USING THIN SLICES PARADIGM TO EXPLAIN PEOPLES ACCURACY IN PREDICTING OTHRES SOCIAL-VALUE ORIENTATION IN AN INTERDEPENDENCY SITUATION

Loredana IvanFaculty of Communication and Public Relations, SNSPA, Bucharest, Romania loredana.ivan@comunicare.ro

Peoples social value orientationVan Lange et al. (1997, 1998)

Prosocials: all for one and one for all!

Individualits:let the best win! Competitors:

Commitment model Frank (1988)Emotions commit us to engage in performing actions against our best interests

People could behave altruistic because the feel bad otherwise

When others realise this about them, they will be chosen as interaction partners

People are a able to decode subtle cues about others level of commitment

A graphical representation of Frank model

Using thin slices experimental paradigm (Ambady, 1992, 1993, 2000, 2006)People can form accurate impression on others, in briefly exposing situationsA thin slice is a short dynamic behavioral extract use as a base for stimulus person evaluation Thin slices paradigm proved valid when subjects estimated others: -values - performances (teaching, job interviews, sales) -personality features -quality of interactions

What we should expect?holier than thou effect (Epley & Dunning, 2000) - people systematically underestimate others morality

holier than thou effect accentuated in case of individualists compare to prosocials (Van Lange &. Kuhlman, 1994) because people take themselves as anchors

What is new? Is holier than thou effect larger when people compare themselves with real others or when people compare themselves with abstract others?Are people able to decode others social value orientation in a thin slices situation?What moderator variables can explain subjects accuracy?

ParticipantsEvaluators: 89 students The Faculty of Sociology and Social Work, University of Bucharest, 76 female and 13 male

Stimulus persons: 56 subjects University of Groningen, The Netherlands Faculty of Biology and Faculty of Management

Procedure dictator gamePerson A gets 30 lei from the experimenter and she can divide the money with Person B as she wants to. Person A know about her options and Person B can not influence in any way her decision. The money will be divided as Person A decided. Supposing you are in the position of Person A, what would you do with the 30 lei received from the experimenter? I keep the 30 lei and give 0 lei to Person B I keep 25 lei and give 5 lei to Person B I keep 20 lei and give 10 lei to Person B I keep 15 lei and give 15 lei to Person B

Figure.1. Holier than thou effect. Subjects have underestimated the other participants prosocial behavior

Chart3

16.949

17.579

26.2919.1

39.362.9

estimate behavior of the fellow participants

real behavior of the fellow participants

0 lei 5 lei 10 lei 15 lei

Sheet1

16.949

17.579

26.2919.1

39.362.9

Sheet1

00

00

00

00

estimate behavior of the fellow participants

real behavior of the fellow participants

0 lei 5 lei 10 lei 15 lei

Sheet2

Sheet3

Figure 2. The difference between self-perception, abstract others(fellow participants) perception and concrete others(stimulus persons) perception in the dictator game: nicer than thou effect

Chart3

916.943.9

917.5721.4

19.126.2928.7

62.939.325.5

subjects' behavior in dictator game

estimating "abstract others" behavior (fellow participants)

estimating "concrete others" behavior (stimulus persons)

0 lei 5 lei 10 lei 15 lei

Sheet1

916.943.9

917.5721.4

19.126.2928.7

62.939.325.5

Sheet1

000

000

000

000

subjects' behavior in dictator game

estimating "abstract others" behavior (fellow participants)

estimating "concrete others" behavior (stimulus persons)

0 lei 5 lei 10 lei 15 lei

Sheet2

Sheet3

Were subjects accurate in decoding stimulus persons real behavior? On group level: correlate the valide group estimation for a each stimulus persons with stimuls persons real behavior (r = 0,498, p

Using Face and Body PONS as predictorFace and Body PONS (Rosenthal et al. 1979) measures people general ability to decode nonverbal cues on visual channel(r = - 0,210, p < 0,050)

Rational Experiential Inventory (REI, Epstein et al. 1996) as a predictor for peoples accuracy Peoples belive in intuition was an important predictor on subjects accuracy in decoding others social value orientation ( =0,266, t = 2,563, p

Discussion (1)63 % o subjects chose to share money with a person they have never known before and they are not supposed to know in the futureWhen people had to estimate concrete others prosocial behavior, being briefly exposed to unknown stimulus persons, the honesty error became even larger. Nicer than thou effect

Discussion (2)Some people are accurate in decoding others social value orientation in a thin slices situationAccuracy is larger on group level

When people relay on intuition they are more accurate than when the use cognition