Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt
description
Transcript of Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt
![Page 1: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
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
![Page 2: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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
![Page 3: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
- 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);
![Page 4: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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);
![Page 5: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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
![Page 6: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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
![Page 7: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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)
![Page 8: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
• 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)
![Page 10: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Experiment 1 : SVO
Experiment 2 : SVO x SITUATION
![Page 11: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
I. Measuring SVO: RING MEASURE (Liebrand, 1984)
24 double choices – “Chose between A and B, the preferred alternative”
Experiment 1
![Page 12: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
![Page 13: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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.
![Page 14: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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
![Page 15: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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
![Page 16: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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 ?
![Page 17: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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
![Page 18: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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
![Page 20: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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
![Page 21: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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
![Page 22: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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
![Page 23: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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
![Page 24: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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*
![Page 25: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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
![Page 26: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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
![Page 27: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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?
![Page 28: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
5) Is social projection responsible for transparency judgment?
Self perception
Social projection
Transparency judgment
Future research
4) Is self perception necessary for transparency judgment?
![Page 29: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Thank you for your attention
![Page 30: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
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
![Page 31: Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051419/56815884550346895dc5e547/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
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