Behavioral cues to others’ motivation and goal pursuits: The perception of effort facilitates goal inference and contagion

Recent research demonstrates that people spontaneously, i.e., without conscious intent, infer and pursue the goals perceived in others’ behavior, a phenomenon termed goal contagion [Aarts, H., Gollwitzer, P., & Hassin, R. R. (2004). Goal contagion: perceiving is for pursuing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 23-27]. Three experiments extend this work by studying the basic role of perceived behavioral effort in goal inference and pursuit. In an adaptation of the Animated Film Technique, participants were exposed to a movie featuring movements of a ball that implied the goal of helping. The amount of effort in pursuing the implied goal was experimentally varied. Results showed that an increase in perceived effort led to stronger inferences of the implied goal, as was established by enhanced accessibility of the goal representation in a word completion and lexical decision task. Furthermore, as a result of these inferences, participants more strongly pursued the inferred goal of helping. Implications for research on goal inferences and pursuit are briefly discussed.     

Moral spillovers: The effect of moral violations on deviant behavior

Two experiments investigated whether outcomes that violate people’s moral standards increase their deviant behavior (the moral spillover effect). In Study 1, participants with and without a moral mandate (i.e., a strong attitude rooted in moral conviction) read about a legal trial in which the outcome supported, opposed or was unrelated to their moral mandate. Relative to when outcomes supported moral mandates, when outcomes opposed moral mandates people judged the outcome to be less fair, were more angry, were less willing to accept the outcome, and were more likely to take a borrowed pen. In Study 2, participants who recalled another person’s moral violation were more likely to cheat on an experimental task relative to angry or neutral condition participants. Taken together, results provide evidence for moral spillover: outcomes that violate moral standards increase deviant behavior.     

Asymmetric goal contagion: Social power attenuates goal contagion among strangers

Goal contagion is an important interpersonal process. As people spontaneously infer and adopt others' goals, goals can be said to “flow” among individuals. We find that possessing power attenuates goal contagion, especially for high perspective takers. In a pilot study (N = 157), we first affirmed the interpersonal nature of goal contagion by establishing that high (vs. low) perspective takers were more likely to engage in goal contagion. We then tested the moderating role of power in two studies. In both neutral (Study 1, N = 179) and low power (Study 2, N = 304) conditions, we replicated the pattern in the pilot study. In the high power conditions, however, neither low nor high perspective takers engaged in goal contagion. Our findings suggest that goals flow asymmetrically from the powerful to the powerless, which may constitute an important means through which power hierarchy and group cohesion are maintained.     

目标感染研究述评

目标感染是动机领域新近出现的一个概念（Aarts等,2004）,所谓目标感染指的是个体可以自动的从他人行为信息中推测其目标并无意识的追求这一目标。目标感染在激活对象、复杂程度等方面不同于单纯的行为模仿,在行为性质、意识水平等方面又区别于观察学习。目标状态可及性、目标情感效价等因素会影响目标感染现象的发生。已有研究中通常采用目标相关词汇、社会信息两种方式进行目标的激活。作为对有意识目标追求的补充,目标感染的研究促进了我们对个体行为的理解。未来研究尚可就观察者特征、目标熟悉程度、被观察者数量等因素对目标感染的影响开展进一步的探讨。     

Contagion or restitution? When bad apples can motivate ethical behavior

When there is a “bad apple” in the group, are we more likely to follow the example or compensate for their sins? Three experiments showed that whether a group member’s unethical actions lead to contagion or restitution depends on the presence of out-group observers. In Experiment 1, participants were more likely to compensate for the transgression of an in-group member than an out-group member when there were out-group observers. Experiment 2 varied the presence of out-group observers and showed that such compensatory behaviors occur only in the presence of out-group members. We suggest that the presence of out-group observers trigger a self-categorization process that induces guilt in individuals for their group members’ transgressions. Indeed, associated guilt mediated the relationship between in-group member’s unethical behavior and participants’ compensatory behavior (Experiment 3). These results suggest that norms implied by others’ behavior and group categorization are important determinants of ethical behavior.     

When and How Goals Are Contagious in Social Interaction

Goal contagion occurs when a perceiver interacts with a partner whose behavior implies he/she is pursuing a particular goal and the perceiver accurately infers and subsequently pursues the partner's goal. Goal contagion was assessed in conversations between unacquainted individuals. In 2 experiments, the ways in which goal specificity, inference accuracy, and goal pursuit efficiency play a role in goal contagion were examined. In Experiment 1, goal contagion increased as perceivers accurately inferred a partner's goal, but only for an abstract information‐seeking goal. In a moderated mediation analysis, Experiment 2 demonstrated that goal pursuit efficiency fostered inference accuracy, which in turn encouraged goal contagion; the magnitude of this indirect effect was strongest for an abstract information‐seeking goal.     

