I lie to myself:

Hidden Values distorting Self Assessment

Gaurav Kapil
16th May 2011
‘I lie to myself’: Hidden Values distorting Self-Assessment

There are times when we face some new situations, situations which we have never heard of
before, situations which are completely novel to us, situations which doesn’t fit into any
patterns what we have ever seen, heard or even thought about. Now facing them what you,
I or anyone will probably do? Probably we will stop the chaotic halo in our mind, think for
some moments and then will take a decision based on facts explored through our
intelligence. In between we may also doubt our competence while taking decision since
solution wasn’t and still isn’t obvious to us. But what would have had happened, had there
been some patterns which we, as company, recruiters, parents would have been able to
understand? Life would have been easier, had we had that small hint more often. Or is it so?

But are seriously able to understand small hints or do we invent them? Do we seriously
intuitively understand patterns around us or do we make assumptions? As per Duncan J.
Watts (2011), sociologist & scientist, our reasoning from common sense and our past history
together create arguments in our minds that mislead us into believing that we understand
more about the world of human behavior including self than we do. A small story shall clarify
this amply.

Once upon a time

Once upon a time a man approached hermit who was said to have attained God-realization.
Man asked hermit to help him achieve God Realization too. Hermit agreed with one condition
that Man would try to see God in everything.
After some months Hermit & Man visited nearby town. While wandering in market, they
noticed a sudden commotion. It was then informed by frightened people that a huge African
Elephant has gone mad in market centre & was attacking anyone in sight. And then suddenly
Hermit & Man saw this huge elephant rushing in their direction, trampling people coming in
its way.
Hermit ran and hid nearby. But Man had an unexpected realization and he stood his ground.
A fruit-seller while running away shouted “run away”, but Man responded “I need not, he is
God-Elephant”. After a while a barber ran from nearby and advised “run away”, but Man
responded “I need not, he is God-Elephant”. Finally Hermit came out of his hiding place and
advised man “Hide with me”, but Man responded again “I need not, he is God-Elephant”.
Within minutes Elephant came in front of man, slammed the Man with his trunk, tramped
Man’s body & ran off elsewhere.

When hermit reached Man again, he was asked by Man: “You useless Hermit! Why did your
God punish me even when I saw him everywhere? I saw God in elephant”. Hermit answered
- Page 2 of 13 - © Gaurav Kapil, 2011
“Dear Man! You saw God-elephant, but did you hear what God-fruitseller, God-barber and
God-Hermit told you to do?”

Man is a socio-economic animal and it is theorized that a man will always take decisions that
are rational and are in his interest. I’m not so sure of that, especially having witnessed that
only a few of us are lucky enough to get a wakeup call before an African Elephant mauls us.
It so happens that at times, even when armed with facts, we tend to make decisions that are
simply stupid. Dot-com boom, Economic bubbles, Tulipomania, Sub-Prime Crisis and other
neighbourhood news forced me to accept that human beings even when are given best
available facts, shall see it by Bounded Rationality (i.e. limits of our intelligence tends to
distort our understanding of facts).

Consequently it then also can be argued that people with acceptable common sense levels
shall take decisions which shall be in conformity with their value system and not as per their
intelligence system. That is we cannot easily perceive the difference between what we intend
to do and what we finally end up doing. Making understanding of people more predictable or
prediction of this difference of what we perceive ‘we will do’ versus ‘what we actually do’ in
situations is what has been goal of any psychological assessment test. More and more
Organizations have been trying to figure out best way to judge potential of a candidate
including psychological temperament.

Malcolm Gladwell so rightly points out in his New Yorker article that the Assessment Centers
makes behavioral predictions which are solid & specific prediction for its people. Problem is
that people are least predictable in crisis situation and crisis is where such prediction would
have been most useful. (Gladwell, 2004)

As per Dr. Timothy Wilson (2002) personality of our brain is not very much known to its user
that is us. What we know is our own self-identity, which we create with our conscious
choices. Our brain is always on work of making sense of data given to it by our senses. Brain
does so by evaluation, pattern-making, remembering past experiences. The Brain since has
always been doing that, therefore develops a particular personality of itself based initially on
genes & environment and later on with variables of life experiences.

Behind Conscious Choices

In our own self-interest as professionals and as individuals the real question boils down to ‘in
any situation, especially crisis, do we actually take decisions as per rationality or as per our
unconscious ‘belief sets, pattern analyzing, impulses’ replacing rationality altogether?’

Oxford Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 2005) defines Rationale as ‘reasons which explain
a decision, course of action’.

