Chia-Jung Tsay

Sight over sound in the judgment of music performance

Social judgments are made on the basis of both visual and auditory information, with consequential implications for our decisions. To examine the impact of visual information on expert judgment and its predictive validity for performance outcomes, this set of seven experiments in the domain of music offers a conservative test of the relative influence of vision versus audition. People consistently report that sound is the most important source of information in evaluating performance in music. However, the findings demonstrate that people actually depend primarily on visual information when making judgments about music performance. People reliably select the actual winners of live music competitions based on silent video recordings, but neither musical novices nor professional musicians were able to identify the winners based on sound recordings or recordings with both video and sound. The results highlight our natural, automatic, and nonconscious dependence on visual cues. The dominance of visual information emerges to the degree that it is overweighted relative to auditory information, even when sound is consciously valued as the core domain content.

Joint Evaluation as a Real-World Tool for Managing Emotional Assessments of Morality

Moral problems often prompt emotional responses that invoke intuitive judgments of right and wrong. While emotions inform judgment across many domains, they can also lead to ethical failures that could be avoided by using a more deliberative, analytical decision-making process. In this article, we describe joint evaluation as an effective tool to help decision makers manage their emotional assessments of morality.

Creating Reciprocal Value Through Operational Transparency

We investigate whether organizations can create value by introducing visual transparency between consumers and producers. Although operational transparency has been shown to improve consumer perceptions of service value, existing theory posits that increased contact between consumers and producers may diminish work performance. Two field and two laboratory experiments in food service settings suggest that transparency that 1) allows customers to observe operational processes (process transparency) and 2) allows employees to observe customers (customer transparency) not only improves customer perceptions, but also increases service quality and efficiency. The introduction of this transparency contributed to a 22.2% increase in customer-reported quality and reduced throughput times by 19.2%. Laboratory studies revealed that customers who observed process transparency perceived greater employee effort and thus were more appreciative of the employees and valued the service more. Employees who observed customer transparency felt that their work was more appreciated and more impactful and thus were more satisfied with their work and more willing to exert effort. We find that transparency, by visually revealing operating processes to consumers and beneficiaries to producers, generates a positive feedback loop through which value is created for both parties.

Naiveté and Cynicism in Negotiations and Other Competitive Contexts

A wealth of literature documents how the common failure to think about the self-interests of others contributes to suboptimal outcomes. Yet sometimes, an excess of cynicism appears to lead us to over-think the actions of others and make negative attributions about their motivations without sufficient cause. In the process, we may miss opportunities that greater trust might capture. We review the research on when people expect too little or too much self-interest in the intentions of others, as contrasted with rational behavior. We also discuss the antecedents and consequences of these naive and cynical errors, as well as some potential strategies to buffer against their effects and achieve better outcomes in competitive contexts.

Privileging Naturals Over Strivers The Costs of the Naturalness Bias

A preference for “naturals” over “strivers” in performance judgments was investigated to test whether the effect is generalizable across domains, as well as to ascertain any costs imposed on decision quality by favoring naturals. Despite being presented with entrepreneurs equal in achievement, participants judged the natural and his business proposal to be superior to the striver and his proposal on multiple dimensions of performance and success (Study 1a and Study 1b). These findings were extended in Study 2, which quantified the costs of the naturalness bias using conjoint analysis to measure specific decision tradeoffs. Together, these three studies show that people tend to pass over better-qualified individuals in favor of apparent naturals.

Reply: The Power of the Cognition/Emotion Distinction for Morality

Bazerman, Gino, Shu, and Tsay (2011) argue that separate decision making leads to more emotive and less reasoned decisions than joint decision making. Kaplan (2014) writes that our explanation creates a false dichotomy between the emotional self and the cognitive self. His reasoning is based on the conscious experience of coexisting emotion and cognition, the role of emotion in joint decision making, and the role of cognition in separate decision making. We agree. Emotions and cognitions co-occur, and the processes coexist in both joint and separate modes of decision making. We have never claimed otherwise. Our article made the directional claim that “when people think about one option at a time (in separate evaluation mode), they are more likely to base their moral judgments on emotions than when they compare two or more options simultaneously (in joint evaluation mode)” (Bazerman et al., 2011, p. 290). We posit and substantiate through empirical evidence that emotion and cognition play relatively …

If You’re Going to Do Wrong, At Least Do It Right: Considering Two Moral Dilemmas at the Same Time Promotes Moral Consistency

We study how people reconcile conflicting moral intuitions by juxtaposing two versions of classic moral problems: the trolley problem and the footbridge problem. When viewed separately, most people favor action in the former and disapprove of action in the latter, despite identical consequences. The difference is often explained in terms of the intention principle—whether the consequences are intended or incidental. Our results suggest that when the two problems are considered together, a different judgment emerges: participants reject the intention principle and embrace either the principle of utilitarianism, which favors action in both problems, or the action principle, which rejects action in both problems. In subsequent studies, we find that when required to choose between two harmful actions, people prefer the action that saves more lives, despite its being more aversive. Our findings shed light on the formation of moral judgment under normative conflict, the conditions for preference reversal, and t...