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

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

- 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);

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);

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

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

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)

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

• 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)

Experiment 1 : SVO

Experiment 2 : SVO x SITUATION

I. Measuring SVO: RING MEASURE (Liebrand, 1984)

24 double choices – “Chose between A and B, the preferred alternative”

Experiment 1

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

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.

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

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

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 ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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*

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

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

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?

5) Is social projection responsible for transparency judgment?

Self perception

Social projection

Transparency judgment

Future research

4) Is self perception necessary for transparency judgment?

Thank you for your attention

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

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