Abstract
Egocentric anchoring, that is, overimputing one’s own perspective onto others constitutes a major obstacle for successful perspective taking. Accordingly, differentiating between the self and others is beneficial for perspective taking because it highlights the inadequacy of egocentric anchoring. The current research tested whether activating avoidance motivational orientation enhances perspective-taking performance (compared to approach motivational orientation), because self-other differentiation is facilitated under avoidance orientation. Supporting these predictions, two experiments showed that inducing avoidance motivational orientation (compared to approach orientation) either via goal framing or via the respective arm position enhances perspective-taking performance. Using experimental causal chain design, Study 3a supported the hypothesis that avoidance motivational orientation fosters self-other differentiation, while Study 3b showed that fostering self-other differentiation experimentally enhanced perspective-taking performance. The findings are discussed with regard to the role of psychological distance in perspective taking.
Keywords
Successful perspective taking is essential for governing the complex requirements of our social world. It is often considered the basis of human social aptitude (Mead, 1934) and represents an important process involved in cognitive and moral functioning (Piaget, 1932). Precisely, the ability to infer another person’s cognitive, emotional, or perceptual experiences not only allows for effective communication and smooth social interaction (e.g., Bazerman & Neale, 1982; Falk & Johnson, 1977). It also reduces stereotypes and prejudices (e.g., Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000; Todd, Bodenhausen, Richeson, & Galinsky, 2011).
Intuitively, psychological closeness breeds understanding of others and their perspectives. Research has extensively studied this link and indeed provided evidence for it (e.g., Zhang & Parmley, 2011; but see Hodges, Kiel, Kramer, Veach, & Villanueva, 2010). The current research considered the impact of a component of closeness on perspective-taking performance that has not been studied so far. Whereas earlier research focused on static psychological closeness, the current research considered dynamic changes in distance. We aimed at examining how two basic motivational strategies that either imply increasing distance (i.e., avoidance) or imply decreasing distance (i.e., approach), respectively, influence perspective taking. To be more precise, we tested the rather counterintuitive prediction that activating an avoidance orientation enhances perspective taking because it facilitates self-other differentiation (compared to activating an approach orientation). Self-other differentiation is an important component of successful perspective taking because it reduces overimputing one’s own perspective inadequately to others who probably have a different perspective.
The Role of Self-Related Contents in Perspective Taking
Successful perspective taking signifies correctly inferring the content of another person’s perceptions, thoughts, and feelings (for similar definitions, see Davis, 1983; Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin, & White, 2008; Hodges & Biswas-Diener, 2007). It refers to the cognitive capacity of adopting another’s viewpoint, whereas empathy refers to emotionally connecting to another person (i.e., to feeling with this person, Galinsky et al., 2008; Preston & Hofelich, 2012). One reoccurring finding from research on perspective taking is that individuals use the self as a proxy for predicting others’ perspectives (e.g., Nickerson, 1999; see also Epley & Caruso, 2009; Epley & Waytz, 2010, for an overview). Using own thoughts and feelings to predict others’ thoughts and feelings at first sight appears sensible, because self-related content is chronically accessible, and the own perspective could provide a useful template of others perspective (e.g., Hoch, 1997; Kelley, 1999). However, ample research in various research traditions (e.g., theory-of-mind research; research on biases in social cognition) has demonstrated that individuals tend to overimpute their egocentric view onto others which undermines perspective-taking performance (e.g., Birch & Bloom, 2004; Flavell, 1992; Royzman, Cassidy, & Baron, 2003).
