Abstract:

Job candidates and competitors aim to earn admission or high ratings. People tend to avoid displaying their skills in front of an expert due to the prediction that they will be rated unfavorably because the expert can accurately evaluate their level of skill. However, is this prediction accurate? The present research proposes a misprediction: candidates will undervalue the advantages of showing skills in front of an expert. This is because evaluators partially base their evaluations on the pride elicited by alluding to their expertise, whereas candidates base their predictions on whether their competence will be accurately evaluated but neglect evaluators’ pride.

Eight studies (N = 1888) demonstrated the proposed misprediction and tested its underlying mechanism. In Study 1, we assigned the participants to the candidate or the evaluator condition. The candidates made an incentive-compatible prediction on how they would be more likely to be admitted by displaying their skills in front of an expert or a non-expert. The evaluators admitted one between a candidate displaying skills in the evaluators’ area of expertise and a candidate displaying skills outside the evaluators’ area of expertise. The results showed that 63.10% of the evaluators preferred the candidate who showcased skills in the evaluators’ area of expertise. However, only 44.60% of the candidates chose to do so (χ²(1, N = 130) = 4.46, p = 0.035, φ = 0.19). These results revealed that the candidates undervalued the advantages of showing skills in front of an expert.

Studies 2 and 3 replicated the results in Study 1 with different competition forms (promotion or elimination) and in the case where candidates were assigned to display skills in or outside the evaluators’ area of expertise. In Study 2, we adopted a 2 (role: candidate or evaluator) by 2 (competition form: promotion or elimination) between-subjects design. Note that the evaluators in Study 1 might be more familiar with their area of expertise (vs. non-expertise) and could easily evaluate the candidate who showcased skills in this area, which could also lead to our proposed effect. Therefore, we controlled for the evaluators’ time spent on the area of their expertise and non-expertise to ensure that the evaluators were equally familiar with the two areas. The results revealed that neither the main effect of role (B = −0.12, SE = 0.25, Wald χ²= 0.23, p = 0.630, Exp(B) = 0.89) nor the main effect of competition form (B = −0.34, SE = 0.25, Wald χ²= 1.82, p = 0.178, Exp(B) = 0.71) was significant. More crucially, the interaction between role and competition form was significant (B = 3.45, SE = 0.55, Wald χ²= 39.67, p < 0.001, Exp(B) = 31.62, 95% CI = [10.80, 92.63]; see Figure 1). Study 2 showed that the proposed effect held across different competition forms and ruled out the alternative explanation that the evaluators could easily evaluate the candidate in their area of expertise because they were familiar with this area. In Study 3, we adopted a 2 (role: candidate or evaluator) by 2 (domain assignment: expertise or non-expertise) between-subjects design. In previous studies, the evaluators probably believed that the candidates who chose to perform in evaluators’ area of expertise shared the same interest with the evaluators. As a result, the evaluators preferred these candidates. To rule out this alternative explanation, in Study 3, the candidates were assigned to a domain instead of choosing by themselves. The results showed that the main effect of role was significant (B = −1.50, SE = 0.30, Wald χ²= 25.43, p < 0.001, Exp(B) = 0.22, 95% CI = [0.13, 0.40]). The candidates underestimated the possibility of being admitted regardless of the domain they were assigned to. There was no significant main effect of domain assignment (B = −0.20, SE = 0.28, Wald χ²= 0.50, p = 0.479, Exp(B) = 1.22), nor interaction (B = −0.49, SE = 0.59, Wald χ²= 0.67, p = 0.413, Exp(B) = 0.62; see Figure 2). Study 3 thus replicated the effect and ruled out the similar-interest account.

