Ethan H. Freedman
Colgate University
Author’s Note:
I would like to thank Professor Krystina Sorwell at Colgate University for conducting our Research Methods in Psychological Science course in such a way that has enabled me to write this piece to the best of my ability. Furthermore I would like to acknowledge the help of my peers in PSYC 200B for creating an environment in which to work and have fun. I would also like to provide emphatic acknowledgement to the group of wonderful young psychologists with whom I had the pleasure of working. Thanks Jessica Solidar, Charlotte Prendergast, Miranda Durcan, and Blake Harden for the work you put in and the patience you have for me.
Lastly, with deep respect, I acknowledge the land we learn and live holds the breath, bones, and brilliance of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, specifically the Onyotaaka or people of the Upright Stone of the Oneida Nation. As world citizens and members of the Colgate community, we make space for this truth, reflect on its connection to legacies of violence, and recognize it as but a beginning to decolonial living, activism, and unlearning.
Abstract:
This study examines the cognitive bias of the Spotlight Effect and the extent of its relevance in individual agents who pay more attention to others. A sample of N = 92 (67 females, 23 males, and 2 deviations from the binary) college students out of Colgate University in Hamilton, NY were surveyed about the extent that they feel others are paying attention to them as well as the extent that they pay attention to others in certain scenarios. It was hypothesized that an individual who provides the spotlight for others is more likely to think about others paying attention to them more. Thus that individual will succumb to the Spotlight Effect more often. Results yielded a significant demonstration of agents finding themselves under the Spotlight, however, findings did not support the hypothesis. Limitations and strengths are discussed as well as the idea that these findings help to further research in the Spotlight Effect and raises questions on the influence of technology and culture on cognitive bias.
Key Words: Spotlight Effect, Providing the Spotlight, Perception, Observers, Attention, Belief, Overestimation.
The Spotlight Effect: The Relationship Between Providing and Feeling the Heat of the Spotlight
From the second we wake up in the morning to the anxious dreams we have at night, we are constantly thinking about ourselves. Sometimes this can take shape in healthy ways such as whether or not we need to brush our teeth because our breath is bad to whether or not we look sexy in our new shirt. Subconsciously or outwardly, daily tasks that we do are done with the impression that others are watching us. Brushing our teeth could be done with the intention of having our breath smell minty fresh so that we are not self conscious, while we could be trying to look sexy for a partner or admirer – or just yourself. Within this frame of thinking, the combination of us thinking about ourselves and whether or not others are watching us creates the perception that others are actively noticing aspects of our behavior, appearance, or other actions and events (Lawson, 2010; Gilovich et. al, 2000; Gilovish et. al, 1999). This concept is referred to as the Spotlight Effect, which theorizes that people often overestimate how much others are aware, paying attention to, or noticing aspects of their appearance, behaviors, actions, and more. While there are plenty of studies that touch on the spotlight effect, this study seeks to advance the understanding of our known research on the spotlight effect and the extent to which one’s actions, behaviors, and appearances are noticed.
The Spotlight Effect
A primary function of human nature is to judge and much of our observations about the world lead to judgements. This is especially so when we are considering judgements of others as well as judgements on how others view us (Gilovich & Savitsky, 2010). Gilovich and Savitsky set out to look at people's judgements on how others view them with a focus on the spotlight effect in conjunction with the illusion of transparency. Illusion of transparency is the extent to which people’s self perceptions seep outwards into the world and others view them similarly (Gilovich & Savitsky, 2010). In their study, Gilovich and Savitsky, prominent forces in the Psychology Departments of Cornell University and Williams College find that people under the influence of the spotlight effect overestimate the level that others notice them for both embarrassing and prideful circumstances. This means that no matter the event or action, peoples' estimation of others' perceptions of them are often higher than the reality. They asked participants to gauge how they would be judged on successive occasions and compared those with how peers rated them with the proposition that there is a relationship between spotlight effect and whether others notice a change in their behavior. Results yielded that participants expected their peers to be more volatile than they actually were (Gilovich & Savitsky, 2010). In the end, Gilovich & Savitsky found that one’s estimates of how they appear to others are strongly and invasively influenced by how they appear to themselves, and people have difficulty anticipating how they appear in others' eyes.
