1 / 24

Maya Machunsky, Olivier Corneille, Vincent Yzerbyt

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)

bijan
Download Presentation

Maya Machunsky, Olivier Corneille, Vincent Yzerbyt

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Another peek inside the cognitive toolbox:Interpersonal and intrapersonal (emotional) projection as a cognitive heuristic? Maya Machunsky, Olivier Corneille, Vincent Yzerbyt

  2. 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)

  3. 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; )

  4. 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

  5. Self in current, non-emotional situation Other people in a similar non-emotional situation Self in different, emotional situation Other people in a different emotional situation Adapted from Van Boven et al., 2005 Empathy gaps • Cross-situational projection of drive states, preferences and decisions

  6. 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).

  7. Self in current, non-emotional situation Other people in a similar non-emotional situation Self in different, emotional situation Other people in a different emotional situation Adapted from Van Boven et al., 2005 Transient drive states - Van Boven et al. 2003 • Study 2: Manipulation and projection of thirst

  8. 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.

  9. 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)

  10. Self in current, non-emotional situation Other people in a similar non-emotional situation Self in different, emotional situation Other people in a different emotional situation Adapted from Van Boven et al., 2005

  11. 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

  12. Part I - Social Projection • Is social projection a cognitive heuristic? • Manipulation of heuristic processing

  13. 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.

  14. Part I - Social Projection • Is the self the basis? • Manipulation of self-perception

  15. Experiment 2 • Design: 3 (high versus low sociability versus control) 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: Two-way Interaction

  16. Part I - Social Projection • Is it an anchoring and adjustment heuristic or a similarity heuristic? • Manipulation of similarity versus dissimilarity processing mode

  17. Experiment 3 • Design: 2 (high versus low sociability) x 2 (cognitive load versus control) x 2 (similarity versus dissimilarity modus) • Material: Vignette with ambiguous target behavior with regard to sociability • Dependent measure: Social judgment task and self assessment • Hypothesis: Three-way interaction

  18. Experiment 3 - Hypothesis -> more similarity under load compared to control -> more dissimilarity under load compared to control

  19. Self in current, non-emotional situation Other people in a similar non-emotional situation Self in different, emotional situation Other people in a different emotional situation Adapted from Van Boven et al., 2005 Part II - Empathy Gaps • Are intra- und interpersonal empathy gaps also especially prevalent under a heuristic processing?

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. 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.

  23. 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?

  24. Discussion • Scenarios? • Emotional assessment?

More Related