another peek inside the cognitive toolbox: interpersonal and intrapersonal (emotional) projection as...

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






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)

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.


• Is the self the basis?

• Manipulation of self-perception

Experiment 2• Design: 3 (high versus low

sociability versus control) x 3 (cognitive load, control versus accuracy motivation)



• Hypothesis: Two-way Interaction

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

load control acc. mot.

low soc.controlhigh soc.


• 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)



• Hypothesis: Three-way interaction

Experiment 3 - Hypothesisdissimilarity - possibility 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

load control


dissimilarity - possibility 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

load control


similarity

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

load control


-> 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?






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?

Discussion

• Scenarios?

• Emotional assessment?

another peek inside the cognitive toolbox: interpersonal and intrapersonal (emotional) projection as...

Documents