Most prominently, literature on perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment provided empirical support for the biasing effects of self-related contents used in perspective taking (Epley, 2008; Epley & Caruso, 2009; Epley, Keysar, van Boven, & Gilovich, 2004; Epley, Morewedge, & Keysar, 2004; Keysar, 1994). Research in this tradition addressed the social cognitive processes underlying perspective taking. Epley and colleagues—the main proponents of this approach—assume that perspective taking consists of two steps: egocentric anchoring and subsequent adjustment of this anchor (e.g., Converse, Lin, Keysar, & Epley, 2004; Epley, Keysar, et al., 2004; Epley, Morewedge, et al., 2004; Lin, Keysar, & Epley, 2010). Accordingly, when trying to infer another person’s perspective, the first that comes to mind and subsequently impacts the perspective-taking judgment is egocentrically biased knowledge (i.e., one’s own perspective). However, given that perspective taking refers to the process of imagining the world from another person’s vantage point (Galinsky, Ku, & Wang, 2005), egocentrically biased contents have to be adjusted by taking differences between the self and others into account (Epley, Keysar, et al., 2004).
Hence, perspective taking requires sufficient self-other differentiation in order to be successful (see also Decety & Summerville, 2003; Higgins, 1980; Stephenson & Wicklund, 1983, for similar reasoning). So far, research on conditions enhancing perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment has demonstrated that providing resources such as time or accuracy incentives enhances perspective-taking performance, because considering differences and subsequently adjusting from the egocentric anchor requires resources (e.g., Epley, Keysar, et al., 2004; Klein & Hodges, 2001).
Going beyond effortful adjustment, recent research by Todd, Hanko, Galinsky, and Mussweiler (2011) demonstrated that enhanced perspective-taking performance can also be achieved if a mind-set fostering self-other differentiation is induced. In their studies, priming a focus on differences leads to better perspective-taking performance than priming a focus on similarities or a control condition. Based on this finding, we will argue in the following that an avoidance motivational orientation enhances perspective-taking performance (compared to an approach motivational orientation) because it facilitates self-other differentiation.
Approach and Avoidance in Self-Evaluative Judgments
Approach and avoidance constitute basic motivational orientations. Almost any goal-directed behavior can be categorized as either approach-related to the effect of minimizing distance between the self and the desired end state or as avoidance-related to the effect of maximizing distance between the self and an undesired end state (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1990; Gray, 1990). While Gray’s (1990) account of behavioral inhibition and activation systems mainly focused on the regulation of behavior in response to basic incentives and threats, another account focused more on the regulation of behavior in relation to higher order (un-)desired end states (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1990). The discrepancy-reducing loop, assumed by this account, implies moving toward (i.e., approaching) the desired end state, whereas the discrepancy-enlarging loop implies moving away from (i.e., avoiding) the undesired end state (cf. Carver, 2001; Carver & Scheier, 1990). Consequently, individuals can regulate their behavior with the effect of reduced distance between the self and a given aspect in their surrounding by applying approach regulatory strategies. Therefore, approach motivational orientation comprises approach goals as much as approach-related behavioral tendencies. Likewise, individuals can regulate their behavior with the effect of increasing distance between the self and a given aspect in their surrounding by applying avoidance regulatory strategies. Therefore, avoidance motivational orientation likewise comprises avoidance goals as much as avoidance-related behavioral tendencies. Importantly, given that representations of concepts are associated with the representation of the respective behavioral tendencies (e.g., Prinz, 1997), activating the correspondent behavior (e.g., approach or avoidance-related motor action) should activate the respective associated concept, that is, motivational orientation (see Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1998; Mussweiler, 2006, for similar reasoning).
Hence, approach and avoidance motivational orientations imply, as elaborated above, dynamic changes in distance between the self and given aspects in the surroundings. These dynamic changes in distance affect social information processing. Thus, as a consequence of activating an avoidance motivational orientation in the context of perspective taking, psychological distance between the self and the other, whose perspective is at question, should be increased. Given that psychological distance corresponds to interpersonal dissimilarity perception (i.e., self-other differentiation; Liviatan, Trope, & Lieberman, 2008), activating an avoidance motivational orientation should facilitate self-other differentiation and thereby enhance perspective-taking performance. In line with this notion, Fayant, Muller, Nurra, Alexopoulos, and Palluel-Germain (2011) demonstrated that performing avoidance motor action leads to greater differences between a comparison target and the self than performing approach motor action (see also Nussinson, Seibt, Häfner, & Strack, 2010).