The spotlight effect was further tested in relation to whether or not people's assessment of how much they are in the spotlight is accurate (Gilovich et al., 2000). Within this study was more support that the spotlight effect is not limited to embarrassment but almost all of our behaviors are capable of overestimation by an agent (Gilovich et al, 2000). Gilovich et al. provides more support for the case of people tending to believe that more agents take note of their behaviors, actions, and appearances, than is actually the case. On the other hand, our estimations of salience are not always inaccurate and can be correct or correlated with the estimates that others have of us (Gilovich et al., 2000).
Research surrounding the spotlight effect also suggests that there is a relationship between change blindness and people’s tendency to overestimate the level that they are seen by others (Lawson, 1999). Lawson (1999) set out to test participants' overestimation of the extent to which observers noticed a change in their appearance. Observers were asked to report on target participants' appearance with the experimenter hypothesis that these agents would have the largest overestimation because conditions were designed to emphasize both spotlight and change blindness. In an additional associated study, Lawson explored whether participant observers overestimated the extent to which other observers noticed changes in appearance. Upon conclusion, research yielded that the spotlight effect and change blindness converge with one another and individuals are terribly inaccurate at predicting the extent to which others notice changes in themselves (Lawson, 1999).
The Present Study
Research supports the overwhelming existence of the spotlight effect (Gilovich & Savitsky, 2010; Gilovich et al., 2000; Lawson, 1999). Individuals who are perceiving themselves in a certain way tend to overestimate the extent that others perceive them in that same way. Though some studies have examined the spotlight effect in relation to alternative situations, curiosity was raised on whether the amount one pays attention to others influences the amount one believes others are paying attention to them. This study will attempt to advance research by learning about situations where individuals and agents feel that they are in the spotlight as well as questioning the extent to which they place others in the spotlight too. Research will offer background on social and personal behaviors that could influence the amount individuals believe others are paying attention to them. Criterion variables measure the amount that an agent pays attention to others or believes others pay attention to them. It was predicted that the more an individual pays attention to others, the more time they think about others paying attention to themselves. Through a survey sent to college students at Colgate University in Hamilton, New York, results and a discussion of them were generated.
Method:
Participants: Participants were recruited by researchers themselves through outreach, or more specifically convenience sampling, on social media, friend groups, and more. The population that the sample was taken from was Colgate University in Hamilton, NY. Participants did not receive compensation for participating in this small assignment as it was made known that they would be doing this out of the kindness in their own hearts.
Materials/ Measures:This experiment included a survey with demographics and scales that attempted to indicate the extent that an individual pays attention to others, as well as the degree to which an individual focuses on themself (Spotlight Effect)
Demographics: The demographics questionnaire asked participants to disclose their gender identity, class year, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status using the MacArthur ladder rung scale.
In the Spotlight: In order to measure the extent to which participants felt that they were being focused on by their peers, participants were asked 7 questions with a 5 level Likert scale (never, sometimes, about half the time, most of the time, always). Questions focused on locations where an agent might pay attention to whether or not others are giving them attention. It also addressed behaviors that would signify whether or not they are performing for the attention of their peers or with their peers in mind. Furthermore, it touched on anxieties of being judged by others. (An example of this is shown in figure 1)
Providing the Spotlight: To assess the measurement of the extent to which participants gave their attention to others, a second scale was assessed. Using ratio slider scales, participants could drag a dial to measure questions that ranged from the extent to which they care about others opinions to how much they themselves judge. Numbers were not provided to participants out of fear that they would associate numbers with a binary of good and bad so point deviations of 20 were signified for data analysis by words. (An example of this is shown in Figure 2)
Procedure: Participants completed the above scales using an online survey distributed by students under convenient sampling and hosted by Qualtrics. With their informed consent, participants were analyzed after a presentation of “In the Spotlight'' scale followed by “Providing the Spotlight” scale with questions in random order. Demographic questions were the final section of the survey.
Data was analyzed using a Pearson correlation between “In the spotlight” and “Providing the Spotlight”. Significance was set at α = 0.05. Furthermore, descriptive statistics of validity, missing, mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum. All statistical analyses were conducted through JASP (v.0.14.1).