Mistaking randomness for free will

Belief in free will is widespread. The present research considered one reason why people may believe that actions are freely chosen rather than determined: they attribute randomness in behavior to free will. Experiment 1 found that participants who were prompted to perform a random sequence of actions experienced their behavior as more freely chosen than those who were prompted to perform a deterministic sequence. Likewise, Experiment 2 found that, all else equal, the behavior of animated agents was perceived to be more freely chosen if it consisted of a random sequence of actions than if it consisted of a deterministic sequence; this was true even when the degree of randomness in agents’ behavior was largely a product of their environments. Together, these findings suggest that randomness in behavior—one’s own or another’s—can be mistaken for free will.     

Is greed contagious? Four experimental studies

Do people become greedier when interacting with others they perceive to be greedy? It has been speculated that greed contagion exits and may have influenced the 2008 financial collapse. We examined this possibility in four experimental studies using a common pool resource dilemma. Specifically, whether participants' second‐round (R2) withdrawal from the common pool was influenced (a) by their assessment of how greedy their opponents' first‐round (R1) withdrawal was, (b) by R1 opponents' reputation for being greedy, (c) by observing past behavior of others in unrelated interactions, and (d) when R1 opponents directly confronted them with an assessment of their own greediness of their R1 withdrawal. In addition, Study 2 examined R2 interactions involving new opponents. Taken together, results suggest that there is contagion of greed. However, the connection appears to be driven by participants adjusting to their opponent's actual behavior, not by their evaluation of the greediness of such behavior. It seems that perceptions of greed do not mediate future behavior and, thus, are not necessarily contagious, but norms of selfish behavior are. In this sense, greed perceptions appear to by epiphenomenal in that they are an incidental by‐product of the behavioral interaction. We discuss the implications of these findings and suggest directions for further research.     

The object of my protection: Shielding fundamental motives from the implicit motivational influence of others

Goal shielding theory suggests that one's focal pursuits automatically inhibit the activation of interfering goals (Shah, Friedman, & Kruglanski, 2002); however, it is not entirely clear how individuals come to identify what constitutes “interfering”. Three studies examine how this identification process may be guided by fundamental social motives that individuals possess, particularly in social situations wherein goals are primed through mere exposure to others' goal-directed behavior (“goal contagion”, Aarts, Gollwitzer, & Hassin, 2004). Participants' fundamental motives for positive self-regard (Study 1), autonomy (Study 2), and distinctiveness (Study 3) were either manipulated or measured and participants read scenarios that manipulated the goal-directed behavior of a target other. Results indicated that participants inhibited the activation of goals being primed by others when the implicit influence interfered with their fundamental motives in some way. These findings suggest that fundamental motives can guide whether individuals will catch goals from others or shield themselves from such influences.     

Adjusting for the correspondence bias: Effects of causal uncertainty, cognitive busyness, and causal strength of situational information

This research examined the conditions under which people who have more chronic doubt about their ability to make sense of social behavior (i.e., are causally uncertain; [Weary and Edwards, 1994] and [Weary and Edwards, 1996]) are more likely to adjust their dispositional inferences for a target’s behaviors. Using a cognitive busyness manipulation within the attitude attribution paradigm, we found in Study 1 that higher causal uncertainty predicted increased correction of dispositional inferences, but only when participants had sufficient attentional resources to devote to the task. In Study 2, we found that higher-causal uncertainty predicted greater inferential correction, but only when the additional information provided a more compelling alternative explanation for the observed behavior. Results of this research are discussed in terms of their relevance to the Causal Uncertainty (Weary & Edwards, 1994) and dispositional inference models.     

Do I want to know? How the motivation to acquire relationship-threatening information in groups contributes to paranoid thought,suspicion behavior,and social rejection

We investigated the psychological and social consequences associated with individuals’ motivation to search for information about whether they have been indirectly harmed by members of their group. Consistent with a motivated social cognition perspective, group members who were either chronically (Study 1a) or temporally (Study 1b) high in the motivation to acquire relationship-threatening information (MARTI) made more sinister attributions in ambiguous situations and entertained more paranoid cognitions about their coworkers. Moreover, paranoid cognitions about coworkers mediated the relationship between MARTI and suspicion behaviors toward coworkers (Study 2). Consistent with a social interactionist perspective, others chose to exclude prospective group members who were high in MARTI from joining the group and planned to reject them if they became group members (Study 3). Others’ social rejection of the focal group member was predicted by their anger toward group members who were high in MARTI (Study 4).     

Cheating more when the spoils are split

Four experiments demonstrated that people are more likely to cheat when the benefits of doing so are split with another person, even an anonymous stranger, than when the actor alone captures all of the benefits. In three of the studies, splitting the benefits of over-reporting one’s performance on a task made such over-reporting seem less unethical in the eyes of participants. Mitigated perceptions of the immorality of over-reporting performance mediated the relationship between split spoils and increased over-reporting of performance in Study 3. The studies thus showed that people may be more likely to behave dishonestly for their own benefit if they can point to benefiting others as a mitigating factor for their unethical behavior.     

