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. 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

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. Transient drive states - Van Boven et al. 2003 Study 2: Manipulation and projection of thirst 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

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 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

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. Part II - Empathy Gaps Are intra- und interpersonal empathy gaps also especially prevalent under a heuristic processing? 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

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?