Results
Participants / Demographics: The participants in this study included N=92 total college students out of Colgate University. Out of that sample, 67 students were self identified female, 23 identified as male, and two deviated from the gender binary, either preferring not to share or identifying as Non-binary. Participants were from the class of 2025 (17.4%), class of 2024 (70.7%), and class of 2023 (6.5%). Furthermore, participants identified themselves as Causasion or white (80.2%), Black or African American (4.4%), Multiracial (8.8%), Asian or Pacific Islander (4.4%), and Middle Easter (1.1%). Out of the 92 participants, one did not complete the survey. In doing so, they have been excluded from the results.
In the Spotlight: To assess the level to which participants found themselves to be experiencing The Spotlight Effect, participants rated whether they felt that people were paying attention to them on a 5 point Likert Scale. For N=91 participants, the standard deviation was SD = 0.714 off of a mean of M = 2.570 signifying that participants shared much of the same feelings for this scale. These numbers demonstrate that participants were generally under the influence of the cognitive bias that is the spotlight effect. Furthermore, Cronbach's α for this scale was α = 0.749 representing that the reliability of our results were significant. (See Figure 4).
Providing the Spotlight: To evaluate the extent to which participants provided the spotlight to others by giving them attention or judgment, participants were evaluated on a ratio slider scale. This scale yielded that from N = 92 participants, the mean was M = 59.198 with a standard deviation of 10.686. These scores indicate that the participants generally differed among their answers and ranged significantly as the maximum was 80.6 and the minimum was 20.3 with a range of 60.3. In the end, the Cronbach’s α was α = 0.346 representing that it yielded very low reliability. (See Figure 4)
Relationship between In the Spotlight and Providing the Spotlight: In order to investigate the hypothesis that the more an individual pays attention to others, the more time they think about others paying attention to them - or experience the spotlight effect - we calculated a Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the two scales (r = 0.238, p - 0.023 represented in Figure 3). This analysis indicates that, while our findings were significant, the correlation between the two scales were incredibly weak as they fell below a slight correlational value of r = 0.3. This means that based on our experiment, there was a very minimal correlation between when someone finds themselves in the Spotlight and the extent to which they pay attention to others.
Discussion:
The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which an individual's experience of the Spotlight Effect is correlated with how much an individual pays attention to others. We hypothesized that the more an agent pays attention to others, the more time they will be experiencing the spotlight effect. We assessed this through scales that measured a predictor variable that tested the amount an individual believes that others are paying attention to them. Furthermore was a criterion that measured the amount that the agent pays an individual attention.
In the Spotlight:
Participants in the study had significant feelings of being under the societal spotlight which furthered what others have found in the study of the mindset (Gilovich & Savitsky, 2010; Gilovich et al., 2000; Lawson, 1999). As we know, the spotlight effect is people’s tendency to overestimate the level that they are seen by others and noticed. Using the Likert scale results in conversation with Gilovich & Savitsky (2010), it is understood that participants could have overestimated the salience of their own experiences due to the inability to get out of their own heads. The estimates of how one appears to others are overly influenced by how much an individual pays attention to themselves (Gilovich & Savitsky, 2010). This highlights that, while an individual has trouble anticipating how they appear in the eyes of others, they are still very much under the influence of the spotlight effect (Gilovich & Savitsky, 2010). Furthermore, we can expect that participants overestimated the percentage of observers who were thinking about their behaviors, appearances, and attitudes based on Lawson (1999). On the other hand, From Gilovich et al (2000), it can be inferred that some of the feelings that participants had were valid as our estimates of salience are not always completely inaccurate. We can often be correct and correlated with the estimates that others have of us, despite our inferences also being incorrect more often than not (Gilovich & Savitsky, 2010; Gilovich et al., 2000; Lawson, 1999)
Providing the Spotlight:
Based on the data retrieved on the extent to which an individual pays attention to others, the hypothesis that this was correlated with spotlight effect experience was incorrect. While Lawson (1999) exposes how change blindness and the spotlight effect go hand in hand, the present study yielded an incredibly small correlation between spotlight effect and the extent one gives attention to others.
