I applaud von Hippel & Trivers (VH&T) for seeking an evolutionary account for a phenomenon as pervasive and intriguing as self-deception. They have made a compelling case for the adaptiveness of self-deception in certain contexts; however, it would be more persuasive if they had taken seriously the problem of cultural variability in self-enhancement.

In offering a compelling evolutionary account for any phenomenon, it is critical to consider evidence from a broad enough array of contexts to allow for confident generalizations. Nearly all of the empirical citations from this article derive from what we call WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic) samples (Henrich et al. Reference Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan2010). This would not be so problematic if the data from such samples yielded a similar pattern to that from other samples, but they do not; this is particularly the case for self-enhancement (Heine et al. Reference Heine, Lehman, Markus and Kitayama1999; Mezulis et al. Reference Mezulis, Abramson, Hyde and Hankin2004).

VH&T claim that self-enhancement emerges “in every culture on earth” (sect. 8, para. 6). However, these claims stand in stark conflict with the cross-cultural evidence. A meta-analysis of cross-cultural studies of self-enhancement (Heine & Hamamura Reference Heine and Hamamura2007), yielded a pronounced effect for Westerners (d=0.87), and a non-existent effect for East Asians (d=−0.01). Cultural differences emerged for 30 of the 31 different methods, with the one exception being the self-esteem IAT (Implicit Association Test) measure (Greenwald & Farnham Reference Greenwald and Farnham2000). It remains unclear what the self-esteem IAT assesses, given that it has the least validity evidence of any of the IAT measures (Hofmann et al. Reference Hofmann, Gawronski, Gschwendner, Le and Schmitt2005), and it does not correlate reliably with other implicit or explicit measures of self-esteem or external validity criteria (Bosson et al. Reference Bosson, Swann and Pennebaker2000; Buhrmester et al., in press; Falk et al. Reference Falk, Heine, Yuki and Takemura2009). Further, studies of self-enhancement that employ hidden behavioral measures find equally pronounced cultural differences as those with explicit measures (Heine et al. Reference Heine, Takata and Lehman2000; Reference Heine, Kitayama, Lehman, Takata, Ide, Leung and Matsumoto2001), indicating that these differences extend to people's true beliefs. The only studies that reliably yield self-enhancement among East Asians employ the better-than-average-effect (BTAE) method (average d values are 1.31 and 0.38 for Westerners and East Asians, respectively; Heine & Hamamura Reference Heine and Hamamura2007). However, as VH&T acknowledge in their citation of Chambers and Windschitl (Reference Chambers and Windschitl2004), the BTAE incorporates a few cognitive biases, which results in exaggerated estimates of self-enhancement (Klar & Giladi Reference Klar and Giladi1997; Krizan & Suls Reference Krizan and Suls2008; Kruger Reference Kruger1999). The effects are inflated for both cultures by a magnitude of approximately d=0.60 (Heine & Hamamura Reference Heine and Hamamura2007).

VH&T note that “even East Asians, who value humility and harmony over individualistic self-aggrandizement, show self-enhancement in their claims of the superiority of their collectivist qualities,” (sect. 3, para. 3), and they cite two articles by Sedikides et al. (Reference Sedikides, Gaertner and Toguchi2003; Reference Sedikides, Gaertner and Vevea2005). In those articles, Sedikides et al. argue that self-enhancing motivations are universal but expressed differently: Westerners enhance themselves in domains that are important to them (e.g., individualism), while East Asians enhance themselves in domains that are important to them (e.g., collectivism). The evidence for this from those articles derives from the BTAE method. The other 11 methods that have addressed this identical question (i.e., the false-uniqueness bias, actual-ideal self-discrepancies, manipulations of success and failure, situation sampling, self-peer biases, relative-likelihood and absolute-likelihood optimism biases, open-ended self-descriptions, automatic self-evaluations, social relations model, and a corrected BTAE) all yield an opposite pattern of results: East Asians do not self-enhance more in domains that are especially important to them (Falk et al. Reference Falk, Heine, Yuki and Takemura2009; Hamamura et al. Reference Hamamura, Heine and Takemoto2007; Heine Reference Heine2005b; Ross et al. Reference Ross, Heine, Wilson and Sugimori2005; Su & Oishi Reference Su and Oishi2010). A meta-analysis including all of the published studies on this topic finds no support for the claim that East Asians self-enhance more in important domains (r=−0.01), although Westerners do (r=0.18; Heine et al. Reference Heine, Kitayama and Hamamura2007a; Reference Heine, Kitayama and Hamamura2007b). The meta-analyses by Sedikides et al. (Reference Sedikides, Gaertner and Vevea2005; Reference Sedikides, Gaertner and Vevea2007) find different results because they excluded most of the studies that yielded contrary findings. Further, the evidence that East Asians enhance in collectivistic/important domains using the BTAE appears to be specifically the product of methodological artifacts of this measure (Hamamura et al. Reference Hamamura, Heine and Takemoto2007). In sum, contrary to VH&T's claims, the evidence does not support the universality for self-enhancement or that East Asians self-enhance in particular domains. If instead of considering data almost exclusively from WEIRD samples, they had instead only considered East Asian data, VH&T would not have proposed their evolutionary account for self-enhancement; there would not have been any self-enhancement effect in need of an explanation.

Given this cross-cultural variability, how might we consider how self-enhancement evolved? Like VH&T, I think it is important to consider the costs and benefits of self-enhancement. Benefits of self-enhancement include positive self-feelings and confidence (Taylor & Armor Reference Taylor and Armor1996; Taylor & Brown Reference Taylor and Brown1988). It feels good to self-enhance, and it leads people to expect that they will do well on future tasks, and these relations appear to hold across cultures (Heine Reference Heine, Sorrentino, Cohen, Olson and Zanna2005a). On the other hand, a cost of self-enhancement is that it can strain interpersonal relations; self-enhancers risk attracting the scorn of others (Colvin et al. Reference Colvin, Block and Funder1995; Exline & Lobel Reference Exline and Lobel1999; Paulhus Reference Paulhus1998; Vohs & Heatherton Reference Vohs and Heatherton2001). People are often alienated by self-enhancers, especially over long-term relationships (Robins & Beer Reference Robins and Beer2001). Likewise, positive self-presentations can lead to less liking by others (Godfrey et al. Reference Godfrey, Jones and Lord1986; Tice et al. Reference Tice, Butler, Muraven and Stillwell1995).

This analysis suggests that in cultural contexts where people value positive feelings and self-confidence, yet are not overly concerned about maintaining harmonious relationships, self-enhancement is more adaptive. In contrast, in cultures where positive feelings and self-confidence are valued less, but the maintenance of smooth interpersonal relationships is prioritized, self-criticism and a concern for face is more adaptive. Compared with Westerners, East Asians are not as concerned about positive self-feelings (Suh et al. Reference Suh, Diener, Oishi and Triandis1998), and they often perform better when they lack confidence (Heine et al. Reference Heine, Kitayama, Lehman, Takata, Ide, Leung and Matsumoto2001; Oishi & Diener Reference Oishi and Diener2003; Peters & Williams Reference Peters and Williams2006). Further, much research reveals a greater concern among East Asians about relationship harmony (Markus & Kitayama Reference Markus and Kitayama1991).

In sum, a compelling account of the adaptiveness of self-enhancement needs to account for why cultures differ in their tendencies to self-enhance. The existence of cultural variation in self-enhancement can help to elucidate the contexts in which self-enhancement should be most adaptive.