Dilemmas of academic practice: Perceptions of superiority among social psychologists

The current research examines social psychologists' beliefs regarding the probability of self and others to engage in desirable and undesirable actions relevant to solving dilemmas of academic practice (e.g. openly discussing versus concealing complex effects in a paper). Consistent with hypotheses, results revealed that social psychologists believed that others are more likely than they themselves to engage in undesirable actions and less likely to engage in academically desirable actions. Moreover, the probability of undesirable actions by both self and others was perceived to be greater under conditions of low rather than high perceived traceability (i.e. when others within the field are believed not to verify the appropriateness of the actions). Interestingly, but unexpectedly, this latter result was observed among faculty members but not among individuals with less research experience (i.e. graduate students). The discussion considers possible explanations for this latter finding and closes with an implication relevant to the peel review system. (C) 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.