claudia toma, olivier corneille & vincent yzerbyt
DESCRIPTION
Projection and transparency of cooperative behavior in decision making: The impact of self-other interdependence. Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt. Louvain-la-Neuve, 7.04.2008. General overview of my project. How egocentric empathy gaps influence judgment and decision making?. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Projection and transparency of cooperative behavior in decision making:
The impact of self-other interdependence
Claudia Toma,Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt
Louvain-la-Neuve, 7.04.2008
Self-other relation ?similarity (ex: ingroup, outgroup)interdependence (cooperation, competition)
How the self-other relation impacts on egocentric empathy gaps?
How egocentric empathy gaps influence judgment and decision making?
General overview of my project
- overestimating the similarity between self and others in different situations or roles (Van Boven et al., 2000)
Egocentric empathy gaps
People are unable : - to undo their privileged information (Camerer et al., 1989; Keysar
et al., 1995) - to set aside from their perspective (Vorauer & Claude, 1998)
- Social projection (Krueger & Clement, 1994);
- Illusion of transparency (Gilovich et al., 1998);
- Spotlight effect (Gilovich et al., 1999); video
- Self-as-target phenomenon (Fenigstein, 1984);
Social projection (SP)
Judgmental heuristic that leads people to expect that others will behave as themselves do (Krueger & Acevedo, 2005).
Heuristic or Motivated process ?
• H Time pressure increase projection (Epley, Keysar, & Van Boven, 2004);
Priming increase projection (Kawada, Oettingen, & Gollwitzer, 2004);
• M People deploy or withhold projection depending on the self-other similarity (Ames, 2004);
High need for uniqueness individuals project less about a behavior important to their self schema (Kernis, 1984);
Illusion of transparency (IT)
the tendency to overestimate the extent to which others can read one’s internal states (Gilovich et al., 1998)
How we appear to others ?
e.g., liars overestimate the detectability of their lies
this also applies to private thoughts, goals, intentions, behavior (Van Boven et al., 2003; Vorauer & Claude, 1998)
e.g., competitive people overestimate the detectability of their deception behavior
Gilovich et al. (1998) - Studies 3a & 3b
2,22,58
3,58
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
actual concern self-ratedappearance of
concern
other-ratedappearance of
concern
IT in bystander interventionsTransparency judgment
Illusion of transparency
Self-other interdependence
1) Dispositional differences : Social value orientation (SVO)
- the preference for certain outcome distribution between the self and an interdependent other (McClintock, 1972)
PROSOCIALS (cooperative + altruistic)PROSELFS (competitive + individualistic)
2) Situational influences
outcomes (Deutsch, 1949, 1973)
priming (Smeesters, Warlop, Van Avermaet, Corneille, & Yzerbyt, 2003)
other = partner vs. opponent (Burnham, McCabe, & Smith, 2000)
Social Projection and interdependence
• False consensus effect (Ross, Greene, & House, 1977):PROSOCIALS / Cooperation & PROSELFS / Competition = equal projection
• Triangle hypothesis (Kelley & Stahelski, 1970):PROSOCIALS do not project (others are seen as heterogeneous)PROSELFS project (others are seen as competitive)
Van Lange (1992): PROSOCIALS are less confident about their expectations
• Krueger & Acevedo (2005)Cooperation induce more projection more because it implies reciprocity
• Collectivism is positively associated with IT (Vorauer & Cameron, 2002)
perceived similarity or perceived interdependence ?
Transparency and interdependence
• IT stems primarily from the impact of one’s own phenomenology (Gilovich, Savitsky, & Medvec, 1998)
Cooperation (PROSOCIALS) should lead to accentuation of transparency judgments.
Competition (PROSELFS) should lead to accentuation of transparency judgments.
• IT occurs whether negotiators try to convey or to conceal their preferences (Van Boven, Gilovich, & Medvec, 2003)
Experiment 1 : SVO
Experiment 2 : SVO x SITUATION
I. Measuring SVO: RING MEASURE (Liebrand, 1984)
24 double choices – “Chose between A and B, the preferred alternative”
Experiment 1
II. COMPUTER-MEDIATED DECISION TASK
Sharedinformation
Unsharedinformation 1
Unsharedinformation 2
3 high +
3 low diagnostic
3 high +
3 low diagnostic
Decision 2suboptimal
Decision 1suboptimal
requiring cooperative behavior
COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR = exchanging 3 high +1 low diagnostic information
Fictitious participant = COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR
4 Exchanges
4 Exchanges
III. JUDGMENTS
How Competitive Cooperative-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
1. you were (self perception)
2. other was (projection)
3. you appeared to other (transparency)
4. you could have appeared to other if you didn’t know info diagnosticity (perspective taking in transparency)
IV. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
How diagnostic the received information was ? (%)
suspicion, knowing the other etc.
Information sharing & Information estimates
2,79 2,9
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
PROSOCIALS PROSELFS
7062,8
56,75
0
20
40
60
80
100
actual diag PROSOCIALS PROSELFS
ns
***.07
Experiment 1 : results
Judgments & social projection
32,71
2,211,83
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
PROSOCIAL PROSELF PROSOCIAL PROSELF
Self perception Other perception
CO
OPER
ATIV
EC
OM
PETIT
IVE
nsns
**
.48*-.01
Experiment 1: results
Transparency judgment
Experiment 1: results
1,86***2,36 ***
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
PROSOCIALS PROSELFS
CO
OPER
ATIV
EC
OM
PETIT
IVE
Can transparency judgment can be considered beyond self perception?
