Are You Doing What I’m Doing? Goal Projection in Conversation

Abstract

The primary focus of the current research is goal projection or the ascription of a perceiver’s own goal onto an interaction partner (i.e., target). Extending the finding that perceivers project their goal onto a target (Kawada, Oettingen, Gollwitzer, & Bargh, 2004), two studies applied a cognitive conceptualization of goal pursuit and detection to explain boundary conditions for goal projection in conversation. Experiment 1 demonstrated that the strength of the cognitive association between perceivers’ goal and the social context moderated projection: Projection was greater for strongly than moderately or weakly linked goals. Experiment 2 established that the target’s goal pursuit efficiency and the congruency between the perceiver’s and the target’s goals influenced projection: Compared with targets’ efficient pursuit of nonidentical goals, projection was greater (a) when the target and perceiver had the same goal regardless of efficiency or (b) when they had different goals but the target was inefficient.

Keywords

interpersonal communication message production and processing goals person perception social cognition

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ames

D. R.

(2004). Inside the mind-reader’s toolkit: Projection and stereotyping in mental state inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 340-353.

Bargh

J. A.

Barndollar

(1996). Automaticity in action: The unconscious as repository of chronic goals and motives. In Gollwitzer

P. M.

Bargh

J. A.

(Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 457-481). New York, NY: Guilford.

Bargh

J. A.

Gollwitzer

P. M.

(1994). Environmental control of goal-directed action: Automatic and strategic contingencies between situations and behavior. In Spaulding

W. D.

(Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (vol. 41, pp. 71-124). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Bavelas

J. B.

(1991). Some problems with linking goals to discourse. In Tracy

(Ed.), Understanding face-to-face interaction: Issues linking goals and discourse (pp. 119-130). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Berger

C. R.

(2000). Goal detection and efficiency: Neglected aspects of message production. Communication Theory, 10, 156-166.

Berger

C. R.

(2002). Goals and knowledge structures in social interaction. In Knapp

M. L.

Daly

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 181-212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Berger

C. R.

(2004). Communication: A goal-directed, plan-guided process. In Roskos-Ewoldsen

D. R.

Monahan

J. L.

(Eds.), Communication and social cognition: Theories and methods (pp. 47-70). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Berger

C. R.

(2005). Interpersonal communication: Theoretical perspectives, future prospects. Journal of Communication, 55, 415-447.

Berger

C. R.

(2007). Communication: A goal-direct, plan-guided process. In Monahan

J. L.

Roskos-Ewoldsen

D. R.

(Eds.), Communication and social cognition: Theories and methods (pp. 47-70). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

10.

Berger

C. R.

Kellermann

(1994). Acquiring social information. In Daly

J. A.

Wiemann

J. M.

(Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 1-31). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

11.

Berkman

E. T.

Lieberman

M. D.

(2009). The neuroscience of goal pursuit: Bridging gaps between theory and data. In Moskowitz

G. B.

Grant

(Eds.), The psychology of goals (pp. 98-126). New York, NY: Guildford.

12.

Caughlin

J. P.

(2010). A multiple goals theory of personal relationships: Conceptual integration and program overview. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 824-848.

13.

Cohen

J. C.

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

14.

DeBruine

L. M

. (2002). Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 269, 1307-1312.

15.

Dijksterhuis

Chartrand

T. L.

Aarts

(2007). Effects of priming and perception on social behavior and goal pursuit. In Bargh

J. A.

(Ed.), Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processes (pp. 51-131). New York, NY: Psychological Press.

16.

Dillard

J. P.

(1997). Explicating the goal construct: Tools for theorists. In Greene

J. O.

(Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 47-70). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

17.

Dillard

J. P.

Segrin

Harden

J. M.

(1989). Primary and secondary goals in the production of interpersonal influence messages. Communication Monographs, 56, 19-38.

18.

Echterhoff

Higgins

E. T.

Levine

J. M.

(2009). Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others’ inner states about the world. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 496-521.

19.

Eddington

K. M.

Dolcos

Cabeza

Krishnan

K. R. K.

Strauman

T. J.

(2007). Neural correlates of promotion and prevention goal activation: An fMRI study using an idiographic approach. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1152-1162.

20.