On the other hand belief set or pattern analyzing or impulses or Value System of an
individual is a bit more complex to define. As per Kluckhohn, Value is conception, explicit or
implicit, distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirable which
- Page 3 of 13 - © Gaurav Kapil, 2011
influences the selection from available modes, means and ends of action (Kluckhohn, 1951).
Milton Rokeach (1968, 1973) did even a better job of defining categories of Values in 2
categories: 1) Terminal Values: Desirable end results of any existence, 2) Instrumental
Values: Preferred modes of behavior for attaining terminal values.

Based on works above two Researchers, Schwartz (1992, 1994) came up with findings that
Value System itself is dynamic and the relationship between desired results and means to
achieve such results is prioritized as per importance. This is something common people know
instinctively.

One of the important works in individual values was done by R M Williams (1979). He found
that values influence behavior, therefore he considered values as abstract set of principles
guiding principles and these principles were mostly insulated from minor day to day changes.
Williams also found that even sudden change in society or culture does not cause immediate
change in value system but only a gradual shift.

Basing my understanding on the above concepts we can define Value System as a ‘not so
easily malleable set of beliefs which guide our attitude towards any desired result’.
Characteristics of a Value System are as follows:

a. Value System always works with a secondary support of reasoning, which may at
times lead to change in Value System but by itself Reasoning is always secondary.

b. Contradictory beliefs also have a place in value system and they exist with accepted
beliefs simultaneously. It is only importance of desired result that determines priority
of contradictory beliefs. Reasoning & experience is what prioritizes belief sets.

c. Priority of contradictory value is not always evident even to human being himself, till
Value System is put to test.

That, above mentioned definition, that value system is not evident till there are some testing
situations (crisis), is what explains last minute courage as well as last minute cowardice, or
why people behave differently when given power or put under stress.

Implication of hidden Values on Psychological Tests

While going through one of the psychological assessment tests I had a realization that more
I am aware of understanding myself, more variations I see in my results. Not only have my
test variations differed on my self-understanding, but they have also differed on my mental
state at the time of giving any assessment test.

Whereas tests like TAT or Ink Bloat have subjective & open-ended response requirements,
for majority of other assessment tests, basic response recording tool, is to give choices and
record choices. Now analogically in real world also, people live a life wherein they get some

- Page 4 of 13 - © Gaurav Kapil, 2011

choices, make a few choices and then live with those choices (or are forced to live with those
choices). Our past-experiences become actually a memorized summation of our earlier
choices i.e. during our life each choice gave something to us and took something from us,
thereby shaping our character. Now a fundamental aspect of why any Assessment test can
be farther from reality is that in any psychological assessment test one does not have to live
with the choices one makes therefore actually our Value System has not been tested yet.
Making idealized choice in assessment is always easier than to live with the choice for an
extended period of time. Taking a decision is easier in an assessment test i.e. by clicking an
idealized choice than when we are in reality of real-time drudgery.

It can be argued that human being will act as per his belief set given the nature of situation,
and therefore more emotionally involved a person is in a situation there are more chances
that self-rated Value System and evident behavior will differ.

Studies have also shown that Self-rating is always less reliable than ratings by peer, boss or
subordinates (Mount 1998, Campbell 1988, Conway 1997). Even though some researchers
did have better experiences in getting self-rating closer to average perception by modifying
rating mediums, but final conclusion was that self-rating is always less reliable than average
rating scores given by others.

But why self-ratings are less reliable or to put this question in a simpler form that is why
there is difference between what I believe and what I finally do? Basically each human being
is a individual with a unique thinking pattern. Even though we have access to same facts,
differentiates it all is our perspective. Consider an age old phrase: an event happens; in the
event some incidences unfold; these varied incidences form basis of some facts. Now comes
more interesting part: Facts of any event remains same but reactions of people to same facts
create different opinions. i.e. people have different perspectives. So, what is Perspective?

Value gives rise to Perspective

Experience permeated through value system brings perspective or simply put Perspective is a
way of looking at things. Our way of looking at things will always be determined by our Value
System (foundation) and Situation (current experience). That means a perspective is always
a product of a Set of Beliefs and an Ongoing Change. Perspective represents our lenses of
deeply held beliefs.

Hoping not to disturb childlike faith of many, following research brought forward a thought
provoking finding. Dr. Persinger conducted an experiment where his subjects wore a
specially built helmet. This helmet’s function was to artificially stimulate subject's temporal
lobes by generating weak magnetic fields. It was found that people who were given
electromagnetic radiation on specific parts of brain experienced extra sensory phenomenon,
by feeling "an ethereal presence in the room" commonly labeled as “experience with God”.

