lecture 8 Flashcards
Feeling “holier than thou”
People believe
they are more moral, kind, and altruistic than
the average person
- Better-than-average effect when it comes to
morality - Maybe because of cognitive biases?
Feeling holier than thou (seeing self as superior) could be because of
- overly charitable views of self (and accurate views of their others)?
- overly cynical views of others?
“daffodil days study 1
What is the source of bias for feeling holier-than-thou?
method study 1
5 weeks before charity event: * “Will you buy at least one daffodil and, if so, how many?”
* “Will a peer buy at least one daffodil?”
* 3 days after event:
* “How many did you buy?”
what does study 1 suggest
that feeling “holier than thou” is due to errors in judgement about self, not in judgements about others
Across 4 studies, people overestimate likelihood that they would choose the kinder action by an average of
32% (but only by 4% for
others)
what does the cogntiive bias in self perception mean
- Means that seeing self as uniquely kind is due to having overly favourable views of self and not due to being overly cynical about others
types of information on which to base predictions of future behaviour
case-based and distributional/ base-rate
case based
evidence relevant to the specific case or person under consideration
distributional/ base rate
evidence about the distribution of behaviour in similar or past situtations
people are good at estimating
the distribution of social behaviour in various domains
base rate fallacy
we tend to assign greater value to to case-based info and often ignore distributional info
when we make predictions about our own behaviours we use
case based info
when we male predictions about average persons behaviour we use
base-rate info
Idea of “average person” is vague and abstract
so no case-based info is available,
and therefore we have to rely on distributional info
base rate fallacies in self perceptions?
do we use case-based info to predict own behaviour and base rate info to predict others behaviour
study 2 method
Participants received $5.00 for participating in study
- Received info about 3 charities
- Told that future participants will have a chance of donating any or all of their study
compensation to one of them - If in this situation, how much would you and average peer donate?
- Then, learned about ACTUAL donations of 3, 7, then 13 people from
earlier study and allowed to revise prediction after each new piece of
info
what does the study 2 show
evidence of base-rate fallacies in self-perceptions
base rate info proved
accuracy of predictions o peers behaviours
what did base rate info not improve
accuracy of predictions for own behaviour
hung on to case-based info and rejected base-rate info
this doesnt rule out
self-enhancement motivation
using case-based info to judge a specific other
Does presence of any case-based info prompt ignoring of distributional info?