Taken together, activating an avoidance orientation facilitates self-other differentiation compared to an approach orientation (e.g., Fayant, Muller, Nurra, Alexopoulos, & Palluel-Germain, 2011; Nussinson et al., 2010) and self-other differentiation promotes perspective taking (Todd, Hanko, et al., 2011). Concluding from these effects, we predict that activating an avoidance orientation (i.e., avoidance goals or avoidance behavioral tendencies) enhances perspective-taking performance because self-other differentiation is facilitated (compared to activating an approach orientation, i.e., approach goals and approach behavioral tendencies).
Overview
Three studies tested this prediction. Approach and avoidance motivational orientation were either manipulation via goal framing (Study 1, cf. Coats, Janoff-Bulman, & Alpert, 1996; Schnelle, Brandstätter, & Knöpfel, 2010) or via approach and avoidance motor actions (i.e., arm flexion vs. arm extension; Studies 2 and 3a, cf. Cacioppo, Priester, & Berntson, 1993; Friedman & Förster, 2000, 2002; Nussinson et al., 2010). Perspective taking was measured with a communication intention task based on the paradigm of privileged information (Flavell, Botkin, Fry, Wright, & Jarvis, 1968; adapted by Keysar, 1994).
To test our assumption that self-other differentiation explains the effect of avoidance motivational orientation on perspective taking, we used experimental causal chain design. Spencer, Zanna, and Fong (2005, p. 846) suggest that when it is easy to manipulate and measure a proposed psychological process, this should be done in a series of experiments which demonstrate the proposed causal chain. Specifically, Spencer et al. emphasize that “( … ) this sort of design, because it utilizes the power of experiments to demonstrate causality, often does a better job of demonstrating the proposed psychological process than does the measurement-of-mediation design.” Accordingly, in Study 3a, the effect of motivational orientation on self-other differences was assessed using the Inclusion of Other into the Self scale (IOS scale; Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). In Study 3b, self-other differences were manipulated using the IOS scale and subsequent perspective-taking performance was measured. The causal chain procedure is superior to classical mediation analysis when assessing the mediator might interfere with the process itself. This might indeed be true in the current case, because assessing perceived differences between the self and others raises awareness for this information and—as priming research has repeatedly shown—salient cognition is processed differently depending on whether it is in the focus of awareness or not (cf. Kühnen & Hannover, 2000).
Study 1
Method
Participants and Design
Sixty-three German undergraduate students (45 women, M age = 21.92, range 18–28) participated in an experiment with two conditions (motivational orientation: approach vs. avoidance) in exchange for a chocolate bar.
Procedure
Participants were recruited at a university cafeteria for a study on “text comprehension.” Upon providing consent, participants received a booklet asking them to work on the perspective-taking task which was introduced as a test on literary competencies addressing text comprehension and interpretation. They were told to read different stories each involving a protagonist and other target persons and to answer questions concerning the protagonists and the target persons afterward. Motivational orientation was manipulated as part of this instruction. In the approach condition, participants were told that it would be very important to understand the text correctly and to try and answer the questions correctly. In contrast, in the avoidance condition, participants were told that it would be very important not to misunderstand the text and that they should try to avoid answering the questions incorrectly (see, e.g., Coats et al., 1996, for a similar procedure).