- Page 5 of 13 - © Gaurav Kapil, 2011

Since human brain working can also be categorized electro-chemical reaction, any events as
such, keep on giving feedback to our senses. If these experiences are common then we
accept them as they are. And if these experiences are bizarre or are anomalies then we may
also happen to give them more exotic names like psychic powers, talking with God, etc. If a
designed helmet can induce such an extra sensory phenomenon then one should be more
wary of complete reliability on our external senses and dependent belief system thereby our
Value System.

The above experiment showed that our perception is not always the reality but simply our
interpretation of the facts. So difference between our thinking and our action differs primarily
because one’s Value System i.e. deeply held beliefs are yet to be tested with Experience.
Without this experience one’s perspective is primarily driven by what one believes is a right
belief or interprets facts. Only when one has new experience he will gain new perspective
and more insights for himself.

Our Own Little Research

To test if there is a difference between what people think their value is and how people act
when situation confronts their perceived value, we conducted a small experiment on the
hypothesis that people do not know that how their own value system reacts on a situation.
We wanted to find out whether any difference exists between what one perceives to be one’s
value in an idealized assessment and one’s corresponding action in more complex situation.
Simply put we wanted to find out whether people are aware of what they intend to do versus
what they will actually do in situations.

We gave people options for choosing what they believe to be their idealized values. We
subsequently put them in situations where idealized values were not apparent and recorded
their responses.

And We Found That

On analysing the data and numbers we found some interesting observations:

 84% respondents said that they’ll not betray friends. However 81% of these
respondents when confronted with a complex situation chose to stand by results,
thereby sacrificing relationships, especially when options did not contain any clue that
any option could have a tangible benefit.
 73% of people who opted for truth manipulation for saving a relationship had actually
stood for fair & just process even ignoring promise of their own personal
gratifications, when no relationship was at stake. That is people did sacrifice their
values for others, even when they didn’t do it for themselves.
 4 out of 6 people, who stood to fair & just process, actually made opposite decisions.
That is when moment of decision came, implied values did not work and it changed to
preference to results instead of acceptance.
- Page 6 of 13 - © Gaurav Kapil, 2011
  7 out of 11 people who showed no inclination to conducting a fair process by judging
earlier finally changed their stance to fair process when confronted in situation.

The results were interesting in terms of how people react in real life despite what
psychological assessments indicate otherwise. However we were surprised that at times
people were willing to change their values not for themselves but to save relationships
important to them. From above results we can be sure that a person doesn’t necessarily
understand the strength of tolerance of opposition on his perceived value system.

Suffice to argue that when people are making final decisions then some subconscious
perspectives within play an important role in those final moments.

Recommendations
It is always easy to do the ever-green fault finding. Finding faults with Psychological
assessments is the easier part. Difficult part is to create an instrument which is more reliable
and validated for predicting behaviour. Experiment conducted for this research could be
extended as longitudinal experiment, to assess actual decision makings during the lifetime of
the individual. But before any recommendations can be given, one may want to remember
words of L.J.J. Wittgenstein, “Values. A terrible business. You can at best stammer when you
talk about them.”

Recommendations for an Individual for getting better results from Assessment Tests:

1) Value your tacit knowledge: Tacit knowledge is the knowledge which at times
cannot be made explicit. E.g. how we walk is example of tacit knowledge, where we
keep on taking steps but never consciously calculate how to take each step. Instead
we just do it on instinct or some neural systems working in our brains. Similarly one
must understand that there are many ideologies in our belief systems where we just
act instead of calculating our reactions each time.

2) You and every fortress have weakness: All human beings have emotionally
vulnerable points. Some have more than others, and some doesn’t seem to have it at
all. Whereas some people can be emotionally attached to how their job designation
sounds, some other people feel warmth only for the cash their position offers.

According to Robert Greene (2000), everyone has a weakness, a gap in his castle
wall. That weakness is usually insecurity, an uncontrollable emotion or need; it can
also be a small secret pleasure.

A thumbscrew is a component of any machinery which when misaligned, will make

- Page 7 of 13 - © Gaurav Kapil, 2011
 whole machinery useless. One must understand that one will always have emotional
thumbscrews where one is weaker than his original self as whole. One should remain
aware of where one is most gullible so as to make better decisions when call of action
arrives.

3) Seek feedback for your own sake: Seeking feedback need not be explicit.
Listening & observing properly itself are great feedback tools. Not many people shall
be willing to give a direct and an honest feedback, especially when you are not their
son & daughter, husband or wife.

