Attacks and defenses on agency and communion (milan 2015)

Patrizia Catellani & Mauro Bertolotti Department of Psychology – Catholic University of Milan

ECP European Congress of Psychology - Milan - 6-8 July 2015

Catellani & Bertolotti

Overview

• Four dimensions in impression

formation

• Impression management: The effects

of attacks


of defenses


Four dimensions in impression formation:The case of politicians

• Different approaches in the study of the perception of politicians

– Political science and sociology approach: ANES and related studies (Funk, 1996; Hayes, 2010; Miller et al., 1986)

– Personality studies approach: Big Five traits (Caprara et al, 2008; Vecchione et al., 2011)

– Social psychological approach: Agency and communion in the political field (Bertolotti et al., 2013; Cislak & Wojciszke, 2006; 2008)


Four dimensions in impression formation: The case of politicians

Agency Communion

Warmth MoralityCompetence

DecidedResolvedTenaciousDynamic

CompetentIntelligentEfficacious

Knowledgeable

SociableFriendlyCaringHelpful

HonestLoyal

TrustworthySincere

Leadership


The perception of Italian politicians(National Elections 2013)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Grillo Bersani Monti Berlusconi

Leadership

Competence

Warmth

Morality


The perception of Italian politicians’ morality (National Elections 2013)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Grillo Bersani Monti Berlusconi

Perception of morality

M5S

Center - Left

Center

Center - Right


The perception of Italian politicians(Nat. Elections 2001, 2006, 2008 e 2013)

(Barisione, Catellani & Garzia, 2013)

7


Profession-based standards

• Profession-based standards: Do we have different

expectations regarding the competence/leadership/

warmth/morality of people working in different

professions?

• Standards for a given profession are likely to be based

on:

- Typicality: how often members of a professional

group have a given trait;

- Desirability/relevance: how desirable/relevant one

considers a given trait for members of a professional

group.


Typicality and desirability of different dimensionsin different professional categories

-2.0-1.5-1.0-0.50.00.51.01.5

Politician Businessman Magistrate Psychologist Professor

Typicality

Morality

Leadership

Competence

Warmth

-2.0-1.5-1.0-0.50.00.51.01.5

Politician Businessman Magistrate Psychologist Professor

Desirability

Morality

Leadership

Competence

Warmth


Overview


formation


of attacks


of defenses


The effects of attacks

• Attack efficacy is likely to depend on:

- the attacked dimension;

- the perceived relevance of the dimension in

the evaluation of the target's social category;

- the style of the attack (e.g., factual vs.

counterfactual).


Counterfactuals are mental simulations of hypotetical

alternatives to past events (Roese, 1997).

Counterfactuals make a standard or norm of comparison

salient (Norm theory, Kahneman & Miller, 1986; Catellani et al.,

2004; Markman et al., 2008), and thus influence:

• evaluation of past events

• responsability attribution for past events (Branscombe et

al., 1997; Wells & Gavanski, 1995).

Counterfactual Attack Defense Model (CADM)

“If you had told the truth on the situation of the national budget, things would be better now.”


Counterfactual Attack Defense Model (CADM)

What happens when counterfactuals are employed

in communication, for example as attacks or

defenses?

Communication is persuasive when it balances

informativeness and the risk of reactance.

A way to find this balance is the use of subtle and

indirect communication, in order to hide its

persuasive intent.

Counterfactual communication is a type of subtle

communication strategy. As such, it can be more

effective than factual communication.


The effects of attacks:Perceived relevance of the dimension

Counterfactualleadership attack

Counterfactualmorality attack

Evaluation of the Politician

Responsibilityattribution


The effects of attacks:Perceived relevance of the dimension

Counterfactualleadership attack

Counterfactualmorality attack

Evaluation of the Businessman

Responsibilityattribution


Journalist: “Honourable Barbato, you havebeen the secretary of your party for twoyears. However, after a positive beginning,the situation is not so good now. What wouldyou say in this regard?”

Politician: “Definitely the scenario haschanged since my election, something isgoing better and something is going worsethan before.”

Journalist: “There is a widespread skepticismaround your actions as party secretary. Somepeople say that you are unfit for this role.How would you answer to such criticism?”

Politician: “In general, we are passing througha bad moment. But, I would like to knowmore precisely which are the critics againstme. ”

Journalist: “You hid the truth on the financial situation of your party. You didn’t comply with your previous commitment to your voters. You reveived personal advantages in return for your vote on a law proposal.”

Journalist: “If you had told the truth on the financial situation of your party, things would be better now. If you had honored your previous commitment to your voters, your party would be in a better condition now. If you had refused personal advantages in return for your vote on a law proposal, today we would be in a better situation.”

Factual and counterfactual attacks –Politician

Journalist: “You gave up on your policies under the pressure of your political allies. You took uncertain and inconsistent stances during the electoral campaign. You showed weakness in the debate with your political rivals.”

Journalist: “If you had hold out against the pressure of your political allies on your policies, things would be better now. If you had taken certain and firm stances during the electoral campaign, your party would be in a better condition now. If you had shown strength in the debate with your political rivals, today we would be in a better situation.”


Journalist: “You showed no transparency on the financial situation of your company. You eluded financial norms to get control of a limited company. You hid the truth on the fiscal controversies of your company.”

Journalist: “If you had shown transparency on the financial situation of your company, things would be better now. If you had respected financial norms to get control of a limited company, your company would be in a better condition now. If you had told the truth on the fiscal controversies of your company, today we would be in a better situation.”

