<p>One particularly fitting term is <strong>impression management</strong>. From <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impression_management" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Impression management is a conscious or subconscious process in which people attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object or event by regulating and controlling information in social interaction. [...] Individuals construct an image of themselves to claim personal identity, and present themselves in a manner that is consistent with that image. [...] Impression management can distort the results of empirical research that relies on interviews and surveys, a phenomenon commonly referred to as &quot;social desirability bias&quot;.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As an effect, we have <strong>social desirability bias</strong>. From <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social-desirability_bias" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In social science research, social-desirability bias is a type of response bias that is the tendency of survey respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. It can take the form of over-reporting &quot;good behavior&quot; or under-reporting &quot;bad&quot;, or undesirable behavior. The tendency poses a serious problem with conducting research with self-reports. This bias interferes with the interpretation of average tendencies as well as individual differences.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A related term is <strong>self-monitoring</strong>. From <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-monitoring" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Self-monitoring [...] describes the extent to which people monitor their self-presentations, expressive behavior, and nonverbal affective displays. [...] Self-monitoring is defined as a personality trait that refers to an ability to regulate behavior to accommodate social situations. [...] Some personality types commonly act spontaneously (low self-monitors) and others are more apt to purposely control and consciously adjust their behavior (high self-monitors).</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-09T07:48:05.807Z
2022-01-09T08:10:04.503Z
2022-01-09T08:10:04.503Z
Michael
<p>&quot;Interpersonal <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiosity" rel="nofollow noreferrer">grandiosity</a>&quot; and &quot;ego-centricism&quot; are other approaches defining those that &quot;have a tendency to portray themeselves in a positive light&quot;. Although it seems you are looking for a definition from the lens of social psychology rather than more humanistic approaches. A more traditional humanistic approach to the tendency you describe is &quot;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">narcissism</a>&quot;. But, narcissism has other facets other than grandiosity, such as devaluing others.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-08T04:06:01.903Z
2022-10-08T04:24:20.430Z
2022-10-08T04:24:20.430Z
stephan_phd
<h3>virtue signalling</h3>
<blockquote>
<p>the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is a slight difference - not in public.</p>
<p>The anonymous researcher is &quot;public of 1&quot; but the same mechanism prevails.</p>
<h3>fear of prosecution</h3>
<p>That applies for North Korea, where supreme leader has 110% approval rating.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-09T00:30:44.380Z
Good answer, but please cite your source!
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-11T19:11:47.517Z
@ArnonWeinberg no sources for 110% approval rating, this was meant to be a joke. *Mr Kim's 100% approval from his Mount Paektu constituency reflects the "absolute support" of people in the country, KCNA news agency says.* - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26483940 - 100% only
Mars Robertson
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-11T19:14:30.340Z
That's clear.  I meant the part in quotes, I assume that's copied from somewhere.
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-11T19:30:23.173Z
I see, the definition directly from Google, they use Oxford Languages
Mars Robertson
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-08T03:57:21.787Z
2022-04-08T03:57:21.787Z
Mars Robertson
<p>I know it exists and it has a name...</p>
<p>But my google-fu skills are lacking, due to a pretty niche concept that uses a lot of generic keywords.</p>
<p>There is a fallacy / mental model / a tendency for people to portray themselves in a positive light.</p>
<p>I know about <em>&quot;80% of drivers thinking they are better than average&quot;</em> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority</a> but it is not exactly what I'm looking for.</p>
<p><strong>CONCRETE EXAMPLE</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Have you ever taken / ingested / consumed cannabis?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Answer &quot;YES&quot; to this question would admit doing something illegal, with potentially negative consquences, including the fact that the researcher might be an undercover cop. Therefore, even if the genuine answer is &quot;YES&quot;, there is a non-zero probability that the recorded answer is &quot;NO&quot;</p>
<p>To account for this tendency <code>INSERT NAME HERE _____________</code> I would like to suggest an alternative design of the same question that involves a 2nd researcher</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;We are aware of the tendency <code>INSERT NAME HERE _____________</code></p>
<p>&quot;We are working towards legalization efforts...&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;This will be treated in the strictest confidence...&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;We know that asking &quot;YES / NO&quot; questions about drug use can make people...&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;Our goal is to obtain more accurate estimate...&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>CONCRETE EXAMPLE 2</strong></p>
<p>3rd April 2022 <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/f408cfa1-49b3-4a16-a465-95bfda439821" rel="nofollow noreferrer">source</a> (behind a paywall)</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Orban’s bid for fourth straight term comes down to knife-edge vote</p>
</blockquote>
<p>5th April 2022 <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/406ed00d-203f-4081-9e8b-a63280b0d7da" rel="nofollow noreferrer">source</a> (behind a paywall)</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Crushing victory gives Viktor Orban scope to tighten grip on Hungary</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Same with Trump and other socially unpopular candidates.</p>
<h3>More google-fu</h3>
<p><em>&quot;anonymity bias&quot;</em> - loads of interesting research papers, including one specifically about cannabis (<a href="https://msmcclelland.weebly.com/uploads/5/9/4/0/59409409/anonymity.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">link</a>):</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/6QYQE.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/6QYQE.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>Of course the sample size is small but the discrepancy is clearly visible (other research papers confirm it too).</p>
<p>I am aware that anonymity might not be enough to obtain accurate results, that's why the design of the study with the 2nd researcher but I just want to sound a little bit smarter and read more about <code>INSERT NAME HERE _____________</code> - surely it has a name?</p>
<hr />
<p><strong>EDIT:</strong> if it does not have a name, I'll take the &quot;Robertson Syndrome&quot;</p>
<h3>UPDATE: Friday 7th October 2022</h3>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>How did Brazil’s pollsters underestimate support for Bolsonaro?</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>The former army captain‘s surprisingly successful showing is one of several examples in recent years where polling has been off the mark, experts said, especially when it comes to support for right-wing and far-right politicians.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Source: <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/6/how-did-brazils-pollsters-underestimate-support-for-bolsonaro" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/6/how-did-brazils-pollsters-underestimate-support-for-bolsonaro</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>According to Flores-Macias, one reason support for right-wing and far-right candidates is underrepresented globally is due to hesitance on the part of their supporters to reveal their real plans on Election Day.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“This often has to do with <strong><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social-desirability_bias" rel="nofollow noreferrer">social desirability bias</a></strong> – in that a lot of voters a reluctant to show their true preferences, thinking that if they do it’s not the response that is politically correct or socially acceptable,” he said.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-03T19:59:47.137Z
I think it's clear your first and second approaches would get different answers, but I think it's less clear that one is going to result in "less bias" than the other; for example, people opposed to cannabis legalization may decide not to participate further in your study in the second scenario and may also be people less likely to have used cannabis, so you find a higher percentage of "yes" because some of the "no"s don't participate. I'm also not convinced of your explanation of "wanting to portray themselves in a positive light"; they may fear legal or other consequences.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-03T20:56:09.670Z
A perhaps colloquial but common expression along these grounds is [saving face](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_(sociological_concept)), or for your first blanks, *to save face*.
Michael
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-03T21:37:40.537Z
@BryanKrause I will let data / research / study to decide. For now I just want to learn a little bit more, find the actual term for `INSERT NAME HERE _____________` bias / fallacy / phenomenon... "Saving face" sounds broadly related but it doesn't nail it, thank you for the comment :)
Mars Robertson
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-04T03:01:40.650Z
If you are asking about a bias specific to research, then check out [demand characteristics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_characteristics): "A possible cause for demand characteristics is participants' expectations that they will somehow be evaluated, leading them to figure out a way to 'beat' the experiment to attain good scores in the alleged evaluation."
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-04T14:20:34.230Z
Demand characteristics - also related, but not quite there. No typo in *"have you ever took"*, in my native tongue the phrase is *"to take drugs"* also in English. Only now I'm realising you can also have a *"toke"* of cannabis.
Mars Robertson
<drugs><model><meta-analysis><sampling>
What is the name of the tendency to portray oneself in the positive light?
Mars Robertson
# What is the name of the tendency to portray oneself in the positive light?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-01-03)