Significant other primes and behavior: motivation to respond to social cues moderates pursuit of prime-induced goals

Significant others can automatically activate a variety of goals, including goals that significant others have for an individual and the individual's personal goals that are associated with the significant others. Across three studies, this article shows that the effects of significant other primes (i.e., mother, roommate) on behavior depend on individual differences in both personal goals and responsiveness to social cues (i.e., self-monitoring, need to belong). Specifically, individuals who are motivated to respond to social cues assimilate to a goal that their primed significant other has for them, regardless of whether they personally hold the goal. Individuals not so motivated, on the other hand, assimilate to the goal only when it is one that they also personally hold. Implications of these findings for research on the prime-to-behavior relationship and interpersonal goal pursuit are discussed.     

To achieve or not to achieve? Comparative mindsets elicit assimilation and contrast in goal priming

Goal priming typically leads to goal‐consistent behavior. This uniform pattern is surprising given other types of priming effects, which have been found to be more variable. On the basis of previous research on judgment priming effects, we predicted that a comparative mindset to focus on similarities versus differences also affects the direction of goal priming. Two studies show that assimilation to a primed goal results if participants focus on similarities, whereas a focus on differences leads to contrast. In Study 1, participants induced to focus on similarities behaved more neatly after being primed with neatness rather than the goal to be carefree. For participants induced to focus on differences, the opposite pattern emerged. In Study 2, a similarity focus led to assimilation to an achievement prime, whereas a difference focus resulted in contrast. These findings highlight the importance of comparative processes in goal striving and demonstrate that assimilative goal‐priming effects are less invariable than existing research suggests. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Not all gifts are good: The potential practical costs of motivated gifts

People rely on support from others to accomplish mundane and momentous tasks. When asking for assistance, is it beneficial to incentivize a helper by offering a motivated gift (i.e., a gift with the hope of getting support in return)? Six studies (N > 2,500) examine the frequency and potential costs of motivated gifts. In Study 1, a third of Americans indicated that they had given a motivated gift at least once, while nearly two‐thirds believed they had received one. In Studies 2a–d, most participants who imagined receiving a motivated gift before a favor request reported lower willingness to help and anticipated satisfaction from helping than participants who imagined simply being asked for a favor. Finally, Study 3 replicates these findings with actual help provided among friends in a laboratory setting. Findings suggest that motivated gifts are relatively common but may sometimes undermine the assistance that people hope to receive.     

道德自我调节对亲社会行为和违规行为的影响

本文通过两个研究探讨道德自我调节对亲社会行为和违规行为的影响。研究一中,被试随机分为三组,分别抄写“正性特质词语”“负性特质词语”或“中性词语”,并回忆自己所经历的与关键词有关的事情。启动完成后,考察其捐助行为。结果发现,正性特质启动组被试愿意捐助的数目显著高于负性特质和中性词语启动组。研究二用同样的方法改变被试的道德自我知觉,然后对被试的作弊行为进行了考察。结果发现,正性特质启动组的作弊严重程度显著低于中性词语启动组,负性特质启动组的作弊发生率和作弊严重程度显著低于中性词语启动组。本研究表明,道德自我调节过程不一定遵循负反馈机制：虽然“道德净化效应”在本研究中得到了部分验证,但是我们的实验结果不符合“道德许可效应”的预期。     

Seeing approach motivation in the avoidance behavior of others: implications for an understanding of pluralistic ignorance

Four studies tested the hypothesis that observers tend to interpret others' actions as approach motivated even when they recognize that their own identical choices were motivated by avoidance. Study 1 found that voters in the 2000 U.S. Presidential election who chose a candidate primarily because of their aversion to the alternative thought that others who voted for the same candidate liked him more than they themselves did. In Studies 2, 3, and 4 participants who learned that others made the same choice as themselves between 2 unappealing flavors of soda orjelly beans estimated that the others would pay more than they would for their common choice. The relevance of these findings for an understanding of pluralistic ignorance is discussed.     

Trust and Acceptance in Response to References to Group Membership: Minority and Majority Perspectives on Cross‐Group Interactions1

This research examined anticipated feelings of trust and acceptance in cross‐group interactions among members of ethnic minority and majority groups, depending on whether an out‐group member referred to their group membership. In Study 1, Asian, Latino, and White participants read scenarios describing interactions between them and an in‐group member, an out‐group member, or an out‐group member who referred to their group membership. Participants from each group responded more negatively toward interactions with out‐group members when they referred to group membership. These findings were replicated in Study 2 with samples of Black and White participants, also showing that anticipated prejudice partially mediated the effects of out‐group members' references to group membership on feelings of trust and acceptance. Implications of these findings are discussed in terms of facilitating intergroup communication and conversations about group differences.     

Self-predictions overweight strength of current intentions

We suggest that people’s predictions of their future behavior overweight the strength of their current intentions, and underweight situational or contextual factors that influence the ease with which intentions are translated into action. As expected by this account, we find that self-predictions closely follow ratings of current intention strength, and that the actual probability of the behavior being predicted does not increase with intention strength to the extent implied by self-predictions (Study 1). We also find that manipulations designed to strengthen intentions to carry out a behavior have a larger impact on self-predictions than on the behavior being predicted (Studies 1 and 2), whereas a manipulation designed to influence the ease with which intentions are translated into behavior has a larger impact on actual behavior than on self-predictions (Study 2). Observers’ predictions of another’s behavior do not follow the same pattern (Study 3).