another peek inside the cognitive toolbox: interpersonal and intrapersonal (emotional) projection as...
TRANSCRIPT
Another peek inside the cognitive toolbox:Interpersonal and intrapersonal (emotional)
projection as a cognitive heuristic?
Maya Machunsky, Olivier Corneille, Vincent Yzerbyt
Social projection - the phenomenon
• False consensus effect (Ross et al., 1977)
• Social categorization moderates social projection (Cadinu & Rothbart, 1996; Otten & Wentura, 2001; Robbins & Krueger, 2005)
Social projection - the explanation
• Normatively correct inference (Horch, 1987; Krueger & Clement, 1996)
• Egocentrically biased inductive reasoning (Krueger & Stanke, 2001)
• Heuristic use of self-information in the case of self-other similarity (Ames 2004a; 2004b)
• Anchoring and adjustment (DiDonato & Krueger, 2007; Epley et al., 2004; )
Evidence for Social Projection as a Heuristic
• Not much
• Epley et al. (2004) showed that participants assumed a target person to understand an ambiguous message the ways they understood it themselves. This tendency increased with time pressure and decreased with accuracy motivation
Empathy gaps
• Cross-situational projection of drive states, preferences and decisions
Self in current, non-emotional situation
Self in different, emotional situation
Other people in a similar non-emotional situation
Other people in a different emotional situation
Adapted from Van Boven et al., 2005
Social Projection versus Empathy Gaps
• Similarities: Same mechanism - transferring own concepts and feelings onto others
• Differences: – Empathy gaps are cross-situational transfers whereas
social projection refers to intra-situational transfers (Van Bowen et al., 2005).
– Intra-situational projection leads to more accurate judgments (Dawes 1989, Hoch 1987) whereas cross-situational projection leads to less accurate judgments (Van Boven et al., 2003).
Transient drive states - Van Boven et al. 2003
• Study 2: Manipulation and projection of thirst
Self in current, non-emotional situation
Self in different, emotional situation
Other people in a similar non-emotional situation
Other people in a different emotional situation
Adapted from Van Boven et al., 2005
Fear of embarrassment - Van Boven et al., 2005
• Participants overestimate others‘ willingness to engage in embarrassing public performance (miming in Study 1 and dancing in Study 2).
• Overestimation was bigger when participants faced a hypothetical than when they faced a real situation.
Problems
• Emotional states in participants have to be either manipulated or measured– Van Boven et al., 2003, manipulated thirst -
but how about emotions?– Van Boven et al., 2005, did not measure or
manipulate current emotional states. Alternative explanations are possible (e.g., Construal Level Theory)
Self in current, non-emotional situation
Self in different, emotional situation
Other people in a similar non-emotional situation
Other people in a different emotional situation
Adapted from Van Boven et al., 2005
Aim of the project
•To demonstrate that social projection is indeed a cognitive heuristic
•To show that also emotions are projected and lead to empathy gaps
Part I - Social Projection
• Is social projection a cognitive heuristic?
• Manipulation of heuristic processing
Experiment 1
• Design: 1 x 3 (cognitive load, control versus accuracy motivation)
• Material: Vignette with ambiguous target behavior with regard to sociability
• Dependent measure: Social judgment task and self assessment
• Hypothesis: Most self-target similarity (i.e., projection) under heuristic processing, least self-target similarity under accuracy manipulation with the control condition in between.
Experiment 2• Design: 3 (high versus low
sociability versus control) x 3 (cognitive load, control versus accuracy motivation)
• Material: Vignette with ambiguous target behavior with regard to sociability
• Dependent measure: Social judgment task and self assessment
• Hypothesis: Two-way Interaction
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
load control acc. mot.
low soc.controlhigh soc.
Part I - Social Projection
• Is it an anchoring and adjustment heuristic or a similarity heuristic?
• Manipulation of similarity versus dissimilarity processing mode
Experiment 3
• Design: 2 (high versus low sociability) x 2 (cognitive load versus control) x 2 (similarity versus dissimilarity modus)
• Material: Vignette with ambiguous target behavior with regard to sociability
• Dependent measure: Social judgment task and self assessment
• Hypothesis: Three-way interaction
Experiment 3 - Hypothesisdissimilarity - possibility 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
load control
low soc.controlhigh soc.
dissimilarity - possibility 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
load control
low soc.controlhigh soc.
similarity
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
load control
low soc.controlhigh soc.
-> more similarity under load compared to control
-> more dissimilarity under load compared to control
Part II - Empathy Gaps
• Are intra- und interpersonal empathy gaps also especially prevalent under a heuristic processing?
Self in current, non-emotional situation
Self in different, emotional situation
Other people in a similar non-emotional situation
Other people in a different emotional situation
Adapted from Van Boven et al., 2005
Experiment 4
• Design: 1 x 3 (cognitive load versus control versus accuracy)
• Material: Vignette with ambiguous target behavior with regard to state self-confidence
• Dependent measure: PANAS before the Vignette, PANAS and decision for self and target in the emotional situation
• Hypothesis: Strongest correlations intra- and interpersonally under load and weakest correlations under accuracy with the control in-between
Experiment 5• Design: 3 (cognitive load
versus control versus accuracy) x 2 (high versus low self-confidence of the self)
• Material: Vignette with ambiguous target behavior with regard to state self-confidence
• Dependent measure: PANAS before the Vignette, PANAS and decision for self and target in the emotional situation
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
load control acc. mot.
fear of embarrassment
low self-conf.high self-conf.
Scenario
• Are participants really IN the emotional situation when assessing embarrassment or is it the anticipation of embarrassment?
• In other words: Is the situation already emotional?
• Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2001: Prediction of emotion (anger) and behavior in a sexual harassing situation diverges from actual emotion (fear) and behavior.
Other ideas
• Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2001: Empathy gaps as causes for “blame the victim”-phenomenon?
• Van Bowen et al., 2006: Endowment effect - both sellers and buyers attributed the failed negotiation to dispositional greed of the other side
• Do empathy gaps lead to more negative evaluation and dispositional attributions?