I know it exists and it has a name...

But my google-fu skills are lacking, due to a pretty niche concept that uses a lot of generic keywords.

There is a fallacy / mental model / a tendency for people to portray themselves in a positive light.

I know about *"80% of drivers thinking they are better than average"* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect> and <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority> but it is not exactly what I'm looking for.

**CONCRETE EXAMPLE**

> Have you ever taken / ingested / consumed cannabis?

Answer "YES" to this question would admit doing something illegal, with potentially negative consquences, including the fact that the researcher might be an undercover cop. Therefore, even if the genuine answer is "YES", there is a non-zero probability that the recorded answer is "NO"

To account for this tendency `INSERT NAME HERE _____________` I would like to suggest an alternative design of the same question that involves a 2nd researcher

> "We are aware of the tendency `INSERT NAME HERE _____________`
>
> "We are working towards legalization efforts..."
>
> "This will be treated in the strictest confidence..."
>
> "We know that asking "YES / NO" questions about drug use can make people..."
>
> "Our goal is to obtain more accurate estimate..."

**CONCRETE EXAMPLE 2**

3rd April 2022 [source](https://www.ft.com/content/f408cfa1-49b3-4a16-a465-95bfda439821) (behind a paywall)

> Orban’s bid for fourth straight term comes down to knife-edge vote

5th April 2022 [source](https://www.ft.com/content/406ed00d-203f-4081-9e8b-a63280b0d7da) (behind a paywall)

> Crushing victory gives Viktor Orban scope to tighten grip on Hungary

Same with Trump and other socially unpopular candidates.

