Psychology is notorious for having little statistically detectable relationship between its own research and reality

Kind of interesting but the sample is unrepresentative. From I'm Morally Good Enough Already, Thanks! by Eric Schwitzgebel.

In a fascinating new paper (forthcoming in Psychological Science), Jessie Sun and Geoffrey Goodwin asked undergraduate students in psychology to rate themselves on several moral and non-moral dimensions, and they asked those same students to nominate "informants" who knew them well to rate them along the same dimensions. Non-moral traits included, for example, energy level ("being full of energy") and intellectual curiosity ("being curious about many different things"). Moral traits included specific traits such as fairness ("being a fair person") but also included self-ratings of overall morality ("being a person of strong moral character" and "acting morally"). They then asked both the target participants and their informants to express the extent to which they aimed to change these facts about themselves (e.g., "I want to be helpful and unselfish with others..." or "I want [target's name] to be helpful and unselfish with others...") from -2 ("much less than I currently am") to +2 ("much more than I currently am").

[snip]

To me, perhaps their most striking result -- though not Sun's and Goodwin's own point of emphasis -- is the almost non-existent correlation between self-ratings of general morality and informant ratings of general morality. Neither of their two samples of about 300-600 participants per group showed a statistically detectable relationship (there was a weak positive trend: r = .15 & .10, n.s). Self-ratings of some specific moral traits -- honesty, fairness, and loyalty -- also showed at best weak correlations with spotty statistical significance (r = 0 to .3, none significant in both samples). However, other specific moral traits showed better correlations (purity, compassion, and responsibility, r = .2 to .5 in both samples).

In other words, Sun and Goodwin find basically no statistically detectable relationship between how morally good you say you are, and how honest and fair and loyal you say you are, and what your closest friends and family say about you.

The piece is worth reading as a whole.

I suspect that this does not tell us as much as it appears to do.

Undergraduate students will unlikely have yet been independent, socially and economically productive, and/or yet had to make hard trade-off decisions, or make consequential decisions with uncertain information - all the marks of the mature adult. If they haven't been tested, and can't have been tested, perhaps it is little wonder that the correspondence between self-assessment and observers is so low.

The selves have little frame of experience to gauge their own assessment and the observes also lack any shared frame of objective or experiential reference.

But given all that, it is still kind of startling that there is:

No statistically detectable relationship between how morally good you say you are, and how honest and fair and loyal you say you are, and what your closest friends and family say about you.

Of course, the problem might be that they are psychology students rather than that they are young. Psychology is notorious for having little statistically detectable relationship between its own research and reality.