80:
studying this phenomenon for many years and wrote other research papers in the years leading up to his work with
Savitsky. In his study with Husted Medvec and Savitsky, he combined the different effects he had observed previously to describe the spotlight. Gilovich was not the only one who had noticed this occurrence of the spotlight effect. David Kenny and Bella DePaulo conducted a study that looked at whether or not people knew how others view them. Kenny and DePaulo thought that individuals would base what others thought of them using their own self-perceptions rather than other feedback given to them. The study found that individuals' views of what others think of them is variable compared to what is actually thought of them.
173:
extent to which the spotlight effect is experienced by an individual. The timing of the exposure during a perceivably embarrassing situation also plays a role in the severity of the spotlight effect. If the exposure is immediate, the spotlight effect significantly increases in decision making scenarios. Delayed exposure, however, decreases spotlight effect intensity.
186:
of others is not solely focused on the individual. In these settings, like a class lecture or athletic competition, attention is divided between focusing on the individual and on the actions of the group. The inability to identify the split attention leads individuals to overestimate the likelihood that their peers will perceive them poorly.
96:
their anxiety is obvious to onlookers. In fact, Clark and Wells (1995) suggest that socially phobic people enter social situations in a heightened self-focused state, namely, from a raised emotional anchor. This self-focused state makes it difficult for individuals to set aside public and private self-knowledge to focus on the task.
130:, which is people's tendency to overestimate the degree to which their personal mental state is known by others. Another manifestation of the illusion of transparency is a tendency for people to overestimate how well they understand others' personal mental states. This cognitive bias is similar to the
189:
Similarly, Gilovich, Medvec, and
Savitsky further elaborated upon their research and concluded that in situations involving an audience member whose sole purpose is to observe, the severity of the spotlight effect is not overestimated because the focus of an audience's attention is centered upon the
176:
Salience of ideas and important contributions within a group are additional aspects of social judgment that are affected by the spotlight effect. Individuals tend to overestimate the extent to which their contributions make an impact on those around them. In a group setting, those contributions are
185:
Actions of individuals and how they believe others perceive their performance also plays an important part of spotlight effect research. Gilovich, Medvec, and
Savitsky further explored this idea. In situations that involve large, interacting groups, a common detail identifies the reason attention
163:
The spotlight effect plays a significant role in many different aspects of psychology and society. Primarily, research on this phenomenon has been pioneered by four individuals: Thomas
Gilovich, Kenneth Savitsky, Victoria Medvec, and Thomas Kruger. The main focuses of their research center around
116:
is another closely linked phenomenon with the spotlight effect. This concept describes when someone believes that events are disproportionately directed towards him or herself. For example, if a student had an assignment due in class and did not prepare as well as they should have, the student may
95:
which suggests that individuals will use their own internal feelings of anxiety and the accompanying self-representation as an anchor, then insufficiently correct for the fact that others are less privy to those feelings than they are themselves. Consequently, they overestimate the extent to which
172:
In social judgment, embarrassment plays a considerable role in the degree to which the spotlight effect is manifested. Research by
Gilovich, Medvec, and Savitsky indicated that certain situations in which perceivably embarrassing items are factors, such as an embarrassing t-shirt, increase the
79:
in 1999. Although this was the first time the effect was termed, it was not the first time it had been described. There were other studies done before 1999 that had looked at phenomena similar to the spotlight effect that
Gilovich, Husted Medvec, and Savitsky described. Thomas Gilovich had been
105:. The false-consensus effect occurs when individuals overestimate the extent to which other people share their opinions, attitudes, and behavior. This leads to a false conclusion which will increase someone's self-esteem. The false-consensus effect is the opposing theory to the
109:, which is the tendency of one to underestimate the extent to which others share the same positive attitudes and behavior. Either of these effects can be applied to the spotlight effect.
177:
thought of by the individual as being more significant than the contributions of their group members and that the other members believe the same about that individual's contributions.
61:
encourage people to be conscious of the spotlight effect and to allow this phenomenon to moderate the extent to which one believes one is in a social spotlight.
50:
to forget that although one is the center of one's own world, one is not the center of everyone else's. This tendency is especially prominent when one does
483:
Gilovich, Thomas; Savitsky, Kenneth (1999). "The
Spotlight Effect and the Illusion of Transparency: Egocentric Assessments of How We Are Seen by Others".
287:
1175:
439:
152:
1150:
255:
75:
73:, Victoria Husted Medvec, and Kenneth Savitsky. The phenomenon made its first appearance in the world of psychology in the journal
57:
Research has empirically shown that such drastic over-estimation of one's effect on others is widely common. Many professionals in
164:
social judgments, salience of individual contributions, actions of individuals, and how individuals believe others perceive them.