Amidst such indirect situations there are usually two ways to get feedback:
a. Just observe to understand the non-verbal feedback like body language,
acceptance of your words, effect of your ideas, behaviour of people towards vis-a-
vis towards other people, casual talks & actions of people etc.
b. If you are lucky to get an honest feedback then just listen while feedback is given
are the only ways. Simply put: just follow Marshall Goldsmith advice: “Shut up and
say Thank You”.

4) Behaviour follows emotions (Not the other way round): Study done by
Baumeister indicated that behaviour pursues emotional outcomes. That means
emotion does not directly cause a behavioural outcome. People have emotions only
for the matters or things that hold some value to them. Behaviour is simply aimed at
bringing a change in emotional outcomes.

Recommendations for an HR Professional to get better results from Assessment Tests:

1) Use Assessment Centres: Assessment Centre represents a system or a process

through which information is collected about people who participate in different data
collecting exersizes. Assessment Centers usually are:
a. conducted under controlled conditions,
b. have multi-method exersizes,
c. have multiple assessors,
d. have multiple rating systems
e. Most importantly, Assessment Centers have a target Competency set in mind which
it tries to capture in candidates during their assessment, i.e. Assessment Centre
cannot measure everything and anything at all points of time.

Research has shown that Assessment Centres have considerable Validity (Thornton, G.
C. III, & Rupp, D. E. (2003)) and also Assessment Centres are found to be best tool

- Page 8 of 13 - © Gaurav Kapil, 2011

 available for identification of development needs. (Thornton, G. C. III, & Rupp, D. E.
(2006))

2) Psychological assessments are assessments only: An assessment test is not an

accurate predictor and therefore it should be used only to complement information for
making decisions like promotion, transfer, job assignment, etc. Too much reliance on
assessment tests may lead to:
a. inaccurate decisions that are not in touch with reality,
b. may not consider context & conditions during which test was taken,
c. may not consider constraints of candidate while taking test,
d. may lead to underestimating experience of the candidates,
e. may lead to underestimating potential of the candidates,
f. may be used as tool for justifying unjustified actions against participants.

3) Design of Assessment Test should be based on Evidence: A 2008 study (Silzer,

Cober, Erickson, & Robinson) of HR practitioners indicated that Research or Science is
ahead of Practice only in 2 content areas which are a) Measurement with statistics, b)
Job Analysis. In remaining 14 areas like Talent Management, Employee Relations,
Coaching etc. Practices were ahead of Science. In other 5 areas of recruitment,
training & development, performance management system, organizational culture and
employee engagement activities completely opposite views were held of whether
science was ahead of practice or practice was ahead of science.

This has a very big implication for HR professionals that whenever any assessment
test is administered we have to be sure of not only its scientific validity as well as
reliability but of its very its scientific basis. The most prudent solution shall be to
follow an evidence based system which partially fulfils criteria of practice followed
based on data as well as based on principle of causality of science.

To be more precise; “Evidence-based management is about making decisions through

the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of four sources of information:
practitioner expertise and judgment, evidence from the local context, a critical
evaluation of the best available research evidence, and the perspectives of those
people who might be affected by the decision.” (Briner, R. B., Denyer, D., &
Rousseau, D. M. (2009))

4) More peer assessments: The individual self-assessments shall always have this
limiting factor of rating self more or less than what reality indicates. This issue can be
- Page 9 of 13 - © Gaurav Kapil, 2011
 addressed by administering a peer-assessment test, where an individual is rated by his
peers, subordinates, clients, superiors etc. by the way of 360 degree feedback.

People are subjective about matters pertaining to self since they are emotionally
biased, but same people are usually more objective about matters pertaining to others
since they are not biased in other’s affairs. Some benefits of peer-rated assessments:
a. It is about perception of an individual in eyes of others, which is an important
reality at any workplace.
b. It gives data on soft skills from multiple perspectives.
c. Evidence collected is from more than one source.
d. Digressing, but peer pressure can help change a person.

Conclusion: So How to be better attuned

In majority of assessment tests idealized choices made by people doesn’t actually predict
future course of action. Statements like ‘I want to be close to people’, ‘I want others to
include me in their plans’, ‘I start what I finish’, ‘People think of only themselves’, ‘Family
is important to me’, ‘when confronted with difficult situation I tend to do as follows’ etc.
are leading statements where the subject has great difficulties in remembering what he
actually does versus what he ought to be doing. In his strive to be a better person
subject invariably will choose some idealized options and thereby set stage towards
generation of biased reports.

