Presented at the 16 th Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Long Beach, CA Study 1: Effects of Target The source matters: Learning from self versus other counterfactuals Ryan J. Walker 1, Rachel Smallman 2, Amy Summerville 1, and Jason C. Deska 1 1 Miami University 2 Texas A&M University Purpose: examine how self- and group-serving biases impact behavioral intentions following a counterfactual thought A counterfactual thought (CF) is a thought about “what might have been” CFs facilitate intentions (Smallman & Roese, 2009) o Individuals can learn from the past and change future behavior The target in a CF can be the self or another person: o “If only I studied more, then I would have gotten a better grade.” o “If only he studied more, then he would have gotten a better grade.” How does the target impact intentions? Not all targets are the same o We categorize others as in- and out-group members (Turner et al., 1987) o Perceivers’ self-construal includes in-group members (Gardner et al., 2002) Hypothesis: intentions will be stronger when the target is an in-group member compared to an out-group member Six studies tested this hypothesis; three reported here. Participants in Studies 1 & 2 read four vignettes about a decision with a bad outcome (Goldinger, 2003) o Example: “[X] goes the gym a few times per week, and leaves his bag in a locker. Although he always locks his locker, this day he forgot his lock and did not want to go home to get it. When he was leaving the gym, he realized that his bag and wallet were stolen.” Intention task o Rated likelihood of performing relevant behavior  Example: “In the future, how likely are you to lock your gym locker?” o Responses on a slider scale from 0 (very unlikely) to 100 (very likely) o Half related to preventing event and half to increasing likelihood of event Rated targets on the IOS (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992) Completed the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1983) o Empathy o Perspective taking o Personal distress o Fantasy 104 undergraduate participants at Texas A&M University (TAMU) Within-subjects: manipulated the target in each vignette o Self o Close friend o TAMU student o University of Texas (UT) student Intentions are stronger when the target is closer to the self CFs facilitate intentions o This work shows that the strength of intentions depend on the target Limitations o Only examined explicit responses  We are currently extending this to implicit responses (i.e., reaction time) o Empathy moderation was only significant in Study 1  Potentially because this study included the self Future Direction o What other elements of CF thinking do social categories influence? o What other social categories influence the CF thinking process?  Race? Conclusion o CFs are social: the intentions one generates from a CF about another person are impacted by group membership Contact information: Ryan J. Walker: 236 undergraduate participants at TAMU Within-subjects: o Manipulated target group  TAMU vs. UT o Manipulated vignettes  Half of the vignettes contained a CF  Half of the vignettes did not contain a CF (No-CF) 152 undergraduate participants at Miami University o Excluded 43 due to non-compliance, suspicion, and failed attention check Group assignment o Completed a bogus personality questionnaire o Randomly assigned “red” or “green” personality Intention task o 6 vignettes written by “past participants” o “Past participants’” pictures displayed o Appeared on red or green background denoting personality type Intentions were associated with target closeness, p <.05 Empathy interacted with target closeness, β = -.12, p =.01 Artificially constructed social categories impacted intentions, t = 1.94, p =.055 Individuals develop stronger intentions when the target is an in-group member compared to an out-group member CFs lead to stronger intentions, F > 50, p <.0001 o No main effect of group, p >.10 o No interaction, p >.10 Introduction Overview of Method Study 3: Minimal Groups Discussion Study 2: CF versus Non-CF