YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

It's not all about you

Chances are, others aren't judging you as harshly as you think, if at all.

January 13, 2003|Benedict Carey | Times Staff Writer

Oh, things sure took a bad turn. Mortifying, that's what it was. Such a big party -- friends, co-workers -- and you dumped that drink! How can you live with being such a klutz? Who there will ever forget it?

Take a deep breath. Stop obsessing. It probably wasn't as bad as you think. Not nearly.

A growing body of research shows that far fewer people notice our gaffes than we believe as we pace the floor in private, going over and over the faux pas. And those who do notice judge us less harshly than we imagine. In a series of groundbreaking studies over the last two years, psychologists have shown that the "spotlight effect," as they call it, is a universal experience that distorts our egocentric notion about the degree to which people in groups, like parties and work gatherings, pay attention to us.

Learning to recognize this self-deception can soothe the anxiety that surrounds social interactions. "In this case, the truth will set you free," said Kenneth Savitsky, a psychologist at Williams College in Williamstown, Mass., who studies how egocentrism affects behavior. "You can't completely eliminate the embarrassment you feel when you commit a faux pas, but it helps to know how much you're exaggerating its impact."

The spotlight effect blinds us in several ways. A few years ago, researchers at Cornell University conducted an experiment with 109 college students in which young men and women enter a roomful of their peers, alone, while wearing a Barry Manilow T-shirt. The pop singer wasn't exactly a favorite in the dorms of Ithaca, N.Y., at the time. The students felt self-conscious about the shirt, and after spending only moments in the room, met individually with researchers and guessed that at least half of their peers had noticed and might have said something about the Manilow shirt. Not so, the researchers found. On average, less than a quarter of the people in the room had paid any attention at all. Follow-up experiments using T-shirts have found that people exaggerate by up to six times the percentage of observers who notice.

A pioneer in this field, Tom Gilovich, a psychologist at Cornell, has demonstrated the same exaggerated misperceptions in several situations, such as group discussions about social issues. In a 2000 study, Gilovich and colleagues reported that students also badly overestimated how well their own gaffes and clever arguments were noticed by others in discussion groups. "The fact is that others do not notice us nearly as much as we think they do," Gilovich said. Contrary to every instinct, our nervousness, our sadness, even our lies are largely lost on most observers, he said.

The findings apply to most of us, of course, but not to everybody -- some people really do live under a microscope, as a chosen way of life. If the company's chief executive is cavorting with the bellhop at the annual retreat, she's surely going to hear about it. But as for the rest of us, our self-absorption not only creates a false spotlight, it also results in an exaggeration about how we are judged.

Most of the time a mistake is just a mistake, not a death sentence. As psychologists have shown, there is a knee-jerk critic in us all: When we see someone fall to the pavement, we may think, klutz; when a driver turns the wrong way down a one-way street, we may think, idiot. But the harshness is short-lived: Almost immediately, we tend to moderate our initial judgments if we continue to think about the incident at all, taking into account the circumstances: The road was icy, the one-way sign was obscured by a tree.

Yet we don't expect that same empathy for ourselves. In one recent experiment, psychologist Nicholas Epley of Harvard University and Gilovich asked students to imagine that they spilled a drink in their laps in the middle of an interview -- a blunder that went unnoticed until the interviewee stood to leave.

The researchers divided the young men and women into three groups. One group was asked to anticipate how the blunder would be evaluated by a harsh critic; another predicted how it would be viewed by a charitable person; and the third estimated how it would come across to an "average" interviewer. The students' responses showed they made no distinction between a harsh critic and an average one (they were all thought to be harsh), although they did expect to be judged much more positively by a charitable person, as the ratings showed. But that charitable person often doesn't come to mind. "This is a very reliable effect," said Epley. "When anticipating how others will evaluate us for our embarrassing mishaps, people seem to automatically imagine critics with horns and fangs."

Los Angeles Times Articles