Predicting persons' versus a person's goodness: Behavioral forecasts diverge for individuals versus populations

• Autores: Clayton R. Critcher, David Dunning
• Localización: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, ISSN 0022-3514, ISSN-e 1939-1315, Vol. 104, Nº. 1, 2013, págs. 28-44
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Behavioral forecasts of individuals ("How likely is it a randomly selected person will...") and behavioral forecasts of populations ("What percentage of people will...") are often used interchangeably. However, 6 studies showed that behavioral forecasts of individuals and populations systematically differ. In judgments of morally relevant behaviors, forecasters estimated that a randomly selected individual (e.g., a student) would act more selflessly (e.g., give to charity) than would the population from which the individual was drawn (e.g., the student body). The studies provided consistent support for 1 of 5 possible explanations for the effect, a differential sensitivity to constraints hypothesis. When considering how an individual will behave, people give weight to an individual-level force on behavior: what an individual's moral conscience would lead one to do. When considering a population, forecasters give more emphasis to a group-level force on behavior: social norms and pressures. A final study extended the differential sensitivity to constraints account to forecasts of non-morally relevant behaviors. Individuals were forecast as more likely than populations to perform behaviors that emerge primarily because of an individual-level force--a person's will--but not behaviors that are encouraged by social norms. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)