Matching choices to avoid offending stigmatized group members

People (selectors) sometimes make choices both for themselves and for others (recipients). We propose that selectors worry about offending recipients with their choices when recipients are stigmatized group members and options in a choice set differ along a stigma-relevant dimension. Accordingly, selectors are more likely to make the same choices for themselves and stigmatized group member recipients than non-stigmatized group member recipients. We conducted eight studies to study this hypothesis in different choice contexts (food, music, games, books) and with recipients from different stigmatized groups (the obese, Black-Americans, the elderly, students at lower-status schools). We use three different approaches to show that this effect is driven by people’s desire to avoid offending stigmatized group members with their choices. Thus, although prior research shows that people often want to avoid being associated with dissociative groups, such as stigmatized groups, we demonstrate that people make the same choices for self and stigmatized other to minimize offense.     

Failing to commit: Maximizers avoid commitment in a way that contributes to reduced satisfaction

Past research suggests that individuals who approach decisions with the goal of maximizing, or selecting the best possible option, show less satisfaction with their choices than those with the goal of satisficing, or selecting the first “good enough” option. The present investigation examines whether this difference in choice satisfaction stems from a difference in willingness to commit to one’s choices. We argue that maximizers are reticent to commit to their choices and that this reticence robs them of the dissonance reduction processes that leave people satisfied. In Study 1, maximizers reported a stronger preference than satisficers for retaining the possibility to revise choices, both when reporting preferences in their own life and when choosing between options in a hypothetical situation. In Study 2, satisficers showed evidence of classic dissonance reduction after making a choice - they offered higher ratings of a chosen poster and lower ratings of the rejected alternatives, relative to baseline. However, maximizers were less likely to change their impressions of the posters after their choice, leaving them less satisfied with their selected poster. These results provide valuable insight into post-decision processes that decrease maximizers’ satisfaction with their decisions.     

Risk preference and choice stochasticity during decisions for other people

In several contexts, such as finance and politics, people make choices that are relevant for others but irrelevant for oneself. Focusing on decision-making under risk, we compared monetary choices made for one’s own interest with choices made on behalf of an anonymous individual. Consistent with the previous literature, other-interest choices were characterized by an increased gambling propensity. We also investigated choice stochasticity, which captures how much decisions vary in similar conditions. An aspect related to choice stochasticity is how much decisions are tuned to the option values, and we found that this was higher during self-interest than during other-interest choices. This effect was observed only in individuals who reported a motivation to distribute rewards unequally, suggesting that it may (at least partially) depend on a motivation to make accurate decisions for others. Our results indicate that, during decision-making under risk, choices for other people are characterized by a decreased tuning to the values of the options, in addition to enhanced risk seeking.     

The role of performance-related similarity in social comparison of abilities: A test of the related attributes hypothesis

The hypothesis that individuals evaluate their abilities by comparison with others who are similar on nonability attributes that are related to performance has been supported in recent experiments. However, since these experiments did not include conditions in which attributes were unrelated to performance, they provide no evidence that it was the relationship of attributes to performance that explains why subjects compared with similar others. In the present experiment, 66 female undergraduates could choose to compare their test performance to the performance of women who were similar or dissimilar to themselves in physical attractiveness and the college they attended. In a 2 × 2 design these attributes were either related or unrelated to test performance. Results showed that only the performance relevance of college attended influenced comparison choices. Subjects compared with similarly attractive women even when attractiveness was unrelated to performance. These results indicate that identification of the conditions in which people do and do not consider the relevance of attributes to performance in selecting comparison others warrants attention.     

The gap between medical and monetary choices under risk persists in decisions for others

Decisions under risk in the medical domain have been found to systematically diverge from decisions in the monetary domain. When making choices between monetary options, people commonly rely on a decision strategy that trades off outcomes with their probabilities; when making choices between medical options, people tend to neglect probability information. In two experimental studies, we tested to what extent differences between medical and monetary decisions also emerge when the decision outcomes affect another person. Using a risky choice paradigm for medical and monetary decisions, we compared hypothetical decisions that participants made for themselves to decisions for a socially distant other (Study 1) and to recommendations as financial advisor or doctor (Study 2). In addition, we examined people's information search in a condition in which information about payoff distributions had to be learned from experiential sampling. Formal modeling and analyses of search behavior revealed a similarly pronounced gap between medical and monetary decisions in decisions for others as in decisions for oneself. Our results suggest that when making medical decisions, people try to avoid the worst outcome while neglecting its probability—even when the outcomes affect others rather than themselves.     