### More google-fu

*"anonymity bias"* - loads of interesting research papers, including one specifically about cannabis ([link](https://msmcclelland.weebly.com/uploads/5/9/4/0/59409409/anonymity.pdf)):

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/6QYQE.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/6QYQE.png)

Of course the sample size is small but the discrepancy is clearly visible (other research papers confirm it too).

I am aware that anonymity might not be enough to obtain accurate results, that's why the design of the study with the 2nd researcher but I just want to sound a little bit smarter and read more about `INSERT NAME HERE _____________` - surely it has a name?

---

**EDIT:** if it does not have a name, I'll take the "Robertson Syndrome"

### UPDATE: Friday 7th October 2022

> **How did Brazil’s pollsters underestimate support for Bolsonaro?**

> The former army captain‘s surprisingly successful showing is one of several examples in recent years where polling has been off the mark, experts said, especially when it comes to support for right-wing and far-right politicians.

Source: <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/6/how-did-brazils-pollsters-underestimate-support-for-bolsonaro>

> According to Flores-Macias, one reason support for right-wing and far-right candidates is underrepresented globally is due to hesitance on the part of their supporters to reveal their real plans on Election Day.

> “This often has to do with **[social desirability bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social-desirability_bias)** – in that a lot of voters a reluctant to show their true preferences, thinking that if they do it’s not the response that is politically correct or socially acceptable,” he said.

**Tags:** drugs, model, meta-analysis, sampling

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I think it's clear your first and second approaches would get different answers, but I think it's less clear that one is going to result in "less bias" than the other; for example, people opposed to cannabis legalization may decide not to participate further in your study in the second scenario and may also be people less likely to have used cannabis, so you find a higher percentage of "yes" because some of the "no"s don't participate. I'm also not convinced of your explanation of "wanting to portray themselves in a positive light"; they may fear legal or other consequences.  
> **username_2**: A perhaps colloquial but common expression along these grounds is [saving face](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_(sociological_concept)), or for your first blanks, *to save face*.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause I will let data / research / study to decide. For now I just want to learn a little bit more, find the actual term for `INSERT NAME HERE _____________` bias / fallacy / phenomenon... "Saving face" sounds broadly related but it doesn't nail it, thank you for the comment :)  
> **username_3**: If you are asking about a bias specific to research, then check out [demand characteristics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_characteristics): "A possible cause for demand characteristics is participants' expectations that they will somehow be evaluated, leading them to figure out a way to 'beat' the experiment to attain good scores in the alleged evaluation."  
> **username_0**: Demand characteristics - also related, but not quite there. No typo in *"have you ever took"*, in my native tongue the phrase is *"to take drugs"* also in English. Only now I'm realising you can also have a *"toke"* of cannabis.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-01-09. Score: 2

One particularly fitting term is **impression management**. From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impression_management):

> Impression management is a conscious or subconscious process in which people attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object or event by regulating and controlling information in social interaction. [...] Individuals construct an image of themselves to claim personal identity, and present themselves in a manner that is consistent with that image. [...] Impression management can distort the results of empirical research that relies on interviews and surveys, a phenomenon commonly referred to as "social desirability bias".

As an effect, we have **social desirability bias**. From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social-desirability_bias):

> In social science research, social-desirability bias is a type of response bias that is the tendency of survey respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. It can take the form of over-reporting "good behavior" or under-reporting "bad", or undesirable behavior. The tendency poses a serious problem with conducting research with self-reports. This bias interferes with the interpretation of average tendencies as well as individual differences.

A related term is **self-monitoring**. From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-monitoring):

> Self-monitoring [...] describes the extent to which people monitor their self-presentations, expressive behavior, and nonverbal affective displays. [...] Self-monitoring is defined as a personality trait that refers to an ability to regulate behavior to accommodate social situations. [...] Some personality types commonly act spontaneously (low self-monitors) and others are more apt to purposely control and consciously adjust their behavior (high self-monitors).


---

### Answer by username_0 on 2022-04-08. Score: 1

### virtue signalling

> the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.

There is a slight difference - not in public.

The anonymous researcher is "public of 1" but the same mechanism prevails.

### fear of prosecution

That applies for North Korea, where supreme leader has 110% approval rating.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Good answer, but please cite your source!  
> **username_0**: @ArnonWeinberg no sources for 110% approval rating, this was meant to be a joke. *Mr Kim's 100% approval from his Mount Paektu constituency reflects the "absolute support" of people in the country, KCNA news agency says.* - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26483940 - 100% only  
> **username_3**: That's clear.  I meant the part in quotes, I assume that's copied from somewhere.  
> **username_0**: I see, the definition directly from Google, they use Oxford Languages  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2022-10-08. Score: 0

"Interpersonal [grandiosity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiosity)" and "ego-centricism" are other approaches defining those that "have a tendency to portray themeselves in a positive light". Although it seems you are looking for a definition from the lens of social psychology rather than more humanistic approaches. A more traditional humanistic approach to the tendency you describe is "[narcissism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism)". But, narcissism has other facets other than grandiosity, such as devaluing others.


---