After having read these instructions, participants worked on the perspective-taking task (adapted from Keysar, 1994; cf. Epley, Keysar, et al., 2004; Todd, Hanko, et al., 2011). In this task, they read five different short stories rendering them information about the communication intentions of a virtual protagonist interacting with other virtual target persons. After reading each story, participants had to indicate on a 7-point Likert-type scale that ranged from “1 = not at all seriously” to “7 = completely seriously” whether a certain target person of the respective story would interpret a given message by the protagonist as meant seriously or not. Reading the story rendered the participants privileged information about the protagonist’s intentions, namely that the message was not meant seriously. Accordingly, perspective taking was given when participants ignored their privileged knowledge and answered that the respective target person would interpret the message as being meant seriously by the protagonist. Hence, a perspective-taking score was computed by averaging participants’ answers to the questions following each short story with higher means signifying enhanced perspective-taking performance (cf. Epley, Keysar, et al., 2004).
To be able to control for positive and negative affect, participants also filled out a short version of the Positive and Negative Affect scale (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988, German version: Krohne, Egloff, Kohlmann, & Tausch, 1996; cf. Coats et al., 1996). Participants indicated on 12 items how they feel at the moment, using a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = extremely. A positive and a negative affect score was built, based on the averaged answers to items assessing current positive affect (active, interested, happy, animated, strong, awake, α = .71) and the items assessing negative affect (worried, irritated, annoyed, nervous, confused, afraid, α = .68), respectively. Given that approach and avoidance goal framing have an impact on affect (Coats et al., 1996), we tested whether the goal-framing manipulation influenced affect and found a marginal effect on positive affect, F(1, 62) = 2.64, p = .109, partη2 = .03. Therefore, and as affect influences perspective-taking performance (Converse et al., 2004), we included positive affect as covariate in the analysis testing our proposed main effect. By this means, it can be assured that the effects of motivational orientation have an impact on perspective-taking performance above and beyond affect.
Results and Discussion
It was predicted that participants show better perspective-taking performance in the avoidance orientation condition than in the approach orientation condition. Supporting our hypothesis, an analysis of covariance with motivational orientation (approach vs. avoidance) as independent, the perspective-taking score as dependent variable and the positive affect score as covariate revealed that participants in the avoidance condition scored higher in perspective taking (M = 5.04, SD = 0.92) than participants in the approach condition (M = 4.61, SD = 1.09), F(1, 62) = 4.37, p = .046, partη2 = .07. Additionally, positive affect as covariate accounted for variance of the perspective-taking performance: F(1, 62) = 5.10, p = .028, partη2 = .08. 1
By manipulating approach and avoidance motivational orientation via goal framing and assessing perspective taking with a well-established measure, the current results yielded first empirical evidence that avoidance-oriented participants showed enhanced perspective-taking performance compared to approach-oriented participants.
Study 2 sought to test whether the effect of avoidance motivational orientation on perspective-taking performance generalizes across different operationalizations of approach and avoidance motivational orientation. Accordingly, in Study 2, approach and avoidance motivational orientation were operationalized using a paradigm that works by activating approach- and avoidance-related motor actions (i.e., arm flexion vs. arm extension).
Study 2
Method
Participants and Design
Seventy-eight German undergraduate students (55 women, M age = 25.01, range 19–43) participated in an experiment with two conditions (motivational orientation: approach vs. avoidance). Participants were compensated with 8 € (approx. 10 $) for an experimental session that lasted 1 hr and started with the current experiment.