Parental and Secondary School Teachers’ Perceptions of ICT Professionals, Gender Differences and their Role in the Choice of Studies

The influence of parents and teachers in the decisions made by adolescents regarding study options has not been widely documented in Spain. The main aim of this qualitative study consisted of analyzing the opinions of parents and secondary school teachers about their role in the different academic and professional choices boys and girls make. Seven focus groups (4 with 27 parents and 3 with 22 secondary school teachers) from 5 schools located in urban and rural areas of Catalonia (Spain) were carried out in order to explore how both groups perceive Information and Communication Technology (ICT) professionals, gender differences in study options and their own role in adolescents’ choice of study options. Our findings show that parents and teachers hold stereotypes about ICTs and consider that gender does not condition adolescents’ study choices. Both groups saw themselves as playing a secondary role in adolescents’ academic and professional choices. Some gender differences among parents and teachers emerged regarding their perception of the ICT professionals and their own role and of others in shaping adolescents’ study choices.?The findings and their practical implications are discussed.     

Intuitions about situational correction in self and others

People's attributional phenomenology is likely to be characterized by effortful situational correction. Drawing on this phenomenology and on people's desire to view themselves more favorably than others, the authors hypothesized that people expect others to engage in less situational correction than themselves and to make more extreme dispositional attributions for constrained actors' behavior. In 2 studies, people expected their peers to make more extreme dispositional inferences than they did themselves for a situationally constrained actor's behavior. People's expectation that they engage in more situational correction than their peers was diminished among Japanese participants, who have less desire to view themselves as superior to their peers (Study 3), and among participants who were led to view dispositional attributions more favorably than situational attributions (Study 4).     

Thinking too much: introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions

In Study 1, college students' preferences for different brands of strawberry jams were compared with experts' ratings of the jams. Students who analyzed why they felt the way they did agreed less with the experts than students who did not. In Study 2, college students' preferences for college courses were compared with expert opinion. Some students were asked to analyze reasons; others were asked to evaluate all attributes of all courses. Both kinds of introspection caused people to make choices that, compared with control subjects', corresponded less with expert opinion. Analyzing reasons can focus people's attention on nonoptimal criteria, causing them to base their subsequent choices on these criteria. Evaluating multiple attributes can moderate people's judgments, causing them to discriminate less between the different alternatives.     

Group Members’ Decision Rule Orientations and Consensus

Recent speculation and research concerning the achievement of unanimous agreement in small groups underscores the importance of consensus, implicit or explicit, regarding the criteria for selecting an option from the pool of alternative decisions. Moreover, an emerging stream of research indicates that individuals vary in their tendency to make choices that are indicative of specific decision rule orientations. Although many individuals do not demonstrate consistent orientations, many others display tendencies to select options congruent with assumptions underlying maximax, maximin, and maximum expected utility decision rules. In the present study, participants were assigned to groups composed of members who were either identical (matched) or different (mixed) with respect to decision rule orientation. The results indicated that, for interacting groups, consensus was more likely in matched than in mixed groups. However, the hypothesis did not hold for noninteracting groups. Implications for group consensus and the decision rule orientation construct arc discussed.     

Making Decisions for Other People: the Moderating Roles of Risky Information,Health Claims and Product Involvement

People tend to incorporate more variety seeking when they make purchasing decisions for others rather than for themselves because such behavior is perceived as a socially agreeable behavior. Building upon previous research, the present research seek to explore the underlying mechanisms and factors on the relationship between self-other difference and variety-seeking tendency. Risky information, health claims and consumer product involvement are used to examine the moderating effects on this relationship. The results indicate that people demonstrate less variety seeking in the presence of risky information than in the absence of risky information when purchasing products for themselves, while their variety-seeking behavior remains similar regardless of whether products have risky information when selecting products for others. In addition, people demonstrate more variety seeking in the presence of health claims than in the absence of health claims when purchasing products for themselves, while people tend to demonstrate less variety seeking in the presence of health claims than in the absence of health claims when selecting products for others. Moreover, people with high product involvement tend to demonstrate more variety seeking than do those with low involvement when selecting products for themselves, while they demonstrate similar variety seeking regardless of whether they have low or high involvement when purchasing products for others. Finally, the academic and practical implications are addressed.     