Demographic Differences:
While the research associated with this study as well as the present study itself did not address sex differences directly, nor question them, sex differences can be lightly inferred based on the N = 92 participants in the study. Considering that there was a significant reliability in our first scale and that the number of participants who identified as female (N = 67), the relationship between the extent to which female identifying folks experience the spotlight effect can be assumed to be rather strong. While this is a jump in assumptions, we can perhaps associate this inference with the rise in technology and social media as well as the incredibly high standards that society places on female identifying folks. We cannot conclude that male identifying folks experience the effects of the spotlight less than that of females as the present study did not examine this, but we can infer that women are strongly influenced by the effects of the spotlight thanks to the demographics
Furthermore, based on the MacArthur socioeconomic scale and the participants involved having a wide range of status - but generally high in wealth - we can question the extent to which higher class folks experience the spotlight effect. While we cannot conclude that anyone under a 7 on the 1-10 economic status scale is less likely to experience the spotlight effect, we can infer that individuals in higher socioeconomic status experience the spotlight effect. This could be attributed to the fact that the study done had participants at a liberal arts school that is a predominantly upper class institution.
Strengths and Limitations of the Present study:
Sadly, a massive limitation of the study conducted was the scales used to assess the correlation and hypothesis for spotlight effect and providing the spotlight. Based on the results yielded, there was a very minimal correlation and this was due to the scales we created. With dissonance in the present, the predictor variables and criterion variables did not correlate with one another. Moreover, the convenient sampling that was used to conduct the study and acquire participants could have affected whether or not individuals knew of the reason for the study. Sadly the study lacked external validity due to the sampling method only bringing in participants from Colgate University, close to researches, and of majority high economic status Furthermore, a limitation for the present study was the knowledge of conducting a study. Being very new to the psychology research field, the ability to create a scale and evaluate it was already hindered and not expected to be perfect.
Despite limitations, the study did have a couple strengths to note. The large sample pool of N = 92 had the capability of yielding internal validity. Furthermore, the assessment of the Likert scale provided significant feedback and results that were in tangent to previous spotlight effect research. There was also great comfort, honesty, and confidentiality of participants' responses and data which is of the utmost importance.
The Present Study:
While the present study did not support our predicted hypothesis, it did tell us a little bit more about the spotlight effect based on research already conducted (Gilovich & Savitsky, 2010; Gilovich et al., 2000; Lawson, 1999). It persevered inferences on sex and gender as well as socioeconomic status that cannot be correlated or understood as casually related, but does raise questions.
In a world where there are many methods to judge others as well as place yourself in a position of judgment, future research on the spotlight effect should address the extent that technological advancements have on an individual feeling the spotlight effect. When we consider the fact that many individuals of all ages have access to technology and are capable of reaching others, judging them, and placing themselves in positions of judgment through usage, it becomes clear that the spotlight effect and technology could have an extreme correlation. However, this must be put to the test.
Conclusion:
The purpose of the present study was to determine whether or not an individual's experience of the spotlight effect was correlated with the extent that they provide the spotlight for others. While it was hypothesized that the more an agent pays attention to others, the more time they find themselves under the spotlight, the present study did not provide sufficient evidence of a correlation. However, it did provide more evidence for the existence and relevance of the spotlight effect. Making judgments and predicting others' judgments is an incredibly important aspect of human nature. While the spotlight effect can stem from anxiety, sometimes our spotlight estimations are correct – sometimes they are not. In the end, the current study provides more information on the spotlight effect and its prevalence in society.
Figure 1: 5 level Likert Scale: Predictor Variable Example
Figure 2: Ratio Slider Scale: Criterion Variable Example
Figure 3: Correlation between scales
Figure 4: Descriptive Statistics
References:
Timothy J. Lawson (2010) The Social Spotlight Increases Blindness to Change Blindness, BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 32:4, 360-368, DOI: 10.1080/01973533.2010.519200
Gilovich, Thomas, et al. “The Spotlight Effect in Social Judgment: An Egocentric Bias in Estimates of the Salience of One's Own Actions and Appearance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2000, https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=2e61218f-b032-41c4-bf19-78456c43d886%40redis
Gilovich, T., & Savitsky, K. (1999). The spotlight effect and the illusion of transparency: Egocentric assessments of how we are seen by others. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(6), 165–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00039