These results have implications for many Psychological Assessment Instruments where
majority of questions are easily identifiable as idealized value system or indicator of what
a person strive to be. This creates an immense confusion for HR recruitment test systems
as well as Development Centres. One could rely on getting validated predictability
through assessment centres or recruitment assessments whereas our review and
experiments indicates that the predictability of probable behaviour especially under crisis
is very much a mirage in itself. And even more disturbing thought is that this false
idealized value sets are not created out of suppression of facts but out of sheer deeply
set ignorance.

There seems a link between value systems of an individual with corresponding situations.
The values displayed by behaviour in any situation are best argued as display of
distinctiveness of emotions in neutral state vs emotions in state of acute distress. As
argued by researchers, in both cases behavior is pursuing emotion rather than emotion
directly causing behavior. But the urgent desire to escape from current, acute emotional
distress can encourage people to take foolish risks and ignore distal costs, with harmful
and destructive results. Acute emotional misery may produce a short-term focus, so as to
- Page 10 of 13 - © Gaurav Kapil, 2011
feel better now. In contrast, making decisions in a relatively dispassionate, neutral state
so as to maximize long-term positive emotional outcomes seems more likely to yield
desirable results. (Roy F. Baumeister, Kathleen D. Vohs, C. Nathan DeWall and Liqing
Zhang (2007))

The very essence of act of escaping acute emotional misery by short term focus explains
why an individual shall mark a particular option during any assessment test but then may
acts differently when similar situation calls for action. This is what exactly an HR
professional has to remember while designing assessment test, while making a selection
choice, during making promotions or during firing.

- Page 11 of 13 - © Gaurav Kapil, 2011

 Bibliography

 Watts Duncan (2011), Everything Is Obvious*: *Once You Know the Answer, Crown Business

 Malcolm Gladwell, Annals of Psychology, “Personality Plus,” The New Yorker, September 20,
2004, p. 42

 Kluckhohn, Clyde (1951). "Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: An

exploration in definition and classification." In T. Parsons & E. Shils (Eds.), Toward a general
theory of action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

 Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass

 Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: The Free Press

 Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, M.
Zanna, San Diego: Academic Press

 Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New dimensions of

values. Individualism and Collectivism: Theory Application and Methods. U. Kim, H.C.
Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.C. Choi and G. Yoon, Newbury Park, CA: Sage

 Williams, R.M. Jr (1979), “Change and stability in values systems: a sociological perspective”,
in Rokeach, M. (Ed.), Understanding Human Values, The Free Press, New York, NY, pp. 15-
46.

 Mount, M. K., Judge, T. A., Scullen, S. E., Sytsma, M. R. And Hezlett, S. A. (1998), Trait,
Rater And Level Effects In 360-Degree Performance Ratings. Personnel Psychology, 51: 557–
576

 Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1997). Psychometric properties of mulitsource performance

ratings: A meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self-ratings. Human
Performance, 10, 331-360.

 Campbell, D. J. & Lee, C. (1988). Self-appraisal in performance evaluation: Development

Versus Evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 13, 302-314

 Wilson, Timothy (2002). Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious.

Cambridge: Belknap Press

 Persinger, MA, et al. (2010). "The Electromagnetic Induction of Mystical and Altered States
Within the Laboratory.", Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research 1 (7): 808–830.

 Thornton, G. C. III, & Rupp, D. E. (2003). Simulations and assessment centers. In J. C.

Thomas (Ed.), & M. Hersen (Series Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological
assessment, vol. 4: Industrial and organizational assessment (pp. 318-344). New York: John
Wiley & Sons.

- Page 12 of 13 - © Gaurav Kapil, 2011

 Thornton, G. C. III, & Rupp, D. E. (2006), “Assessment Centers In Human Resource
Management: Strategies For Prediction, Diagnosis, And Development”, Published By
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

 Silzer, R., Cober, R., Erickson, A., & Robinson, G. (2008). “Practitioner needs survey: Final
survey report.” SIOP Professional Practice Committee. Retrieved as on 11 th April 2011, from
www.siop.org/Practitioner%20Needs%20Survey.pdf

 Greene, Robert, (2000). “48 laws of power”, Published by Penguin

 Briner, R. B., Denyer, D., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Evidence-based management: Concept
clean-up time? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23, 19–32.

 Roy F. Baumeister, Kathleen D. Vohs, C. Nathan DeWall and Liqing Zhang (2007), “How
Emotion Shapes Behavior: Feedback, Anticipation, and Reflection, Rather Than Direct
Causation”, Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2007; 11; 167

- Page 13 of 13 - © Gaurav Kapil, 2011