当局者迷,旁观者清?自我-他人决策的理性差异及其机制

生活充满抉择,由于知识经验的局限,人们常需寻求他人建议,抑或直接请他人代己决策.诸多研究探讨了自我决策、向他人建议,以及代他人决策之间的差异.探究这种差异的动因之一在于考察何种条件下的决策更优或更“理性”.以往研究表明,自我决策或他人决策(向他人建议或代他人决策)均有可能更易违背理性决策原则,隐含着他人决策优于自我决策的“当局者迷,旁观者清”这一传统智慧有一定的边界条件.研究者一般从认知(建构水平理论)、情绪(类型和卷入度),以及动机(调节聚焦理论)三种视角对自我-他人决策差异进行解释.本文作者提出基于理由的决策(reason-based account)假设来解释自我-他人决策在理性程度上的差异.未来研究可从决策过程及脑机制上深入考察自我-他人决策差异及其机制.     

Self–other decision making and loss aversion

In eight studies, we tested the prediction that making choices for others involves less loss aversion than making choices for the self. We found that loss aversion is significantly lessened among people choosing for others in scenarios describing riskless choice (Study 1), gambling (Studies 2 and 3), and social aspects of life, such as likeably and status (Studies 4a–e). Moreover, we found this pattern in relatively realistic conditions where people are rewarded for making desirable (i.e., profitable) choices for others (Study 2), when the other for whom a choice is made is physically present (Study 3), and when real money is at stake (Studies 2 and 3). Finally, we found loss aversion is moderated when factors associated with self–other differences in decision making are taken into account, such as decision makers’ construal level (Study 4a), regulatory focus (Study 4b), degree of information seeking (Study 4c), omission bias (Study 4d), and power (Study 4e).     

Normative goals and the regulation of social behavior: The case of respect

The rational actor model has a long and successful history of explaining human motivation across several disciplinary fields, but its focus on material self-interest fails to explain the many courtesies that people extend to each other and the frequent sacrifices they make on a day-to-day basis. What promotes this pro-social behavior—in particular trust in other people? I argue that interpersonal trust is supported by normative goals, in that people trust others, even complete strangers, because of a sense of what they ought to do, by social rules and obligations they feel they must follow. In particular, people feel they must respect the character of the other person, constrained to act as though the other individual is an honorable human being, irrespective of what they may privately believe. I describe how respect underlies trust in economic games as well as pro-social behavior in other social settings. This focus on normative goals, such as respect, suggests that people do not always act in alignment with their expectations, regulate themselves in terms their actions rather than possible outcomes of those actions, and choose pro-social action not out of desire to benefit others as much as a simple acquiescence to situational demands.     

个体及同伴调节聚焦对目标追求的影响

探讨个体与同伴的调节聚焦对目标追求的影响及感知相似性在其中的作用。回归分析显示,个体促进聚焦×同伴促进聚焦交互项显著预测同伴作用评价、求助意愿及动机水平,简单斜率分析表明,同伴为高促进聚焦时个体促进聚焦的积极效应更明显。中介分析表明,感知相似性是个体促进聚焦×同伴促进聚焦交互项与同伴作用评价、求助意愿之间关系的中介变量。总的来说,同伴调节聚焦能调节个体调节聚焦与目标追求的关系,且这一作用部分受到感知相似性的中介。     

The Organization of Justificatory Discourse in Interaction: A Comparison Within and Across Cultures

Previous scholarship has focused on inductive and deductive patterns as the two predominant modes of reasoning. In this paper, we argue that there are many ways that people from diverse cultures organize their justificatory reasoning in conversation with others and that these patterns are connected, in part, to cultural beliefs and values. We report on a study of people who identify themselves as being in one of four cultural groups: African Americans, Asian Americans, Asians, and European Americans. The types of organization they used in their conversations included deductive, inductive, abductive, and narrative patterns. Abduction occurred as often as induction and deduction across groups. Narratives were used equally by all of the groups, but they occurred less frequently than the other types. Asian Americans used inductive patterns more than other types, and Asians were most likely to reason deductively. These choices did not appear to have an effect on partners' judgments, although Asians received the lowest appropriateness ratings, and both Asians and Asian Americans were given the lowest effectiveness ratings.     

