Another peek inside the cognitive toolbox:
Interpersonal and intrapersonal (emotional)
projection as a cognitive heuristic?
Maya Machunsky, Olivier Corneille, Vincent Yzerbyt
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)
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; )
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
Empathy gaps
• Cross-situational projection of drive states,
preferences and decisions
Self in current, nonemotional situation
Other people in a similar
non-emotional situation
Self in different,
emotional situation
Other people in a different
emotional situation
Adapted from Van Boven et al., 2005
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 crosssituational projection leads to less accurate
judgments (Van Boven et al., 2003).
Transient drive states - Van
Boven et al. 2003
• Study 2: Manipulation and projection of
thirst
Self in current, nonemotional situation
Other people in a similar
non-emotional situation
Self in different,
emotional situation
Other people in a different
emotional situation
Adapted from Van Boven et al., 2005
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.
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)
Self in current, nonemotional situation
Other people in a similar
non-emotional situation
Self in different,
emotional situation
Other people in a different
emotional situation
Adapted from Van Boven et al., 2005
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
Part I - Social Projection
• Is social projection a cognitive heuristic?
• Manipulation of heuristic processing
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.
Part I - Social Projection
• Is the self the basis?
• Manipulation of self-perception
Experiment 2
• Design: 3 (high versus low
sociability versus control) x 3
(cognitive load, control versus
7
accuracy motivation)
6
• Material: Vignette with
5
ambiguous target behavior with4
regard to sociability
3
• Dependent measure: Social 2
1
judgment task and self
0
assessment
• Hypothesis: Two-way
Interaction
low soc.
control
high soc.
load
control
acc. mot.
Part I - Social Projection
• Is it an anchoring and adjustment heuristic
or a similarity heuristic?
• Manipulation of similarity versus
dissimilarity processing mode
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
Experiment 3 - Hypothesis
dissimilarity - possibility 1
7
6
5
low soc.
4
control
3
high soc.
2
similarity
1
0
7
load
6
control
-> more similarity under load compared to
control
5
low soc.
4
dissimilarity - possibility 2
control
3
high soc.
2
7
6
1
5
0
low soc.
4
load
control
control
3
high soc.
2
1
0
load
control
-> more dissimilarity under load compared to
control
Part II - Empathy Gaps
• Are intra- und interpersonal empathy gaps
also especially prevalent under a heuristic
processing?
Self in current, nonemotional situation
Other people in a similar
non-emotional situation
Self in different,
emotional situation
Other people in a different
emotional situation
Adapted from Van Boven et al., 2005
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
Experiment 5
7
fe a r o f em b arra s s m e n t
• 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 selfconfidence
• Dependent measure: PANAS
before the Vignette, PANAS
and decision for self and
target in the emotional
situation
6
5
4
low self-conf.
3
high self-conf.
2
1
0
load
control
acc. mot.
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.
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?
Discussion
• Scenarios?
• Emotional assessment?