K. MORI, H. MORI
performed the others.
However, the results of Mori and Mori (2011) were different
from those of Alicke et al. (1997) and Lassiter et al. (2008).
The losers in Mori and Mori (2011) rated the winner’s intelli-
gence equally, as did the observers. Specifically, they did not
exaggerate their opponents’ ability in order to protect their own
self-esteem. Instead, they rated their own intelligence as lower
than did the observers. Meanwhile, the interaction of those win-
ners’ ratings was also contrary to that reported in Lassiter et al.
(2008). The winners in Mori and Mori (2011) rated themselves
much lower than the observers and losers did, and rated the
losers in the same way as the observers. Namely, neither Gen-
ius nor Idiot Effects were observed. Instead, both the winners
and losers rated themselves lower than the others did. They
dubbed it the “Modesty Effect.”
The differences between the two studies, Alicke et al. (1997)
and Mori and Mori (2011), might be attributable to two factors:
i) cross-cultural differences between the participants, Ameri-
cans and Japanese, or ii) the interpersonal relationships among
the participants, strangers and acquaintances, in Alicke et al.
(1997) and Mori and Mori (2011), respectively. It would be
desirable to examine these variables by conducting an experi-
ment with a two-factorial between-subject design. However, a
cross-cultural experiment is not easy to carry out in Japan.
Therefore, the present study aimed to examine only the second
variable, strangers vs. friends, using all Japanese participants.
Method
Participants
Eighty-eight Japanese male undergraduates (18 - 23 years old,
20.0 years old on average) participated. As in Alicke et al.
(1997), only male students were recruited for the study. The
experimenters asked them to come to the laboratory in mutually
acquainted pairs. Two not-acquainted pairs were randomly com-
bined and regrouped into different arrangements according to
the two experimental conditions (22 pairs to form 11 foursomes
in each condition). In the Between-Friends condition, one of
two pairs was randomly assigned to be Performers, who solved
anagram tasks competitively, while the other pair were assigned
to act as Observers. In the Between-Strangers condition, one
Performer and one Observer were randomly chosen in each pair
and those two Performers solved the tasks competitively.
Procedure
Random role assignment. Two participant pairs were allo-
cated to the same experimental time slot. On arrival, they were
assigned to one of the following roles: Performer of easy tasks
(PE), Performer of difficult tasks (PD), and Observers (OE &
OD). In the Between-Friends condition, the PE and PD were
chosen from one of the pairs, while in the Between-Strangers
condition, the PE and PD were chosen from each pair.
Anagram task instructions. The two pairs of participants
were seated in two rows of two chairs each placed side-by-side
approximately 1 m in front of the rear screen (see Figure 1).
The front seats were for the Performers. The sunglasses suitable
for each role were placed on each seat. Participants were told to
wear the sunglasses to avoid glare. The participants were told
that they would be given several word puzzles presented one-
by-one on the screen in front of them. The Performers’ task was
to figure out the correct word by re-arranging the letter string
shown to them, and announce the answer as soon as possible.
The Observers sitting right behind the Performers were told that
their task was to observe the activities of the two Performers
and make a written record. Then, the Observers were given the
check sheet to mark the record for each task.
Anagram task presentation. The same sets of anagram tasks
as those in Mori and Mori (2011) were used in the present
study. Easy and difficult anagram tasks were projected onto the
same half-transparent screen utilizing the fMORI Technique
(Mori, 2007) so that two participants (PE and OE) viewed easy
ones while the other two (PD and OD) saw difficult ones. Each
anagram task was presented for 20 seconds or until one of the
Performers answered correctly, whichever came first, and the
experimenter then proceeded to the next task. There were 24
anagram tasks with two practice items preceding them. It was
designed such that the Easy task Performers (PEs) would an-
swer about half of the test items correctly and so that the Diffi-
cult task Performers (PDs) might accidentally figure out the
correct answers before their counterparts only once or twice
during the whole session. It took about ten minute s to complete
the anagram task session.
Intelligence ratings. After the anagram task session, partici-
pants were asked to rate their intellectual levels in a question-
naire format. The Performers rated the winners and losers, in-
cluding themselves, while the Observers rated the winners and
losers only. Ratings were made on a 10-point scale ranging
from 0 (extremely low) to 9 (extremely high). To attenuate any
hesitation to rate other people’s intelligence directly, the crucial
rating was intermingled among a variety of filler questions ad-
dressing their attitudes, motivation, and other personality traits.
It took about 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire.
Post-experimental interviews. After the questionnaire ses-
sion, the experimenter asked first whether the participants had
noticed any abnormality in the presentation or not. Then, he
informed them about the research goals in order to obtain the
informed consent of the participants. They were paid 1000 yen
(about US $10) each for their participation.
Results
Effectiveness of the Experimental Manipulation
Post-experimental interviews revealed that no participants
had noticed the presentation trick. The easy-task-performers
(PEs) outperformed their counterparts (PDs) in all 22 groups.
The average numbers of correct responses of the PEs were 10.3
and 9.5 out of 24 tasks, for the Between-Friends condition and
the Between-Strangers condition, respectively, while those of
the PDs were 2.9 and 3.2, respectively. Therefore, the present
experimental setting did seem to have successfully created win-
ners and losers without utilizing confederates.
Intelligence Ratings
Figure 2 shows the means for the ratings of participants’ in-
telligence. The main statistical analysis included two between-
subject variables, Social condition (Friends-Strangers) and Ra-
ter roles (Winners-Losers-Observers-Observers), and one with-
in-subject variable, Rated roles (Winners-Losers).
A three-way mixed ANOVA revealed that the main effects
of Social conditions (Friends-Strangers) and Rated roles (Win-
ners-Losers) were significant. As expected, the winners’ intel-
ligence was rated statistically higher than that of the losers
Open Access
828