How western scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica) select a nut: effects of the number of options, variation in nut size, and social competition among foragers

Western scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica) often visually assess and handle several whole (unshelled) peanuts before selecting one to transport and cache; this behavior is a search for a preferred heavy nut. I repeatedly video-taped individually identifiable jays as they landed on a feeding platform and chose from presentations of peanuts that varied in the number of items or in the distribution of sizes. I examined how differences among these presentations and a bird’s social status affected the amount of assessment and the economic consequences of choice. I also examined the specific patterns of handling peanuts, called sampling, to quantify the degree to which sampling sequences were typified by repeated comparisons among sampled peanuts (retrospective sampling), or sequential assessment and rejection of peanuts (prospective sampling). Peanut assessment was more extensive and prospective when there were many options from which to choose than when there were few. Peanut assessment was more extensive and retrospective when options were similar in size than when they varied. Scrub-jays were more likely to make repeated comparisons immediately before selecting a peanut than elsewhere in a sampling sequence. Subordinate scrub-jays, who were at the greatest risk of pre-emption by competitors, assessed peanuts less extensively and were more prospective in their sampling than dominants. Unless peanuts were very similar in size, jays were more accurate at selecting a high-quality peanut and achieved a higher rate of food storage than if they had not assessed. These results show that scrub-jays can adaptively modify how they search to improve their rate of food storage, and also suggest some of the specific search tactics used by jays when assessing peanuts. Received: 26 April 1999 / Accepted after revision: 10 October 1999     

Meta-insight: do people really know how others see them?

Although people can accurately guess how others see them, many studies have suggested that this may only be because people generally assume that others see them as they see themselves. These findings raise the question: In their everyday lives, do people understand the distinction between how they see their own personality and how others see their personality? We examined whether people make this distinction, or whether people possess what we call meta-insight. In 3 studies, we assessed meta-insight for a broad range of traits (e.g., Big Five, intelligent, funny) across several naturalistic social contexts (e.g., first impression, friends). Our findings suggest that people can make valid distinctions between how they see themselves and how others see them. Thus, people seem to have some genuine insight into their reputation and do not achieve meta-accuracy only by capitalizing on the fact that others see them similarly to how they see themselves.     

Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful: Self-enhancing biases in threat appraisal

We compare people’s intuitive judgments about how the self and others respond to threat. We propose that people hold a self-enhancing belief in ”threat immunity,” i.e., they see themselves as more secure than other people in the face of threat. In Study 1, people assumed that they threatened others more than others threatened them. In Study 2, people on project teams estimated that both they and their teammates provoked roughly equal levels of threat in others, although they experienced less threat than did other people. Study 3 experimentally manipulated threat perceptions in an interactive context and revealed that when people held self-enhancing threat appraisals, those with whom they interacted experienced lower satisfaction with the outcome and relationship. Finally, Study 4 demonstrated that, as compared to people who affirmed themselves and thus focused on the self, people who affirmed another person displayed lower threat immunity. The self-enhancing nature of these threat appraisals reveals how competition and envy emerge in organizations—or at least, how people imagine they emerge.     

A Conceptual Overview of the Self‐Presentational Concerns and Response Tendencies of Focus Group Participants

Focus group respondents are often requested to perform tasks that require them to convey information about themselves. However, despite the potential for respondents to have self‐presentational concerns, research on focus group productivity has virtually ignored extant scholarship on impression management. This shortcoming is addressed by presenting a conceptual overview of the effects of self‐presentational concerns on focus group participation. A product of this overview is a conceptual model that posits that the amount and nature of information that people convey about themselves to others is a function of their eagerness to make desired impressions and their subjective probabilities of doing so. According to the model, when focus group participants are highly motivated to make desired impressions, they may be reluctant to present unbiased images of themselves. However, they are not likely to deceive unless they are confident in their abilities to ascertain and enact desired images. Those who are motivated to make desired impressions but are doubtful of doing so are likely to protect themselves by concealing self‐relevant information or avoiding self‐relevant issues. Implications of this model for research and practice are discussed.