The mean
acceptance ratings (out of 7) were 5.62 for the positive traits,
4.69 for the neutral
traits, and 4.16 for the negative traits.

13. In order to determine whether or not a significant difference
existed between
the ratings of the traits, three paired-samples t tests were
conducted. In order to
control for the amount of error due to repeated t tests, the alpha
level was set at
.01. The first test examined positive versus negative traits, and
showed that the
former were accepted more strongly than the latter, t(26) = 5.9,
p = .001. The
second test showed that positive traits were also accepted more
strongly than
neutral ones, t(26) = 7.6, p = .001. Finally, testing between
negative and neutral

14. Figure 1. Mean accuracy ratings of positive, neutral, and
negative traits, for males and females.
THE BARNUM EFFECT
629
traits did not show a significant effect. Figure 1 illustrates the
different ratings of
traits. Table 2 provides the means and standard deviations of the
rating of the
traits.
TABLE 2
MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION VALUES OF THE
RATING OF POSITIVE, NEGATIVE,
AND NEUTRAL TRAITS

15. Trait type M SD
Positive 5.6 .66
Negative 4.2 .92
Neutral 4.7 .94
DISCUSSION
The present data for the positive traits demonstrate the Barnum
effect, in its
usual pattern: the subjects showed considerable credulity
concerning these alleged
characteristics of their personalities, and rated the accuracy of
these positive traits
well above the neutral point of the scale (the midpoint value of
4). However, in
relative terms the data also directly support the self-serving bias
theory, since
significantly higher ratings were given to the positive (or
neutral) than to the negative
traits. It should be noted that in absolute terms the subjects
were still fairly credulous
concerning the negative traits, since their mean rating was close

16. to the neutral point
of the scale, indicating a noncommital response rather than
outright rejection of the
negative traits.
The principle of self-serving bias is that all people will tend to
think that they
are above average: a logical impossibility. This principle
applies in the present
situation, since the participants showed more belief in their
positive traits than
their negative traits. It is unlikely that the individuals in this
study are “good people”
in all aspects. The way people rate themselves for their own
personality
traits directly reflects the general self-serving bias present in
everyday life.
The second hypothesis examined was that there would be no
difference due to
gender. This prediction was also supported. The fact that no
significant difference
was found could be because only three males took part in the
study. In further
research, it would be appropriate to find a more even number of
males and

17. females.
The third hypothesis proposed concerned demand
characteristics. This hypothesis
was also supported since the demand characteristics did not
show a significant
effect on the data. Only a small number of individuals (three)
correctly
guessed the experimental hypothesis. Participants, even if they
do guess the
hypothesis, probably will not try to bias the results by giving
false data.
630 THE BARNUM EFFECT
In conclusion, it seems that self-serving bias, long recognized
as a powerful
motivating force in human cognition, once again proves to be
the dominant
process in the present paradigm. This agrees well with the
extreme, often comic,
manifestations that it commonly takes in providing us with
assurance that we
alone are almost flawless (Myers, 1999, pp. 57-58). Human

18. gullibility, although
ubiquitous in society, is not limitless, since when it would
impinge on this inviolate
sense of self-perfection it is replaced by a cautious attitude
which corresponds to
“I do not know”.
REFERENCES
Forer, B. R. (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: A
classroom demonstration of gullibility.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 118-123.
Johnson, J. T., Gain, L. M., Falke, T. L., Hayman, J., & Perillo,
E. (1985). The Barnum effect revisited:
Cognitive and motivational factors in the acceptance of
personality descriptions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1378-1391.
Layne, C. (1998). Gender and the Barnum effect: A
reinterpretation of Piper-Terry and Downey‟s
results. Psychological Reports, 83, 608-610.
Myers, D. G. (1999). Social psychology. (6th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the

19. psychological experiment: With particular reference
to demand characteristics and their implications. American
Psychologist, 17, 776-783.
Piper-Terry, M. L., & Downey, J. L. (1998). Sex, gullibility,
and the Barnum effect. Psychological
Reports, 82, 571-576.
Ross, M., & Sicoly, F. (1979). Egocentric biases in availability
and attribution. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 37, 322-336.
Snyder, C. R., & Shenkel, R. J. (1976). Effects of
“favorability”, modality, and relevance on acceptance
of general personality interpretations prior to and after
receiving diagnostic feedback.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 34-41.
Standing, L., & Keays, G. (1986). Computer assessment of
personality: A demonstration of gullibility.
Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 14,
197-202.
Copyright of Social Behavior & Personality: an international
journal is the property of
Society for Personality Research and its content may not be

20. copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.