Claudia Toma, Olivier Corneille & Vincent Yzerbyt

1. 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

2. General overview of my project How egocentric empathy gaps influence judgment and decision making? How the self-other relation impacts on egocentric empathy gaps? Self-other relation ? similarity (ex: ingroup, outgroup) interdependence (cooperation, competition)

3. Egocentric empathy gaps - overestimating the similarity between self and others in different situations or roles (Van Boven et al., 2000) 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);

4. Social projection (SP) Judgmental heuristic that leads people to expect that others will behave as themselves do (Krueger & Acevedo, 2005). • Heuristic or Motivated process ? • HTime pressure increase projection (Epley, Keysar, & Van Boven, 2004); • Priming increase projection (Kawada, Oettingen, & Gollwitzer, 2004); • MPeople 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);

5. Illusion of transparency (IT) How we appear to others ? the tendency to overestimate the extent to which others can read one’s internal states(Gilovich et al., 1998) 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

6. Transparency judgment Illusion of transparency Gilovich et al. (1998) - Studies 3a & 3b IT in bystander interventions

7. 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)

8. Social Projection and interdependence • False consensus effect (Ross, Greene, & House, 1977): PROSOCIALS / Cooperation & PROSELFS / Competition = equalprojection • 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

9. Cooperation (PROSOCIALS) should lead to accentuation of transparency judgments. Competition (PROSELFS) should lead to accentuation of transparency judgments. Transparency and interdependence • Collectivism is positively associated with IT (Vorauer & Cameron, 2002) perceived similarity or perceived interdependence ? • IT stems primarily from the impact of one’s own phenomenology (Gilovich, Savitsky, & Medvec, 1998) • IT occurs whether negotiators try to convey or to conceal their preferences (Van Boven, Gilovich, & Medvec, 2003)

10. Experiment 1 : SVO Experiment 2 : SVO x SITUATION

11. Experiment 1 I. Measuring SVO: RING MEASURE (Liebrand, 1984) 24 double choices – “Chose between A and B, the preferred alternative”

12. Decision 1 suboptimal Decision 2 suboptimal Unshared information 2 Unshared information 1 Shared information 3 high + 3 low diagnostic 3 high + 3 low diagnostic II. COMPUTER-MEDIATED DECISION TASK requiring cooperative behavior 4 Exchanges 4 Exchanges COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR = exchanging 3 high +1 low diagnostic information Fictitious participant = COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR

13. III. JUDGMENTS How diagnostic the received information was ? (%) • How Competitive Cooperative • -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 • you were (self perception) • other was (projection) • you appeared to other (transparency) • you could have appeared to other if you didn’t know info diagnosticity (perspective taking in transparency) IV. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS suspicion, knowing the other etc.

14. *** ns .07 Experiment 1 : results Information sharing & Information estimates

15. ns ns ** COOPERATIVE COMPETITIVE .48* -.01 Self perception Other perception Experiment 1: results Judgments & social projection

16. .09 COOPERATIVE COMPETITIVE .22 .52** Self perception Experiment 1: results Transparency judgment Illusion of transparency ? Can transparency judgment can be considered beyond self perception?

17. Experiment 1: results Judgment, information processing and decision PROSOCIALS PROSELFS

18. Conclusions Experiment 1 PROSELFS but not PROSOCIALS project and judge their cooperative behavior as transparent. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS 1) PROSELFS project /judge transparent whatever the situation/ behavior? 2) PROSOCIALS project /judge transparent when the cooperation is ensured?

19. Experiment 2 : SVO x Situation Cooperation Competition

20. * Experiment 2 : results Information sharing SVO : b = .38 (SD =.16), F = 4,58; p <.05 SVO X situation: b = .-35 (SD =.16), F = 4,37; p <.05

21. Experiment 2 : results Information estimates SVO X situation: b = -4.31 (SD =2.39), F = 2,07; p =.15

22. OTHER * COOPERATIVE COMPETITIVE Experiment 2 : results Judgments: self-other SELF SVO : b = 1.09 (SD =.51), F = 4,49; p <.05 SVO X situation: b = -.37 (SD =.24), F = 2,40; p =.12 SVO X situation: b = -1.10 (SD =.51), F = 4,62; p <.05

23. Experiment 2 : results Social projection SELF OTHER

24. .83*** .17 .59* .62** Self perception Experiment 2: results Transparency judgment COOPERATIVE F <1 COMPETITIVE

25. Experiment 2: results Perspective taking in transparency judgment COOPERATION COMPETITION SVO X situation: b = .33 (SD =.20), F = 2,59; p = .11

26. Conclusions - PROSELFS project whatever the situation/ behavior; - PROSOCIALS project only when cooperation; - transparency judgments occur especially when projection ; Limitations - exchanging info behavior = not “discriminator” enough; - other judgment ? (IT).

27. 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?

28. Social projection Self perception Transparency judgment Future research 4) Is self perception necessary for transparency judgment? 5) Is social projection responsible for transparency judgment?

29. Thank you for your attention

30. Experiment 2: results Judgment, information processing and decision PROSOCIALS COOPERATION PROSOCIALS COMPETITION

31. Experiment 2: results Judgment, information processing and decision PROSELFS COOPERATION PROSELFS COMPETITION