background preloader

Developing Self-Awareness: The JoHari Window

Facebook Twitter

Johari window. The Johari window is a technique created in 1955 by two American psychologists, Joseph Luft (1916–2014) and Harrington Ingham (1914–1995),[1] used to help people better understand their relationship with self and others.

Johari window

It is used primarily in self-help groups and corporate settings as a heuristic exercise. When performing the exercise, subjects are given a list of 58 adjectives and pick five or six that they feel describe their own personality. Peers of the subject are then given the same list, and each pick five or six adjectives that describe the subject. These adjectives are then mapped onto a grid.[2] Charles Handy calls this concept the Johari House with four rooms. Open or Arena: Adjectives that are selected by both the participant and his or her peers are placed into the Open or Arena quadrant. Blind : Adjectives that are not selected by subjects but only by their peers are placed into the Blind Spot quadrant. Johari adjectives[edit] Motivational equivalent[edit] Therapy[edit] The JoHari Window. Blind Spots. Bias blind spot. Causes of bias blindness[edit] The cognitive utilization of bias blind spots may be caused by a variety of other biases and self-deceptions.[3] Self-enhancement biases may play a role, in that people are motivated to view themselves in a positive light.

Bias blind spot

Biases are generally seen as undesirable,[4] so people tend to think of their own perceptions and judgments as being rational, accurate, and free of bias. The self-enhancement bias also applies when analyzing our own decisions, in that people are likely to think of themselves as better decision makers than others.[3] People also tend to believe they are aware of "how" and "why" they make their decisions, and therefore conclude that bias did not play a role. When made aware of various biases acting on our perception, decisions, or judgments, research has shown that we are still unable to control them.

Role of introspection[edit] Pronin and Kugler tried to give their subjects access to others' introspections. Differences of perceptions[edit] Actor-Observer Bias in Social Psychology. Definition: The actor-observer bias is a term in social psychology that refers to a tendency to attribute one's own actions to external causes, while attributing other people's behaviors to internal causes.

Actor-Observer Bias in Social Psychology

Essentially, people tend to make different attributions depending upon whether they are the actor or the observer in a situation. The actor-observer bias tends to be more pronounced in situations where the outcomes are negative. For example, in a situation where a person experiences something negative, the individual will often blame the situation or circumstances.

When something negative happens to another person, people will often blame the individual for their personal choices, behaviors and actions. Researchers have found that people tend to succumb to this bias less frequently with people they know well, such as close friends and family members. Actor-observer bias is a type of attributional bias. Understanding the Actor-Observer Bias Browse the Psychology Dictionary Baumeister, R. Dunning–Kruger effect. The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is.

Dunning–Kruger effect

Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive incapacity, on the part of those with low ability, to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their competence accurately. Their research also suggests corollaries: high-ability individuals may underestimate their relative competence and may erroneously assume that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.[1] Dunning and Kruger have postulated that the effect is the result of internal illusion in those of low ability, and external misperception in those of high ability: "The miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others. "[1] Original study Supporting studies Studies focusing on other cultures Historical antecedents.