848 vIII. EMERGING  ISSuES AND  NEW  DIRECTIONS
more positively biased by objective feedback 
(Robins & John, 1997b); that is, even if we 
are given all the relevant information about 
our personalities, we might respond quite 
defensively toward information that discon -
firms our self-views or information that is 
negative.
To glean more information without mo -
tivational biases might involve developing 
mindfulness skills (Carlson, 2013). Mind -
fulness comprises two basic components: (1) 
attention to one’s current experiences and 
(2) nonjudgmental observation and curios -
ity about these experiences (Bishop et al., 
2004). These two components map onto 
the informational and motivational barri -
ers to self-  knowledge, respectively. Paying 
more attention to one’s experiences might 
improve the amount of information one has 
about oneself (e.g., body language, emo -
tions) while nonjudgmental observation 
might allow one to accept potentially threat -
ening information. Indeed, there is some 
evidence that self-  compassion is linked to 
greater self-  knowledge of one’s performance 
(Leary, Tate, Adams, Allen, & Hancock, 
2007), training in mindfulness meditation 
can improve people’s ability to differentiate 
between their transient emotional experi -
ences and their global dispositions (Wil -
liams, Teasdale, Segal, & Soulsby, 2000), 
and self-  affirmation prior to feedback can 
reduce defensive responding, which makes 
us more open to negative information about 
ourselves (Critcher, Dunning, & Armor, 
2010). In summary, being more present and 
curious, and less defensive might allow us to 
see past our blind spots.
Summary
Self- knowledge is difficult to assess, but a 
growing body of work suggests that when 
it comes to knowing what we are like, the 
glass is both half-empty and half-full— 
specifically, self-  perceptions tethered to real -
ity (the glass is half-full), but other people 
sometimes know things we do not (the glass 
is half-empty). The major implication for 
people in general and for personality psy -
chologists in particular is that knowing what 
a person is like is a bit like putting together 
pieces of a puzzle. Each piece, or source of information, tells us something important 
about a person, but no single piece tells us 
everything.
Although we have reviewed a fairly large 
body of work, there is still much to learn 
about self-  knowledge. For example, do 
people have knowledge of their own vari -
ability and of the contingencies that affect 
their behavior in everyday life? Do people 
know what drives them? Are people’s nar -
ratives accurate? Furthermore, it seems 
that self-  knowledge is adaptive, but are all 
forms of self-  knowledge adaptive, or are 
there boundary conditions to the benefits 
of self-  knowledge? Finally, how can we im -
prove self-  knowledge? Is there a single way 
(e.g., mindfulness), or do we need to adopt 
different strategies for different aspects of 
self- knowledge, or for different people? We 
hope future work explores these pressing 
questions.
NOTE
1. We use the terms insight  and knowledge  in-
terchangeably.
REFERENCES
Adler, J. M. (2012). Living into the story: Agency 
and coherence in a longitudinal study of narra -
tive identity development and mental health over 
the course of psychotherapy. Journal of Person -
ality and Social Psychology, 102 (2), 367–389.
Agnew, C. R., Loving, T. J., & Drigotas, S. M. 
(2001). Substituting the forest for the trees: So -
cial networks and the prediction of romantic re -
lationship state and fate. Journal of Personality 
and Social Psychology, 81 (6), 1042–1057.
Andersen, S. M. (1984). Self-  knowledge and social 
inference: II. The diagnosticity of cognitive/ 
affective and behavioral data. Journal of Person -
ality and Social Psychology, 46, 294–307.
Andersen, S. M., & Ross, L. (1984). Self-  knowledge 
and social inference: I. The impact of cognitive/
affective and behavioral data. Journal of Person -
ality and Social Psychology, 46, 280–293.
Anderson, C., Ames, D. R., & Gosling, S. D. 
(2008). Punishing hubris: The perils of overesti -
mating one’s status in a group. Personality and 
Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (1), 90–101.
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2009). 
Predicting actual behavior from the explicit and 
implicit self-  concept of personality. Journal of 
Personality and Social Psychology, 97 (3), 533.