|
Article
| Cognition
|
July 2019
I Know Why You Voted for Trump: (Over)inferring Motives Based on Choice
by
Kate Barasz, Tami Kim and Ioannis Evangelidis
|
Abstract
People often speculate about why others make the choices they do. This paper investigates how such inferences are formed as a function of what is chosen. Specifically, when observers encounter someone else's choice (e.g., of political candidate), they use the chosen option's attribute values (e.g., a candidate's specific stance on a policy issue) to infer the importance of that attribute (e.g., the policy issue) to the decision-maker. Consequently, when a chosen option has an attribute whose value is extreme (e.g., an extreme policy stance), observers infer—sometimes incorrectly—that this attribute disproportionately motivated the decision-maker's choice. Seven studies demonstrate how observers use an attribute's value to infer its weight—the value-weight heuristic—and identify the role of perceived diagnosticity: more extreme attribute values give observers the subjective sense that they know more about a decision-maker's preferences and, in turn, increase the attribute's perceived importance. The paper explores how this heuristic can produce erroneous inferences and influence broader beliefs about decision-makers.
Keywords: self-other difference;
social perception;
inference-making;
preferences;
consumer behavior;
prediction;
prediction error;
Decision Choices and Conditions;
Perception;
Behavior;
Forecasting and Prediction;
