1 / 32

The Role of Correspondence Bias in the Side-Effect Effect

The Role of Correspondence Bias in the Side-Effect Effect. Craig Howey Andy Vonasch Dr. Roy Baumeister. The Side-Effect Effect.

oren
Télécharger la présentation

The Role of Correspondence Bias in the Side-Effect Effect

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Role of Correspondence Bias in the Side-Effect Effect Craig Howey Andy Vonasch Dr. Roy Baumeister

  2. The Side-Effect Effect The vice president of a company went to the chairman of the board and said, “We are thinking of starting a new program. It will help us increase profits, but it will also help the environment.” The CEO of the board answered, “I don’t care at all about helping the environment. I just want to make as much profit as I can. Let’s start the new program.” They started the new program. Sure enough, the environment was helped. Knobe, J. (2003). Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis, 63(3), 190-194)

  3. Side-Effect Effect Results

  4. Explanation Harming Environment Bad Side-Effect Intentional Helping Environment Good Side-Effect Not Intentional MORAL STATUS OF THE ACTION affects our determination of intentionality.

  5. Research Question What other MORAL JUDGMENTS influence our assessment of intentionality?

  6. Correspondence Bias Observe Behavior Make Internal Attributions and Devalue External Attributions Gilbert, D., & Malone, P. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 21- 38.

  7. Spontaneous Inferences “… these results suggest that participants spontaneously formed and encoded dispositional judgments …” Were participants in the original side-effect effect experiment making spontaneous inferences about the CEO? Winter, L., & Uleman, J. (1984). When are social judgments made? Evidence for the spontaneousness of trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(2), 237-252.

  8. Study 1 Hypothesis: Participants will judge the CEO in the help condition to be a significantly better person than the CEO in the harm condition.

  9. Study 1 Results Key: 1 = Very Bad Person, 7 = Very Good Person

  10. Study 1 Conclusion Hypothesis Supported: Participants perceived the CEO in the help condition as being a significantly better person than the CEO in the harm condition, p < .001.

  11. Now What? Participants were making moral judgments about the CEO, but were those judgments influencing their assessmentsof intentionality?

  12. Study 1 Hypothesis: The perceived moral status of the CEO will influence participants’ determinations of whether or not that agent acted intentionally.

  13. Partial Mediation Agent’s Attitude Toward Environment B = -.41 B = -.62 B = 5.07 Harm/Help Intentionality Support for partial mediation found through Hayes’ (2012) Bootstrapping Technique.

  14. Study 1 Conclusion Hypothesis Supported: The CEO’s perceived environmental values partially mediated the effect of condition on judgments of intentionality.

  15. What’s Next? Pilot Study: Participants make moral judgments. Study 1: These judgments influence judgments of intentionality. Next: Manipulate descriptions of the CEO to determine whether the moral status of the CEO influences assessments.

  16. Study 2 Method: Provide the original side-effect effect experiment vignettes with descriptions of the CEO as being either pro-environment or anti-environment. Four Conditions: • Pro-Environment / Help • Pro-Environment / Harm • Anti-Environment / Help • Anti-Environment / Harm

  17. Study 2 Hypothesis: The moral status of the CEO (whether the CEO is described as being pro-environment or anti-environment) will influence participants’ judgments intentionality.

  18. Study 2 Results Key: 0 = Not Intentional, 100 = Very Intentional

  19. Study 2 Results Hypothesis Supported: participants in the pro-environment condition were significantly more likely than participants in the anti-environment condition to judge that the CEO brought about an outcome intentionally, p = .015.

  20. Deep Self Model Concordance Criterion: Does the outcome concord with the psychological attitudes of the agent’s Deep Self (i.e. values and beliefs)? More Concordance More Intentional Less Concordance Less Intentional Sripada, C.S., Mental state attributions and the side-effect effect, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (2011), doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.008

  21. Study 2 Hypothesis: Participants will assign greater intentionality when the moral status of the outcome matches the moral status (Deep Self) of the CEO. 2a. Pro/Help more intentional than Anti/Help and 2b. Anti/Harm more intentional than Pro/Harm

  22. Hypothesis 2a Results Key: 0 = Not Intentional, 100 = Very Intentional

  23. Hypothesis 2a Conclusion Hypothesis Supported: participants in the pro-environment / help condition assigned greater intentionality to the CEO for helping the environment than did participants in the anti-environment / helpcondition, p = .044.

  24. Study 2 Hypothesis: Participants will assign greater intentionality when the moral status of the outcome matches the moral status (Deep Self) of the CEO. 2a. Pro/Help more intentional than Anti/Help and 2b. Anti/Harm more intentional than Pro/Harm

  25. Hypothesis 2b Results Key: 0 = Not Intentional, 100 = Very Intentional

  26. Hypothesis 2b Conclusion Hypothesis not supported: Participants were not more likely to say that the CEO acted intentionally when the outcome was bad even when the CEO’s moral status was concordant with that of the outcome. Interesting…

  27. Hypotheses 2a and 2b *

  28. Conclusions The side-effect effect was successfully replicated.

  29. Conclusions Participants were making significantly different moral judgments about the CEO based on the information provided in the vignette.

  30. Conclusions The moral status of the agent influenced assessments of intentionality.

  31. Conclusions Finally, the Deep Self Model was partially supported: • Congruence of agent and outcome did influence assessment of intentionality, but only when the outcome was positive. *

  32. Acknowledgments • Dr. Roy Baumeister, Honors Thesis Director • Dr. Colleen Kelley, Committee Member • Dr. Michael Bishop, Committee Member • Mr. Andy Vonasch, Graduate Supervisor

More Related