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. 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

3. - 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); videovideo - 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) 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

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

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 = 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

9. 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)

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

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

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

13. 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.

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

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

16. Transparency judgment Experiment 1: results COOPERATIVE COMPETITIVE Can transparency judgment can be considered beyond self perception? Self perception.22.52**.09 Illusion of transparency ?

17. Judgment, information processing and decision Other perception Transparency Information sharing Information estimates Other perception 1,39(*),30 (p=.11),59(**) Transparency 1,35 (p=.06),02 Information sharing 1,36 (p=.052) Decision,49**,22,05,19 Other perceptionTransparency Information sharing Information estimates Other perception,21,01,34 (p=.07) Transparency,01,22 Information sharing -,12 Decision,34 (p=.07),02,28,02 PROSOCIALS PROSELFS Experiment 1: results

18. 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

19. Experiment 2 : SVO x Situation Cooperation DECISION YOU Correct Incorrect O Correct T H E Incorrect R 4 1 2 1 Competition DECISION YOU Correct Incorrect O Correct T H E Incorrect R 2 1 4 1

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

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

22. 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 COOPERATIVE COMPETITIVE * OTHER SVO X situation: b = -.37 (SD =.24), F = 2,40; p =.12

23. Experiment 2 : results Social projection PROSOCIALSCOOPERATION,84** N=18 COMPETITION,31 N=12 PROSELFSCOOPERATION,46 (p=.10) N=13 COMPETITION,63** N=20 SELF OTHER

24. Transparency judgment Experiment 2: results COOPERATIVE COMPETITIVE F <1 Self perception.83***.62**.17.59*

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

26. 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

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

29. Thank you for your attention

30. Other perceptionTransparency Information sharing Information estimates Other perception,86***,36,42 (p=.07) Transparency,20,21 Information sharing,12 Decision,48*,38,10,34 Judgment, information processing and decision Experiment 2: results PROSOCIALS COOPERATION Other perceptionTransparency Information sharing Information estimates Other perception,43,26,35 Transparency,90***,20 Information sharing,15 Decision,49*,12,00,05 PROSOCIALS COMPETITION

31. Other perceptionTransparency Information sharing Information estimates Other perception,52 (p=.10),23-,41 Transparency,86***,20 Information sharing,42 Decision,03,20,48 (p=.08),25 Judgment, information processing and decision Experiment 2: results PROSELFS COOPERATION Other perceptionTransparency Information sharing Information estimates Other perception,61**,41 (p=.07),48* Transparency,63**,54* Information sharing,24 Decision,59**,34,17,42 (p=.06) PROSELFS COMPETITION