construal mar 3503 march 1, 2012. false consensus effect ross, greene, & house, 1977 rater’s...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Construal
MAR 3503
March 1, 2012
![Page 2: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
False consensus effect
Ross, Greene, & House, 1977
Rater’s own choice
Estimated percent ofothers who would:
![Page 3: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Construal
• The way in which a person interprets the world around them
• The same situation may produce very different behavior depending on the subjective meaning that is attached to it
• This is a fundamental theme in the study of consumer behavior!
![Page 4: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Some determinants of construal
• 1. Recency
![Page 5: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Some determinants of construal
• 1. Recency• 2. Frequency/familiarity– How would “They ran into the bank” be
interpreted by a banker? A sailor?
![Page 6: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Some determinants of construal
• 1. Recency• 2. Frequency/familiarity• 3. Context
![Page 7: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Primacy effects in judgment
Person A is…• Intelligent• Industrious• Impulsive• Stubborn• Critical• Envious
Person B is…• Envious• Critical• Stubborn• Impulsive• Industrious• Intelligent
![Page 8: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
A treat
• It’s hot, and you’re at the beach. You want a refreshment. How much would you pay for this Häagen Dazs ice cream?
![Page 9: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Reactive devaluation
• Proposal offered by the Palestinians on 5/10/93
• “How good is the proposal for Israel (1-7)?” minus “How good is the proposal for the Palestinians (1-7)?
ParticipantsPutative source
Israeli delegation Palestinian delegation
Israeli Jews -0.95 -2.45
Israeli Arabs 0.93 -0.01
![Page 10: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Party over policy
• Participants evaluate a welfare reform bill– Some participants were told that the bill was
written by Republicans, others told it was written by Democrats
• Ps indicate (on a 1-7 scale) how much they are in favor of the bill
Bill was written byParticipants’ own affiliation
Liberal Conservative
Democrats 5.46 2.69
Republicans 3.15 5.49
Cohen, 2003
![Page 11: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Some determinants of construal
• 1. Recency• 2. Frequency/familiarity• 3. Context• 4. Motivation
![Page 12: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Construal and above average effect
• “…Everyone ranks himself high in qualities he values; careful drivers give weight to care, skillful drivers give weight to skill, and those who think that, whatever else they are not, at least they are polite, give weight to courtesy, and come out high on their own scale. This is the way that every child has the best dog on the block.” –Thomas Schelling
![Page 13: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Construal and above average effect
• Dunning, Meyerowitz, & Holzberg (1989)
• More of an above average effect on ambiguous traits (e.g., sensible) than unambiguous traits (e.g., punctual)
• Less of an above average effect when asked to make ratings based on specific criteria supplied by someone else
![Page 14: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Some determinants of construal
• 1. Recency• 2. Frequency/familiarity• 3. Context• 4. Motivation• 5. Temporal perspective
![Page 15: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Construal level
Being social awkwardORStanding alone
Achieving a goalORWearing a medal Being a voter
ORGoing to the polls
![Page 16: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Temporal construal theory
• People adopt higher level construals when considering distant as opposed to near future events
High-level construals Low-level construals
Abstract Concrete
Simple Complex
Structured, coherent Unstructured, incoherent
Decontextualized Contextualized
Primary, core Secondary, surface
Superordinate Subordinate
![Page 17: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Temporally distant = higher level• When people are asked to list events they expect
to experience during a good day or bad day in the near or distant future:– The near-future events are more variable in valence
(SD of ratings)– The distant-future events are more extreme in
valence (mean ratings)• People are more likely to code near-future
events in terms of “how” and distant-future events in terms of “why”– Does “locking the door” mean “putting a key in the
lock” or “securing the house”?
![Page 18: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Temporal construal theory
• Implications for preference, choice, and behavior:
• “Getting away from it all” versus “buying food, assembling gear, getting permits, etc.”
• “Cheating on an exam” versus “peeking at my neighbor’s exam to compare answers”
![Page 19: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
The big message
• The broader message of construals is that we may think that our memories, feelings, and knowledge are set and reflect reality, but…
• Instead, our knowledge and preferences are constructed
![Page 20: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
What is reframing?
• It’s presenting the same option in different formats– This can change people’s opinions, choices, and
preferences– Both formats are accurate, and convey the same
information– The meaning of that information is what differs
• REFRAMING: “Our new fan uses 50% less energy than our old fan!” versus “Our old fan uses twice as much energy as our new fan!”
