Self-Enhancement is Unlikely to Require Somatic Cues nor is it Likely to be a Successful Long-Term Approach to Promoting Environmental Mastery

Abstract

Does the concept of psychological immunity as described within the Homeostatic Model of Identity Protection provide the long-awaited answer to the question of why so much of human social cognition tends to be skewed in a self-serving manner? The Homeostatic Model of Identity Protection draws from previous answers yet adds in new elements. For example, researchers have previously posited that self-enhancement (i.e., referred to as self-enhancement and self-protection in the Homeostatic Model of Identity Protection) is normative and can have positive consequences for environmental control (e.g., Beer & Harris, 2019; Taylor & Brown, 1988). Theorists have also suggested that evolution selects for self-enhancement and, more specifically, selfdeception processes so that individuals can improve their fitness by deceiving others (von Hippel & Trivers, 2011). The Homeostatic Model of Identity Protection builds on these ideas by suggesting that emotional signals arising from selfidentity threats trigger self-enhancement and other self-protective processes designed to provide immunity and subsequently restore the psychological homeostasis needed for optimal environmental control. The theory is intriguing and raises a number of questions when considered in light of the full scope of available research. For example, more information is needed to understand whether the proposed role of somatic signals is overstated, whether self-enhancement is a feasible strategy to bolster evolutionary fitness, and the extent to which focusing on the identity protection function of self-enhancement captures the bulk of its operation in human social cognition.