1180:
288:"The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one's own actions and appearance"
117:
start to panic and think that simply because they did not prepare well, the teacher will know and call on them for answers.
394:
230:
411:
577:
335:
Kenny, D. A.; Depaulo, B. M. (1993). "Do people know how others view them? An empirical and theoretical account".
1283:
1252:
1170:
980:
88:
The spotlight effect is an extension of several psychological phenomena. Among these is the phenomenon known as
132:
1099:
985:
639:
634:
757:
318:
136:, in which people perceive their knowledge of others to surpass other people's knowledge of themselves.
46:
evaluation of how much one is noticed by others is uncommon. The reason for the spotlight effect is the
1093:
619:
440:"The Spotlight Effect Revisited: Overestimating the Manifest Variability of Our Actions and Appearance"
462:
1278:
1223:
947:
747:
725:
144:
1247:
1160:
1042:
807:
787:
683:
122:
90:
1273:
1233:
917:
897:
678:
656:
101:
1012:
927:
902:
847:
148:
965:
817:
693:
570:
8:
1120:
1037:
937:
872:
812:
802:
797:
661:
1017:
1002:
762:
752:
735:
508:
500:
360:
204:
199:
1130:
1067:
1052:
975:
957:
892:
688:
604:
544:
521:
512:
390:
352:
310:
209:
58:
20:
16:
Cognitive bias in which people think they are being noticed more than they really are
364:
1197:
1057:
997:
922:
767:
720:
629:
624:
609:
536:
492:
454:
344:
302:
540:
1165:
1155:
932:
912:
827:
730:
705:
700:
673:
651:
563:
384:
140:
70:
348:
1207:
1202:
1192:
1115:
1032:
992:
942:
887:
877:
862:
857:
822:
777:
742:
646:
595:
306:
47:
35:
1267:
1145:
1125:
1088:
1062:
1047:
1027:
1007:
970:
882:
842:
837:
832:
710:
614:
31:
496:
51:
1105:
867:
852:
548:
458:
314:
39:
356:
1022:
792:
782:
772:
668:
522:"The spotlight effect and the illusion of transparency in social anxiety"
38:
more than they really are. Being that one is constantly in the center of
504:
1140:
1135:
1110:
1228:
715:
1187:
1072:
438:
Gilovich, Thomas; Kruger, Justin; Medvec, Victoria Husted (2002).
586:
555:
83:
285:
437:
286:Gilovich, T.; Medvec, V. H.; Savitsky, K. (2000).
256:"Have You Fallen Prey to the "Spotlight Effect?""
1265:
482:
167:
228:
571:
153:Ideas of reference and delusions of reference
120:Also relevant to the spotlight effect is the
334:
295:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
485:Current Directions in Psychological Science
76:Current Directions in Psychological Science
1234:Heuristics in judgment and decision-making
578:
564:
519:
180:
69:The term "spotlight effect" was coined by
447:Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
409:
382:
99:Another related phenomenon is called the
1266:
253:
559:
433:
431:
378:
376:
374:
281:
279:
277:
275:
128:observer's illusion of transparency)
84:Ties to other psychological concepts
34:phenomenon by which people tend to
13:
476:
14:
1295:
428:
371:
272:
229:Denton-Mendoza, R. (2012-06-05).
520:Brown, M. A.; Stopa, L. (2007).
383:Sanderson, Catherine A. (2010).
412:"Did everyone see me do that?"
403:
328:
247:
222:
133:illusion of asymmetric insight
36:believe they are being noticed
1:
541:10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.11.006
215:
529:Journal of Anxiety Disorders
410:McConnell, A. (2009-06-25).
254:Gordon, A. M. (2013-11-21).
168:Social judgment and salience
7:
1100:DĂ©formation professionnelle
349:10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.145
193:
158:
139:Other related concepts are
10:
1300:
1094:Basking in reflected glory
585:
307:10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.211
64:
18:
1242:
1224:Cognitive bias mitigation
1216:
1081:
956:
593:
389:. John Wiley & Sons.
145:self-referential encoding
808:Illusion of transparency
123:illusion of transparency
91:anchoring and adjustment
19:Not to be confused with
497:10.1111/1467-8721.00039
190:individual performing.