Procedure
Participants were recruited for a study on “activation and perception.” Groups of up to six individuals participated during one experimental session. Upon arrival in the laboratory, participants were seated in semiprivate cubicles, which partly hid their view from each other and completely from other participants’ screens. Motivational orientation was manipulated using arm positions (e.g., Cacioppo et al., 1993; Friedman & Förster, 2000, 2002). Conditions were block-randomized, that is, during one experimental session all participants were instructed for the same arm position (approach: arm flexion, or avoidance: arm extension). The experimenter who was blind to the meaning of it instructed participants concerning their arm position. To facilitate assuming the specific arm position, smooth sponges were handed to the participants, so that participants could better monitor the pressure administered when pressing against the table. The instruction included a cover story to prevent self-perception effects on performance in the perspective-taking task. Since Strack, Martin, and Stepper (1988) demonstrated that self-perception effects require inferences regarding the observed behavior, the cover story rendered participants a plausible reason for the arm position (cf. Friedman & Förster, 2000, 2002). While explaining, the experimenter also demonstrated the respective position. The experimenter orally instructed participants in the approach/arm flexion (avoidance/arm extension) condition as follows: In everyday life people see each other, talk to each other and form judgments about each other while they are doing something with their body, for example walking, standing, or sitting. With this experiment we aim to systematically investigate how certain muscle activities affect perception and evaluation of everyday situations. That is why we now show you a certain arm position and ask you to take that position whenever you are asked to do so on the computer screen. Take the sponge in front of you and press it from below (above) the table against it. Please use your dominant hand. When you press your hand against the table from below (above), take care that your arm is flexed approximately in a 90° angle and that your forearm is parallel to the floor. Do not exert too much force otherwise it will become easily exhausting. You will receive all further instructions on the computer screen. Please put your arm in the position you just practiced and abandon it whenever you are asked to do so.
Results and Discussion
It was again predicted that participants under avoidance motivational orientation exhibit enhanced perspective-taking performance compared to participants under approach motivational orientation. Supporting this hypothesis, participants who had assumed an arm extension position scored higher in perspective taking (M = 4.99, SD = 0.94) than participants assuming an arm flexion position (M = 4.56, SD = 1.00), t(76) = −1.996, p = .049, d = .44.
Hence, manipulating approach and avoidance motivational orientation via adopting the respective arm position replicated the findings of Study 1. Again, avoidance-oriented participants were better able to ignore their privileged information when interpreting the protagonists’ messages compared to approach-oriented participants.
As we have theorized in the beginning, avoidance motivational orientation should enhance perspective-taking performance, because avoidance fosters self-other differentiation (compared to approach, e.g., Fayant et al., 2011; Nussinson et al., 2010), and increased self-other differentiation facilitates perspective-taking performance (e.g., Todd, Hanko, et al., 2011). To test these causal steps supposedly underlying the effects found in Study 2, we conducted two further experiments following experimental causal chain design (Spencer, Zanna, & Fong, 2005). In Study 3a, approach and avoidance motivational orientation was manipulated and perceived self-other differences was measured using the IOS scale (Aron et al., 1992). In Study 3b, self-other differences were manipulated providing feedback based on the IOS scale and subsequent perspective-taking performance was assessed.
Studies 3a and 3b
Study 3a
Participants and Design
Eighty-five German undergraduate students (62 women, M age = 24.06, range 19–37) took part in an experiment with two experimental conditions (approach vs. avoidance). Participants were compensated with 8 € (approx. 10 $) for the whole experimental session that lasted about 1 hr, consisted of two independent experiments, and ended with the current experiment. 2
Procedure
The procedure of this study was identical to Study 2 except for the following alteration: Participants read the stories of the communication intention task (see Study 1 for detail) and afterward answered an adaptation of the IOS scale (Aron et al., 1992) that was included in the task to assess self-other differences. Specifically, after reading each short story and after having answered questions concerning the interpretation of the protagonist’s message by one of the target persons, participants had to indicate how close they felt to the person whose perspective they just had taken (i.e., the respective target person). Using a 7-point version of the scale, participants indicated how much overlap they felt between themselves and the respective target person both represented by a circle. A greater degree of overlap between the two circles (and thus a higher score) indicated more self-other overlap and therefore less self-other differences. A perceived self-other differences score was computed by averaging participants’ reversely coded answers to these items with higher means indicating more self-other differences. Finally, mood was assessed as in Study 2 and again did not depend on motivational orientation (F < 1).
Results and Discussion
We predicted that under avoidance motivational orientation participants report more self-other differences (compared to approach motivational orientation). In line with our prediction, avoidance-oriented participants perceived more differences between themselves and the respective target person whose perspective they had to take (M = 4.35, SD = 1.12) than approach-oriented participants (M = 3.61, SD = 1.18), t(83) 3.00, p = .004, d = .65.