Francik

E. P.

Clark

H. H.

(1985). How to make requests that overcome obstacles to compliance. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 560-584.

21.

Higgins

E. T.

(1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In Higgins

E. T.

Kruglanski

A. W.

(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133-168). New York, NY: Guilford.

22.

Kawada

C. L. K.

Oettingen

Gollwitzer

P. M.

Bargh

J. A.

(2004). The projection of implicit and explicit goals. Journal of Personal & Social Psychology, 86, 545-559.

23.

Kellermann

(1995). The conversation MOP: A model of patterned and pliable behavior. In Hewes

D. E.

(Ed.), The cognitive bases of interpersonal communication (pp. 181-221). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

24.

Kellermann

(2004). A goal-directed approach to gaining compliance: Relating differences among goals to differences in behaviors. Communication Research, 31, 397-445.

25.

Kellermann

Kim

M.-S.

(1991, May). Working within constraints: Tactical choices in the pursuit of social goals. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Miami, FL.

26.

Kellermann

Palomares

N. A.

(2004). Topical profiling: Emergent, co-occurring, and relationally-defining topics in talk. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 23, 308-337.

27.

Krueger

(2000). The projective perception of the social world: A building block of social comparison processes. In Suls

Wheeler

(Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 323-351). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

28.

Lakey

S. G.

Canary

D. J.

(2002). Actor goal achievement and sensitivity to partner as critical factors in understanding interpersonal communication competence and conflict strategies. Communication Monographs, 69, 217-235.

29.

Locke

E. A.

Shaw

K. N.

Saari

L. M.

Latham

G. P.

(1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1968-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152.

30.

Magliano

J. P.

Skowronski

J. J.

Britt

M. A.

Güss

C. D.

Forsythe

(2008). What do you want? How perceivers use cues to make goal inferences about others. Cognition, 106, 594-632.

31.

Mikulincer

Horesh

. (1999). Adult attachment style and the perception of others: The role of projective mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 1022-1034.

32.

Palomares

N. A.

(2008). Toward a theory of goal detection in social interaction: Effects of contextual ambiguity and tactical functionality on goal inferences and inference certainty. Communication Research, 35, 109-148.

33.

Palomares

N. A.

(2009a). Did you see it coming? Effects of the specificity and efficiency of goal pursuit on the accuracy and onset of goal detection in social interaction. Communication Research, 36, 475-509.

34.

Palomares

N. A.

(2009b). It’s not just your goal, but also who you know: How the cognitive associations among goals and relationships influence goal detection in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 35, 534-560.

35.

Pinel

E. C.

Long

A. E.

Landau

M. J.

Alexander

Pyszczynski

(2006). Seeing I to I: A pathway to interpersonal connectedness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 243-257.

36.

Phillips

Baron-Cohen

Rutter

(1992). The role of eye contact in goal detection: Evidence from normal infants and children with autism or mental handicap. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 375-383.

37.

Reid

V. M.

Hoehl

Grigutsch

Groendahl

Parise

Striano

(2009). The neural correlates of infant and adult goal prediction: Evidence for semantic processing systems. Developmental Psychology, 45, 620-629.

38.

Ross

Greene

House

(1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279-301.

39.

Semin

G. R.

Fiedler

(1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558-568.

40.

Sinaceur

(2010). Suspending judgment to create value: Suspicion and trust in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 543-550.

41.

Southgate

Johnson

M. H.

Csibra

(2007). Infants attribute goals even to biomechanically impossible actions. Cognition, 107, 1059-1069.

42.

Stapel

D. A.

Kooman

Zeelenberg

(1998). The impact of accuracy motivation on interpretation, comparison, and correction processes: Accuracy × Knowledge accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 878-893.

43.

Waldron

V. R.

(1990). Constrained rationality: Situational influences of information acquisition plans and tactics. Communication Monographs, 57, 184-201.

44.

Waldron

V. R.

(1997). Toward a theory of interactive conversational planning. In Greene

J. O.

(Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 195-220). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

45.

Wilensky

(1983). Planning and understanding: A computational approach to human reasoning. London, UK: Addison-Wesley.

46.

Wilson

S. R.

(2002). Seeking and resisting compliance: Why people say what they do when trying to influence others. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.