• NOT REFRAMING: “Our new fan uses 50% less energy than our old fan!” versus “Our new fan uses twice as much energy as our old fan!”
![Page 21: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Framing effects
• Pro-life versus pro-choice• Liberal versus progressive• Terrorists versus freedom fighters• Cash discounts versus credit card surcharges
![Page 22: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Framing effects• Imagine that the country is preparing for the
outbreak of an unusual disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two programs have been proposed.– If program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved– If program B is adopted, there is a 1/3 chance that
600 people will be saved, and a 2/3 chance that no one will be saved
• Imagine that the country…– If program C is adopted, 400 people will die– If program D is adopted, there is a 1/3 chance that
nobody will die, and a 2/3 chance that 600 will die
Tversky & Kahneman, 1981
![Page 23: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Prospect theory
• People are risk averse when choosing among gains, and risk seeking when choosing among losses
• Loss aversion: losses loom larger than gains– Consider a gamble where you have a 50% chance
of winning $1000 and a 50% chance of losing $1000
– Gains often need to be twice as big as losses for people to be willing to take the bet
![Page 24: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Prospect theory
![Page 25: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Mental accounting
• Imagine that you have decided to see a play and paid the admission price of $20 per ticket. As you enter the theater, you discover that you have lost the ticket. The seat was not marked and the ticket cannot be recovered.
• Would you pay $20 for another ticket?
Tversky & Kahneman, 1984
![Page 26: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Mental accounting
• Imagine that you have decided to see a play where admission is $20 per ticket. As you enter the theater, you discover that you have lost a $20 bill
• Would you still pay $20 for a ticket to the play?
Tversky & Kahneman, 1984
![Page 27: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Mental accounting
• Why are people generally willing to buy a ticket after having lost $20, but not willing to buy another ticket after having lost their previous ($20) ticket?
• It matters what “mental account” you file the loss under:
• If you lose the ticket and buy another, you have just increased the price of the play to $40
• But if you lose $20 and then buy a ticket, the price of the play is still only $20
![Page 28: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Sunk costs
• Imagine that you and a loved one have paid $50 for two seats to the theater for tonight’s show. You were really looking forward to seeing it, but are not in the mood to go tonight. You’re feeling tired because you didn’t sleep well last night, and thunderstorms are predicted for tonight. You really want to spend the evening on the couch, cozy and warm. What would you do in this situation?
![Page 29: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
• Imagine you spent $500 on a ski trip to Michigan that promises to be pretty fun
• Then you find a great deal for a $250 ski trip to Wisconsin, which should be awesome
• But after you spend the money, it turns out the two trips overlap, and you can’t get your money back for either, due to the special deal
• Which trip do you go on?
Sunk costs
Arkes & Blumer, 1985
![Page 30: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Sunk costs
• Sunk costs are payments, investments or costs that can’t be recovered– With the sunk cost fallacy, people treat sunk costs as
if they weren’t sunk, but instead they could still “get their money’s worth”
• This leads them to:– Clean their plates even when they’re full– Complete costly and unwanted public works projects– Persevere in wars and conflicts so soldiers “won’t
have died in vain”
![Page 31: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Reason-based choice
• Why do some people who would grant Parent B custody also choose to deny Parent B custody?
• People need to have reasons for their choices, and mixed bag options usually provide more reasons both in favor of an against that option– So which way a person chooses in these kinds of
situations is very much influenced by what question they are trying to answer
![Page 32: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Construal and health
• Ps were 84 housekeepers from a variety of hotels in the Boston area, recruited for a study on how to increase health and happiness in the hotel industry
• Half were told that their work constituted exercise, half were not
• The amount of exercise they got and a number of markers of health were measured
• Four weeks after the initial recruitment, they were re-interviewed and re-examined
Crum & Langer, 2007
![Page 33: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Crum & Langer, 2007
![Page 34: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Overarching lesson
• It is not the objective situation that is so powerful in determining thought and behavior, it is the subjective situation – it is how people interpret the world that matters
• So next time you see choices or behavior that surprise you, think about what situation the person thought he/she was confronting
![Page 35: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Summary
• Construal influences our preferences, perception, and satisfaction
• Several determinants of construal– Recency– Frequency/familiarity– Context– Motivation– Temporal perspective
![Page 36: Construal MAR 3503 March 1, 2012. False consensus effect Ross, Greene, & House, 1977 Rater’s own choice Estimated percent of others who would:](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649cbe5503460f949841ab/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Next time…
• Predicting preferences and satisfaction