Hence, results of Study 3a support the first step in our proposed causal chain, namely, that avoidance motivational orientation fosters self-other differentiation compared to approach motivational orientation. Study 3b sought to provide empirical evidence for the second step by testing whether large compared to small self-other differences enhance perspective-taking performance.
Study 3b
Participants and Design
Nineteen German undergraduate students (10 women, M age = 20.53, range 19–24) participated in an experiment with two conditions (self-other differences: small vs. large) in exchange for a chocolate bar.
Procedure
Participants were recruited at a university cafeteria for a study on “text comprehension and interpretation.” Upon providing consent, participants received a booklet containing a three-story version of the communication intention task assessing perspective-taking performance (see Study 1 for detail). Participants read the each story, and before answering the perspective-taking questions the experimental manipulation of self-other differentiation was implemented: Participants in the small self-other differences condition were instructed to imagine being socially very close with the target person whose perspective they had to take. Participants in the large self-other differences condition were instructed to imagine being socially very distant with the target person whose perspective they had to take. Furthermore, following each instruction participants saw the picture of the adapted IOS scale (see Study 3a for detail). In the small self-other differences condition, both circles, representing them and the target person were very close and overlap was very high. In the large self-other differences condition, both circles were apart and overlap was very low. Afterward, participants answered the questions concerning the interpretation of the protagonist’s message by one of the target persons.
Results and Discussion
It was predicted that participants in the socially distant condition were better in subsequent perspective taking than participants in the socially close condition. In line with this prediction, participants in the socially distant condition scored higher in perspective taking (M = 4.75, SD = 0.96) than participants in the socially close condition, (M = 3.52, SD = 1.05), t(17) = 2.63, p = .018, d = .54.
In other words, participants who were instructed to view the target of perspective taking as being different to the self were in fact better in taking the target’s perspective than participants who were instructed to view the target as being similar to the self. Thereby, results of Study 3b provided evidence for the assumed second step of the proposed psychological process: Increased self-other differentiation is beneficial for perspective-taking performance. Together with results from Study 3a, empirical support is provided for the complete proposed casual chain of why avoidance enhances perspective-taking performance. Avoidance motivational orientation increases self-other differentiation compared to approach motivational orientation and increased self-other differentiation fosters perspective-taking performance compared to decreased self-other differentiation.
General Discussion
The current research tested whether activating an avoidance motivational orientation enhances perspective-taking performance (compared to an approach orientation), because it facilitates self-other differentiation. Studies 1 and 2 found that inducing avoidance orientation enhances perspective taking (compared to approach orientation). Importantly, results were the same, regardless of whether motivational orientation had been manipulated via goal framing or via related behavioral tendencies. Hence, possible alternative explanations for the effect of motor action on perspective taking (e.g., potential interferences between the motor manipulation and the perspective-taking task) cannot account for the current findings.
Studies 3a and 3b provided evidence for the assumed process making use of a causal chain approach (Spencer et al., 2005): Avoidance orientation lead to higher perceived self-other differences and self-other differences lead to better perspective taking. This suggests that because avoidance motivational orientation fosters self-other differentiation, perspective-taking performance is enhanced under this motivational orientation compared to approach motivational orientation.
At first sight, it may appear surprising that a motivational strategy creating psychological distance (i.e., avoidance) fosters perspective taking. Psychological distance has been demonstrated to be related to less emotional involvement (e.g., Van Boven, Kane, McGraw, & Dale, 2010) and to muted reactions of depicted antisocial behavior (e.g., Williams & Bargh, 2008). However, these findings rather suggest that psychological distance is negatively correlated with emotional reactions to others’ fortunes (i.e., empathy). As the current research exclusively focuses on the cognitive capability to accurately adopt another person’s viewpoint (i.e., perspective taking), it would be open for future research to test whether psychological distance harms empathy while fostering perspective-taking performance.