Self perception
.22 .52**
.09
Illusion of transparency ?
Judgment, information processing and decision
Other perception
Transparency Informationsharing
Informationestimates
Other perception 1 ,39(*)
,30(p=.11)
,59(**)
Transparency1
,35(p=.06)
,02
Informationsharing 1
,36(p=.052)
Decision ,49** ,22 ,05 ,19
Other
perception TransparencyInformation
sharingInformationestimates
Other perception ,21 ,01
,34(p=.07)
Transparency,01 ,22
Informationsharing -,12
Decision ,34(p=.07)
,02 ,28 ,02
PROSOCIALS
PROSELFS
Experiment 1: results
Conclusions Experiment 1
PROSELFS but not PROSOCIALS project and judge their cooperative
behavior as transparent.
1) PROSELFS project /judge transparent whatever the situation/
behavior?
2) PROSOCIALS project /judge transparent when the cooperation
is ensured?
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
Experiment 2 : SVO x Situation
Cooperation
DECISION
YOU
Correct Incorrect
O CorrectTHE IncorrectR
4 4
1 2
2 1
1 1
Competition
DECISION
YOU
Correct Incorrect
O CorrectTHE IncorrectR
2 2
1 4
4 1
1 1
Experiment 2 : results
Information sharing
2,83 2,71
2,35
2,67
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
PROSOCIALS PROSELFS
cooperation
competition
*
SVO X situation: b = .-35 (SD =.16), F = 4,37; p <.05
SVO : b = .38 (SD =.16), F = 4,58; p <.05
Experiment 2 : results
Information estimates
62,1460,3855,05
62,77
0102030405060708090
100
PROSOCIALS PROSELFS
cooperation
competition
SVO X situation: b = -4.31 (SD =2.39), F = 2,07; p =.15
Experiment 2 : results
Judgments: self-other
SVO X situation: b = -1.10 (SD =.51),F = 4,62; p <.05
SVO : b = 1.09 (SD =.51), F = 4,49; p <.05
SELF
33,28
1,95
2,92
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
PROSOCIALS PROSELFS
CO
OPER
ATIV
EC
OM
PETIT
IVE
*
2,852,28
1,55
2,25
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
PROSOCIALS PROSELFS
cooperation
competition
OTHER
SVO X situation: b = -.37 (SD =.24),F = 2,40; p =.12
Experiment 2 : results
Social projection
PROSOCIALS COOPERATION ,84**N=18
COMPETITION ,31N=12
PROSELFS COOPERATION ,46 (p=.10)N=13
COMPETITION ,63**N=20
SELF
OT
HE
R
Transparency judgment
Experiment 2: results
CO
OPER
ATIV
EC
OM
PETIT
IVE
F <1
2,52,78
1,6
2,33
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
PROSOCIALS PROSELFS
cooperation
competition
Self perception
.83*** .62**.17 .59*
Perspective taking in transparency judgment
Experiment 2: results
2,52,78
2,171,89
0
1
2
3
4
PROSOCIALS PROSELFS
ownperspective
otherperspective
1,6
2,33
1,35
2,75
0
1
2
3
4
PROSOCIALS PROSELFS
ownperspective
otherperspective
COOPERATION COMPETITION
SVO X situation: b = .33 (SD =.20), F = 2,59; p = .11
Conclusions
- exchanging info behavior = not “discriminator” enough;
- other judgment ? (IT).
- PROSELFS project whatever the situation/ behavior;
- PROSOCIALS project only when cooperation;
- transparency judgments occur especially when projection ;
Limitations
Future research
1) PROSELFS project /judge transparent their behavior?
2) PROSOCIALS - project their characteristics (SVO)?
- judge transparent their behavior only when
consistence SVO – situation?
3) Differential projection by using might / morality dimensions?
5) Is social projection responsible for transparency judgment?
Self perception
Social projection
Transparency judgment
Future research
4) Is self perception necessary for transparency judgment?
Thank you for your attention
Other
perception TransparencyInformation
sharingInformationestimates
Other perception ,86*** ,36
,42(p=.07)
Transparency,20 ,21
Informationsharing ,12
Decision,48*
,38 ,10 ,34
Judgment, information processing and decisionExperiment 2: results
PROSOCIALS
COOPERATION
Other
perception TransparencyInformation
sharingInformationestimates
Other perception ,43 ,26 ,35
Transparency,90*** ,20
Informationsharing ,15
Decision,49*
,12 ,00 ,05
PROSOCIALS
COMPETITION
Other
perception TransparencyInformation
sharingInformationestimates
Other perception
,52(p=.10)
,23 -,41
Transparency,86*** ,20
Informationsharing ,42
Decision,03
,20,48
(p=.08),25
Judgment, information processing and decisionExperiment 2: results
PROSELFS
COOPERATION
Other
perception TransparencyInformation
sharingInformationestimates
Other perception ,61**
,41(p=.07)
,48*
Transparency,63** ,54*
Informationsharing ,24
Decision,59** ,34 ,17 ,42
(p=.06)
PROSELFS
COMPETITION