Studies 4 and 5 manipulated the candidates’ motivation to win the competition and their level of competence, respectively, to test whether they avoided displaying skills in front of experts due to the concern that their competence could be evaluated accurately by experts. The results indicated that the candidates showed a stronger misprediction and were less likely to showcase skills in front of experts when they highly (vs. less) desired to win the competition or had a lower (vs. moderate and higher) competence. In Study 4, candidates with a higher motivation to win (44.44%) were less likely to display skills in the evaluators’ area of expertise than candidates with a lower motivation (64.71%) did (χ²(1, N = 140) = 5.79, p = 0.016, φ = 0.20). As a result, candidates with a high motivation more strongly underestimated the evaluators’ choices (84.38%, χ²(1, N = 136) = 23.24, p < 0.001, φ = 0.41) than candidates with a low motivation did (χ²(1, N = 132) = 6.67, p = 0.010, φ = 0.23, see Figure 3). In Study 5, the main effects of role (B = −1.38, SE = 0.23, Exp(B) = 0.25, 95% CI = [0.16, 0.40], Wald χ²= 35.77, p < 0.001) and level of competence were significant (Wald χ²= 28.66, p < 0.001). The interaction was also significant (Wald χ²= 8.21, p = 0.016). Specifically, candidates with a high level of competence could accurately predict the evaluation (candidate: 77.14%, evaluator: 82.86%, χ²(1, N = 140) = 0.71, p = 0.398), while candidates with a moderate or low level of competence underestimated the evaluation (moderate level of competence: candidate: 50.00%, evaluator: 81.43%, χ²(1, N = 140) = 15.34, p < 0.001, φ = 0.33; low level of competence: candidate: 27.14%, evaluator: 72.86%, χ²(1, N = 140) = 29.26, p < 0.001, φ = 0.46; see Figure 4).

Study 6 prompted the candidates to empathize with evaluators. We asked the candidates to think about their feelings when others made references to their expertise. As a result, compared to the control group (candidate: 40.00%, evaluator: 72.86%, χ²(1, N = 140) = 15.37, p < 0.001, φ = 0.33), the prompted candidates were more aware of their pride and made a more accurate prediction (candidate: 58.57%, evaluator: 72.86%, χ²(1, N = 140) = 3.17, p = 0.075, see Figure 5).

Study 7 manipulated the evaluators’ pride by changing their achievement and thereby tested whether their preference for the candidate was due to that they felt proud when their expertise was referred to. The results revealed that the main effect of role was significant (B = −1.75, SE = 0.27, Wald χ²= 41.60, p < 0.001, Exp (B) = 0.17, 95% CI = [0.10, 0.30]). The main effect of evaluators’ achievement was not significant (B = 0.04, SE = 0.27, Wald χ²= 0.03, p = 0.874, Exp(B) = 1.04). Most importantly, the interaction was significant (B = 1.65, SE = 0.56, Wald χ²= 8.56, p = 0.003, Exp(B) = 5.52, 95% CI = [1.73, 15.77]). The evaluators with a lower (vs. higher) achievement were less likely to admit the candidates who displayed skills in the evaluators’ area of expertise (lower achievement: 63.77%, higher achievement: 81.67%, χ²(1, N = 129) = 5.11, p = 0.024, φ = 0.20, see Figure 6).

In Study 8, we recorded the participants’ real-time thoughts during their decision making (see Table 1). The results again showed that the candidates focused on their competence during their decision-making process, whereas the evaluators’ preferences were affected by their pride. As a result, 76.39% of the evaluators preferred the candidate who showcased skills in the evaluators’ area of expertise, while only 17.65% of the candidates chose to do so (χ²(1, N = 140) = 48.36，p < 0.001，φ = 0.59). In addition, the real-time thoughts led to the underestimation about the benefits of displaying skills in front of an expert (z = −3.20，p = 0.001).

We reveal that people fail to accurately predict the effect of a self-presentation strategy. Candidates undervalue the strategy of displaying skills in front of experts due to the empathy gap that they neglect the pride experienced by experts. Consequently, candidates mistakenly avoid displaying skills in front of experts and thus miss the chance to earn admission. Besides, we offer a feasible approach to reduce such a bias. Our findings encourage candidates to empathize with evaluators and strategically perform to experts.

Key words: misprediction, egocentrism, competence, pride, judgment and decision making