Factual and counterfactual attacks –Businessman

Journalist: “Mister Barbato, you have beenthe managing director of your company fortwo years. However, after a positivebeginning, the situation is not so good now.What would you say in this regard?”

Politician: “Definitely the scenario haschanged since my election, something isgoing better and something is going worsethan before.”

Journalist: “There is a widespread skepticismaround your actions as managing director.Some people say that you are unfit for thisrole. How would you answer to suchcriticism?”

Politician: “In general, we are passing througha bad moment. But, I would like to knowmore precisely which are the critics againstme. ”

Journalist: “You gave up competing on emerging markets. You hesitated in keeping up with competing companies. You yielded to the pressure of the shareholders on marketing strategies.”

Journalist: “If you had decided to compete on emerging markets, things would be better now. If you had decided promptly to compete with other companies, your company would be in a better condition now. If you had held out against the pressure of your shareholders on marketing strategies, today we would be in a better situation now. ”


* *

Target evaluation as a function of profession, attacked dimension and style

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Morality Leadership

Attacked Dimension

Politician

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Morality Leadership

Attacked Dimension

Businessman

Factual

CF

Target X Dimension X Style F = 5.31, p <. 01


* *

Responsibility attribution as a function of profession, attacked dimension and style

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

Morality Leadership

Attacked Dimension

Politician

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

Morality Leadership

Attacked Dimension

Businessman

Factual

CF

Target X Dimension X Style F = 3.38, p <. 05


Mediation effect of the responsibilityattribution on target evaluation

.329°

.599**.372*

.473**

.491**.462**

Target: Politician

Target: Businessman

/.106

/.270

CF moralityattack

Responsibility

Evaluation

CF leadership attack

Responsibility

Evaluation


Overview


formation


of attacks


of defenses


Four types of defenses

Responsibility for the outcome

Yes No

Ne

gati

vity

of

the

ou

tco

me

Yes

Concession Excuse

Acknowledging both the responsibility and the negativity of an event

outcome

Acknowledging the negativity, but not the

responsibility for an outcome

No

Justification Denial

Acknowledging the responsibility, but not the negativity of an outcome

Denying both the responsibility and the

negativity of an outcome


Counterfactual defenses

Responsibility for the outcome

Yes No

Ne

gati

vity

of

the

ou

tco

me

Yes

Concession

Acknowledging both the responsibility and the negativity of an event

outcome

No

Justification

Acknowledging the responsibility, but not the negativity of an outcome

“…I didn’t manageresponsibly enough the national debt and I did’thonour my promises. “

“…After all the situation ispositive. All things

considered, I honouredsome of my promises.”

“….things would have beenbetter, if I had honoured

my promises. ”

“…things would have been worse, if I had ignored all

my promises. ”


Well, after all the situation is positive. Allthings considered, my decisions were

credible. In general, I restored the national budget at least in part.

Well, I didn’t manage responsiblyenough the national debt and I did’t

honour my promises. Definitely, I didn'ttell all the truth to voters. In general, I

didn’t act transparently.

Well, the situation would have beenworse if I had managed the national

debt negligently and if I had ignored allmy promises. Definitely, if I had hidden

all the truth to voters, my decisionswould have been less credible. In

general, if I had acted less transparently, I would have not restored the national

budget at all.

Factual and counterfactual defenses

Journalist: “From an economic point of view,

you must admit that we can’t really say we’re

in a good condition. In the last few days there’s

been heated debate on the way your cabinet

managed the national budget. What would you

say in that regard?”

Politician: “Actually, we approved several

measures to reduce government spending.

Among the most important of those was a

drastic cut in the high costs of the political

machinery. First of all, I’m referring to the 15%

cut in representatives' salaries. We reduced

also many benefits that representatives and

their families used to have”

Journalist: “But as a matter of fact, some

enquiries show that the situation of the public

debt is worse than you describe it. Voters are

very sceptical about your intention to fulfil

your promises regarding the national budget.

Indeed, many people think that you could have

done more.”

Well, the situation would be better now, if I had managed the national debt in a

more responsibly way and if I hadhonoured my promises. Definitely, if I

had told all the truth to voters, mydecisions would have been more credible. In general, if I had acted

transparently, I would have truly restoredthe national budget.


Perceived leadership and morality of the defendantas a function of defense

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Concession

MoralityLeadership

F = 14.143, p < .001

Justification


Mediation effects of non-improvability and responsibility-taking on defendant evaluation

-.652**-.450*

/.120

.600**

.317*

.363*

/.032

.404*

CounterfactualJustification

Non-Improvability of Past Behaviour

Moral Evaluation of the

Defendant

CounterfactualConcession

ResponsibilityTaking


Conclusion

• Impression formation Four main dimensions (Competence,

Leadership, Warmth and Morality) that may be brought back

to Agency and Communion.

• Impression management

- Counterfactual attack effective especially when focused on

a relevant dimension in the evaluation of the target's social

category (e.g. leadership or morality);

- Counterfactual justification effective in restoring

perceived leadership and morality of the defendant

(assessment of the past event).

- Counterfactual concession effective in restoring perceived

morality of the defendant (communication about the

event).

Attacks and defenses on agency and communion (milan 2015)

News & Politics

Transcript of Attacks and defenses on agency and communion (milan 2015)