Somewhat related to this notion, the current findings appear remarkable given that approach orientation goes together with reducing psychological distance which is indicative of close relationships (e.g., Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson 1991; Aron et al., 2004). Close relationships have been demonstrated to go along with enhanced empathic accuracy (e.g., Stinson & Ickes, 1992). This positive relation between psychological closeness and (different aspects of) perspective-taking performance is often explained by enhanced knowledge that close partners gathered about each other during their relationship. Based on this knowledge, they can more accurately derive their partner’s thoughts and feelings (e.g., Aron et al., 1991, 2004; Ickes, 1993). Moreover, this knowledge might undermine egocentric anchoring in the first place, because others’ thoughts and feelings do not have to be inferred if knowledge about past thoughts and feelings is given. Accordingly, it seems likely that psychological closeness in close relationships improves perspective-taking performance. To be more precise, it rather does no harm to perspective-taking performance as fewer differences exist between the self and the other which reduces the necessity for self-other differentiation in this special case.
Perspective taking is conceptualized as a two-step process of egocentric anchoring and adjustment in this research. This theoretical framework implies that perspective taking is enhanced when the influence of the egocentric anchor is reduced and that sufficient self-other differentiation promotes successful perspective taking. In line with this notion, the current findings show that increased self-other differentiation enhances perspective-taking performance, indicated by a less egocentrically biased perspective-taking judgment. However, what still remains unclear is how exactly self-other differentiation and egocentric anchoring are intertwined and whether a reduction of egocentric anchoring is the antecedent or the consequence of self-other differentiation.
Egocentric anchoring refers to putting self-related contents into use for a judgment about another’s perspective (see Epley, 2008; Epley & Caruso, 2009). Self-other differentiation refers to the process of discriminating between the self and others (e.g., Higgins, 1980). When considering these two processes as well as the current findings, it appears most plausible that self-other differentiation is the process through which egocentric anchoring is actually reduced. As any prime, the egocentric anchor is affected by the rule of Accessibility × Applicability determining whether an anchor impacts judgment and decision making (e.g., Higgins, Rholes, & Jones, 1977). Now, self-other differentiation should reduce applicability of the egocentric anchor (i.e., of self-related contents) in the perspective-taking judgment, because differentiating between the self and others highlights inadequacy (inapplicability) of self-related contents to be used for predictions about others. Correspondingly, avoidance motivational orientation increases psychological distance (i.e., self-other differentiation) which ultimately results in a less egocentrically biased perspective-taking judgment. By contrast, it appears unlikely that avoidance motivational orientation affects accessibility of the egocentric anchor, because this would mean switching off access to the most prevalent knowledge—knowledge about and provided by the self. Nevertheless, the possibility of accessibility of self-related contents being affected by motivational orientation remains to be tested by future research.
To conclude, when it comes to inferring the perspectives of (less acquainted) others, self-other differentiation plays a crucial role and activating an avoidance orientation enhances perspective-taking performance because it facilitates self-other differentiation compared to activating an approach orientation. Hence, results confirm the rather counterintuitive notion that psychological distance creates a better understanding than psychological closeness. Thereby, the current research allows for an extension of a well-known proverb: distance makes the mind grow stronger.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Daniela Ahlberg, Nina Anger, Oliver Baierl, Katharina Becher, Angelika Bertsche, Lea Bodner, Ole Denzler, Lea Ellinger, Julia Goernandt, Dorothee Hoppe, Philipp Huber, Fabienne Kernhof, Melanie Klinkosch, Tanja Link, Friedrich Meixner, Aylin Soenmez, Konstantin Schmid, Lena Staudigl, Ann-Kristin Wagner, and Michael Wagner for their assistance in data collection.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the NWO (grant number 452-07-006).