181:Actions and perceptions
107:false uniqueness effect
1284:Management cybernetics
459:10.1006/jesp.2001.1490
337:Psychological Bulletin
231:"The Spotlight Effect"
126:(sometimes called the
102:false-consensus effect
1176:Arab–Israeli conflict
903:Social influence bias
848:Out-group homogeneity
149:self-reference effect
818:Mere-exposure effect
748:Extrinsic incentives
694:Selective perception
1043:Social desirability
938:von Restorff effect
813:Mean world syndrome
788:Hostile attribution
114:self-as-target bias
958:Statistical biases
736:Curse of knowledge
205:Self-consciousness
200:Imaginary audience
52:something atypical
1261:
1260:
898:Social comparison
679:Choice-supportive
386:Social Psychology
210:Social projection
59:social psychology
21:Spotlight fallacy
1291:
1279:Cognitive biases
1058:Systematic error
1013:Omitted-variable
928:Trait ascription
768:Frog pond effect
596:Cognitive biases
580:
573:
566:
557:
556:
552:
526:
516:
470:
469:
467:
461:. Archived from
444:
435:
426:
425:
423:
422:
416:Psychology Today
407:
401:
400:
380:
369:
368:
332:
326:
325:
323:
317:. Archived from
292:
283:
270:
269:
267:
266:
260:Psychology Today
251:
245:
244:
242:
241:
235:Psychology Today
226:
28:spotlight effect
1299:
1298:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1257:
1238:
1212:
1077:
952:
933:Turkey illusion
701:Compassion fade
598:
589:
584:
524:
479:
477:Further reading
474:
473:
465:
442:
436:
429:
420:
418:
408:
404:
397:
381:
372:
333:
329:
321:
290:
284:
273:
264:
262:
252:
248:
239:
237:
227:
223:
218:
196:
183:
170:
161:
141:egocentric bias
86:
71:Thomas Gilovich
67:
48:innate tendency
40:one's own world
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1297:
1287:
1286:
1281:
1276:
1274:Human behavior
1259:
1258:
1256:
1255:
1250:
1243:
1240:
1239:
1237:
1236:
1231:
1226:
1220:
1218:
1217:Bias reduction
1214:
1213:
1211:
1210:
1205:
1200:
1195:
1193:Political bias
1190:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1178:
1173:
1168:
1163:
1158:
1153:
1148:
1138:
1133:
1128:
1123:
1121:Infrastructure
1118:
1113:
1108:
1103:
1096:
1091:
1085:
1083:
1079:
1078:
1076:
1075:
1070:
1065:
1060:
1055:
1050:
1045:
1040:
1038:Self-selection
1035:
1030:
1025:
1020:
1015:
1010:
1005:
1000:
995:
990:
989:
988:
978:
973:
968:
962:
960:
954:
953:
951:
950:
945:
940:
935:
930:
925:
920:
915:
910:
905:
900:
895:
890:
885:
880:
875:
873:Pro-innovation
870:
865:
860:
858:Overton window
855:
850:
845:
840:
835:
830:
825:
820:
815:
810:
805:
800:
795:
790:
785:
780:
775:
770:
765:
760:
755:
750:
745:
740:
739:
738:
728:
726:Dunning–Kruger
723:
718:
713:
708:
703:
698:
697:
696:
686:
681:
676:
671:
666:
665:
664:
654:
649:
644:
643:
642:
640:Correspondence
637:
635:Actor–observer
627:
622:
617:
612:
607:
601:
599:
594:
591:
590:
583:
582:
575:
568:
560:
554:
553:
535:(6): 804–819.
517:
491:(6): 165–168.
478:
475:
472:
471:
468:on 2014-09-13.
427:
402:
395:
370:
343:(1): 145–161.
327:
324:on 2013-10-30.
301:(2): 211–222.
271:
246:
220:
219:
217:
214:
213:
212:
207:
202:
195:
192:
182:
179:
169:
166:
160:
157:
85:
82:
66:
63:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1296:
1285:
1282:
1280:
1277:
1275:
1272:
1271:
1269:
1254:
1251:
1249:
1245:
1244:
1241:
1235:
1232:
1230:
1227:
1225:
1222:
1221:
1219:
1215:
1209:
1206:
1204:
1201:
1199:
1196:
1194:
1191:
1189:
1186:
1182:
1179:
1177:
1174:
1172:
1171:United States
1169:
1167:
1164:
1162:
1159:
1157:
1154:
1152:
1149:
1147:
1146:False balance
1144:
1143:
1142:
1139:
1137:
1134:
1132:
1129:
1127:
1124:
1122:
1119:
1117:
1114:
1112:
1109:
1107:
1104:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1095:
1092:
1090:
1087:
1086:
1084:
1080:
1074:
1071:
1069:
1066:
1064:
1061:
1059:
1056:
1054:
1051:
1049:
1046:
1044:
1041:
1039:
1036:
1034:
1031:
1029:
1026:
1024:
1021:
1019:
1018:Participation
1016:
1014:
1011:
1009:
1006:
1004:
1001:
999:
996:
994:
991:
987:
986:Psychological
984:
983:
982:
979:
977:
974:
972:
969:
967:
964:
963:
961:
959:
955:
949:
946:
944:
941:
939:
936:
934:
931:
929:
926:
924:
921:
919:
916:
914:
911:
909:
906:
904:
901:
899:
896:
894:
891:
889:
886:
884:
881:
879:
876:
874:
871:
869:
866:
864:
861:
859:
856:
854:
851:
849:
846:
844:
841:
839:
836:
834:
831:
829:
826:
824:
821:
819:
816:
814:
811:
809:
806:
804:
801:
799:
796:
794:
791:
789:
786:
784:
781:
779:
776:
774:
771:
769:
766:
764:
761:
759:
756:
754:
753:Fading affect
751:
749:
746:
744:
741:
737:
734:
733:
732:
729:
727:
724:
722:
719:
717:
714:
712:
709:
707:
704:
702:
699:
695:
692:
691:
690:
687:
685:
682:
680:
677:
675:
672:
670:
667:
663:
660:
659:
658:
655:
653:
650:
648:
645:
641:
638:
636:
633:
632:
631:
628:
626:
623:
621:
618:
616:
613:
611:
608:
606:
603:
602:
600:
597:
592:
588:
581:
576:
574:
569:
567:
562:
561:
558:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
523:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
481:
480:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
441:
434:
432:
417:
413:
406:
398:
396:9780470595213
392:
388:
387:
379:
377:
375:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
331:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
289:
282:
280:
278:
276:
261:
257:
250:
236:
232:
225:
221:
211:
208:
206:
203:
201:
198:
197:
191:
187:
178:
174:
165:
156:
154:
150:
146:
142:
137:
135:
134:
129:
125:
124:
118:
115:
110:
108:
104:
103:
97:
94:
92:
81:
78:
77:
72:
62:
60:
55:
53:
49:
45:
41:
37:
33:
32:psychological
29:
22:
1131:In education
1098:
1082:Other biases
1068:Verification
1053:Survivorship
1003:Non-response
976:Healthy user
918:Substitution
907:
893:Self-serving
689:Confirmation
657:Availability
605:Acquiescence
532:
528:
488:
484:
463:the original
450:
446:
419:. Retrieved
415:
405:
385:
340:
336:
330:
319:the original
298:
294:
263:. Retrieved
259:
249:
238:. Retrieved
234:
224:
188:
184:
175:
171:
162:
138:
131:
127:
121:
119:
113:
111:
106:
100:
98:
89:
87:
74:
68:
56:
43:
27:
25:
1198:Publication
1151:Vietnam War
998:Length time
981:Information
923:Time-saving
783:Horn effect
773:Halo effect
721:Distinction
630:Attribution
625:Attentional
1268:Categories
1161:South Asia
1136:Liking gap
948:In animals
913:Status quo
828:Negativity
731:Egocentric
706:Congruence
684:Commitment
674:Blind spot
662:Mean world
652:Automation
421:2020-01-15
265:2020-01-15
240:2020-01-15
216:References
1229:Debiasing
1208:White hat
1203:Reporting
1116:Inductive
1033:Selection
993:Lead time
966:Estimator
943:Zero-risk
908:Spotlight
888:Restraint
878:Proximity
863:Precision
823:Narrative
778:Hindsight
763:Frequency
743:Emotional
716:Declinism
647:Authority
620:Anchoring
610:Ambiguity
513:146512226
453:: 93–99.
1126:Inherent
1089:Academic
1063:Systemic
1048:Spectrum
1028:Sampling
1008:Observer
971:Forecast
883:Response
843:Optimism
838:Omission
833:Normalcy
803:In-group
798:Implicit
711:Cultural
615:Affinity
549:17166695
505:20182597
365:19247864
315:10707330
194:See also
159:Research
44:accurate
1248:General
1246:Lists:
1181:Ukraine
1106:Funding
868:Present
853:Outcome
758:Framing
357:8346325
65:History
30:is the
1253:Memory
1166:Sweden
1156:Norway
1023:Recall
793:Impact
669:Belief
587:Biases
547:
511:
503:
393:
363:
355:
313:
1141:Media
1111:FUTON
525:(PDF)
509:S2CID
501:JSTOR
466:(PDF)
443:(PDF)
361:S2CID
322:(PDF)
291:(PDF)
42:, an
545:PMID
391:ISBN
353:PMID
311:PMID
151:and
112:The
26:The
1188:Net
1073:Wet
537:doi
493:doi
455:doi
345:doi
341:114
303:doi
1270::
543:.
533:21
531:.
527:.
507:.
499:.
487:.
451:38
449:.
445:.
430:^
414:.
373:^
359:.
351:.
339:.
309:.
299:78
297:.
293:.
274:^
258:.
233:.
155:.
147:,
143:,
54:.
579:e
572:t
565:v
551:.
539::
515:.
495::
489:8
457::
424:.
399:.
367:.
347::
305::
268:.
243:.
93:,
23:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.