This study examined how self-concept clarity relates to susceptibility to the Barnum effect. The Barnum effect is people's tendency to believe vague personality descriptions apply to them. The study found that individuals with a clear sense of self were less likely to accept bogus personality feedback. However, an initial analysis found those with clearer self-concepts endorsed more positive personality statements. Controlling for self-esteem revealed this was due to the relationship between self-concept clarity and self-esteem. When self-esteem was accounted for, those with clearer self-concepts were actually less likely to endorse positive personality feedback as well. Having a clear self-concept appears to make people less susceptible to accepting inaccurate personality information.

1. Supplementing recent research, these results suggest that individuals with a clear sense
of self are significantly less susceptible to the Barnum effect. Though we are often
motivated to self-enhance, this research suggests certain individual differences may prompt
more accurate self views. Further, it appears self-esteem partially explains who might accept
new information about the self.
Participants
N = 173 undergraduates (female = 131)
Procedure
1. Barnum personality profile (α = .75, α = .79)
(–) At times you have serious doubts about whether you
have done the right thing.
(+) Your charm and wisdom make you attractive to many.
2. Self-esteem (RSE)
I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
3. SCC scale
In general, I have a clear sense of who I am and what I am.
Discussion
Initial Analyses
Self-Concept Clarity Mitigates Barnum Effect When
Self-Esteem Is Controlled
Introduction
Self-concept clarity (SCC; Campbell et al., 1996) refers to certainty in the
conceptualization of the self (i.e., those with more self-concept clarity have clear and
consistent identities). Therefore, it was hypothesized that such individuals would be less
prone to accept Barnum-style statements (Forer, 1949) about their personalities.
Counterintuitively, these participants endorsed positive personality statements. After
attending to the confound of self-esteem, the expected relationship emerged: those with
clear and consistent identities were unlikely to accept bogus personality feedback. This
finding importantly replicates previous studies and challenges the idea that we always
prefer positive self views (i.e., self-enhance).
Method
Results
Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996).
Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 141-156. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.141
Cuperman, R., Robinson, R. L., & Ickes, W. (2014). On the malleability of self-image in
individuals with a weak sense of self. Self and Identity, 13(1), 1-23. doi:
10.1080/15298868.2012.726764
Forer, B.R. (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of
gullibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 118–123. doi:10.1037/h0059240
References
Elizabeth C. McCrary & Aaron L. Wichman
Figure 1. Endorsement of negative Barnum statements.
Figure 3. Endorsement of positive Barnum statements. Figure 4. Endorsement of positive Barnum
statements after controlling for SE.
Figure 2. Endorsement of negative Barnum
statements after controlling for SE.
Barnum statements were first aggregated into positive and negative scores by summing
the positive and negative items separately. These two Barnum scores were then regressed
on standardized SCC. Although higher SCC predicted less negative Barnum statement
endorsement (t (1, 171) = -2.9, b = -66.329, p = .0000), higher SCC predicted greater
positive statement endorsement (t (1, 171) = 3.788, b = 25.143, p = .0002).
Investigating the Confound of Self-Esteem
Although the initial results were unexpected, follow-up analyses controlling for
standardized RSE and its interaction with SCC showed that the apparent positive
relationship between SCC and positive statement endorsement was in fact due to the
strong correlation between SCC and RSE (r = .70; Cuperman, Robinson, & Ickes, 2014).
When RSE was controlled in this way, SCC predicted less positive Barnum statement
endorsement (t (1, 169) = -1.97, b = -20.68, p = .0502). Controlling for RSE had no
effects on the observed relationship between SCC and negative Barnum statement
endorsement (t (1, 169) = -2.9, b = -34.975, p = .0042).