Topic: Perceptions of the Past and Future
Co-investigators: Dan Gilbert, Tim Wilson

Abstract: In this research, we are interested in exploring how people perceive the value of events that have happened in the past compared to events that have yet to happen. To address this issue, have developed scenarios that asked people to estimate their valuation of past or future events. For instance, in one scenario, participants estimate either 1) how much money they would pay a victim of a crime who has suffered for the past 6 months but is now better, or 2) how much money they would pay a victim of a crime who is about to suffer for the next 6 months , after which he/she will be completely recovered. We find that people award more to the victim who is about to suffer. Similar results were found for how people value a positive experience (a week-long vacation). We are currently working extensions of these results will lead to further insight about how people perceive the past and future.

Topic: Moral Judgments Across Time
Co-investigators: none

Abstract: In some follow-up work to the past-future value asymmetry, I have been investigating how people perceive the fairness or morality of event depending on the event's location in time. Across a number of ethical choices and moral dilemmas, I have found that concerns over fairness loom larger in prospect (for an event that is about to happen) than in retrospect (for an event that has already happened). Therefore, people's moral judgments tend to be more extreme for future events than past ones, suggesting that permission for morally-questionable acts may be harder to get than forgiveness for those same acts.

Topic: Egocentrism in Groups
Co-investigators: Nick Epley, Max Bazerman

Abstract: Individuals working in groups often reason egocentrically, believing they have contributed more work than is logically possible. Actively thinking about others’ contributions effectively reduces these egocentric judgments, but this research suggests such perspective taking may contain hidden costs as well. In two experiments with journal authors and MBA students, leading participants to think about (or “unpack”) their collaborators as individuals reduced egocentric biases in responsibility allocation. However, unpacking other group members also decreased enjoyment and interest in continued collaboration among those who believed they contributed more than others. A third study found that this pattern of results was especially true in cooperative groups where group members expect each other to contribute to the extent they can to the group’s work. In such collaborative contexts, loafers are particularly unwanted because of the clear inequity between effort and rewards. The findings suggest caution when attempting to reduce egocentric biases in groups, as members who look into the minds of their collaborators may not like what they see.

Topic: The Effects of Perspective Taking on Behavior
Co-investigators: Nick Epley, Max Bazerman

Abstract: This line of research builds on the work on egocentrism in groups. Specifically, we investigate the effect of perspective taking on actual behavior in cooperative and competitive contexts. While perspective taking is likely to decrease egocentric biases of what participants think is fair for them to receive, it may also evoke cynical theories about the likely behavior of others. In a simulated social dilemma, participants who took the perspective of their other group members reported that they deserved significantly less of the limited resource, but actually took over a quarter more of the resource than the groups that did not explicitly think about the other group members. An additional study demonstrated that those in the perspective taking condition anticipated that the others would act more selfishly, which points toward cynical attributions as the culprit that caused more selfish behavior among the perspective takers themselves. Similar results were found in a laboratory experiment designed as an analog to the fishing simulation in which participants came to the lab to bake chocolate chip cookies, ostensibly sharing resources with a group of five other bakers. Consistent with the results of the first study, participants in competitive groups who took the perspective of the other members claimed it was fair for them to take less of the limited resource (premium Godiva chocolate chips), but ended up taking more than those who performed no perspective taking. These results suggest that, in certain conditions, considering the perspectives of others might be problematic for actual behavior in groups that are determining how to divide a shared resource.

Topic: Understanding Intuitions about Sequences of Repeated Events: Perceived Intentionality in the Prediction of Streaks
Co-investigators: Nick Epley

Abstract: People can appear inconsistent in their intuitions about the sequence of repeated events. Sometimes people believe in the “hot hand”— that a recent run of hits will continue. At other times, however, people believe in the “gambler’s fallacy”— that a recent run of hits will end. These contradictory intuitions can be reconciled by considering the perceived intentionality of the streak’s agent. The hot hand should emerge in contexts involving intentional agents where events are perceived to be dependent on one another; in these contexts, streaks indicate intentional actions that should continue. The gambler’s fallacy should emerge in contexts involving unintentional agents where events are perceived to be independent of one another; in these contexts, streaks represent random accidents that will be unlikely to continue. Several studies support these predictions. The first two studies showed that people were more likely to think that a streak of hits would continue when the streak was generated by a man (intentional agent) rather than by a machine (unintentional agent). A third study showed participants a video of a person flipping a coin. In one condition, the participants are told that the person is deliberately attempting to make the coin land heads each time (intentional), while the other condition is given no such explanation (unintentional). After watching a series of coin flips, the participants are asked to guess whether the next toss will land heads or tails 1) after a series of five heads in a row, and 2) after an alternating series of heads and tails. Results show that participants in the intentional condition were significantly more likely to believe the streak would continue, while participants in the unintentional condition were significantly more likely to believe that the streak would end. Similar results were found when participants were simply focused on the tosser's intentions (as opposed to physical movements). A final study had participants toss foam balls into a grid; those with the intention of hitting a particular square each time were more likely to believe a run of three successful outcomes would continue, compared to those who had no explicit goal. These results demonstrate that seemingly inconsistent outcomes can be reconciled by considering the judgment context.

Topic: Ease of Retrieval and Content of Recall in Self versus Others
Co-investigators: None

Abstract: This research examines the extent to which people rely on ease of retrieval, compared to content of recall, when making judgments about the self and about other people. Specifically, these studies show that people tend to rely on subjective ease relatively more when making judgments about the self, but rely on content or recall relatively more when making judgments about others. The role of familiarity and similarity are also being explored to test the conditions under which this pattern of results holds.

Topic: Mood Salience and Choice
Co-investigators: Eldar Shafir

Abstract: This research examines the impact of mood salience on people’s intuitions about what choices will make them happiest. In Study 1, participants who imagined they were in good, bad, or neutral moods were more likely than those who hadn’t thought about mood to choose a silly comedic movie over an otherwise more attractive drama. Study 2 showed a similar pattern among people who introspected about how they actually felt before choosing between movies. In Study 3, mood was rendered salient by allowing participants to wait for mood-relevant information before making their decision. Those who waited for the information chose to see a comedic play more often than those who knew the information from the start. Taken together, the results suggest that making mood salient increases the likelihood that people will believe they should engage in mood regulatory activities that, in turn, may not always result in optimal decisions.