<p>In <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_%28psychology%29">naïve realism</a>, the subject acknowledges others' points of view while affirming the superiority of his/her own. Ross and Ward (1996) review the literature. I tried to write a summary of their fine paper, but I couldn't do it justice. I provide a link to it below.</p>

<p>In <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness">selfishness</a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest#Unenlightened_self-interest">unenlightened self-interest</a>, the subject may consider multiple points of view, but ultimately chooses by myopically predicting maximal net personal gain.</p>

<p>In philosophy, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism">moral relativism</a> is concerned with (inter-personal or inter-group) differences in moral judgements, and whether and how they can be reconciled. My point here is that your subjects' moral relativistic beliefs may impact their decision mechanisms and thus may be worth surveying.</p>

<h3>References</h3>

<blockquote>
  <ul>
  <li>Ross, L., &amp; Ward, A. (1996) Naive realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In T. Brown, E. S. Reed &amp; E. Turiel (Eds.), Values and knowledge (pp. 103–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. <a href="http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/RossWardNaiveRealismChapter.pdf">[pdf]</a></li>
  </ul>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-29T19:54:08.167Z
2012-05-29T19:54:08.167Z
John Pick
<p>Allow me to outline the observed process and three hypothetical examples below. For the sake of keeping the samples simple, I will ignore prior moral or religious convictions that a regular person would hold.</p>
<p>A person is confronted with an issue or approach to be judged. The person places themselves in the hypothetical situation and evaluates the implications for themselves according to their beliefs and convictions. The outcome of the evaluation determine the person's stance on the issue.</p>
<p><strong>What is the term for this decision mechanism?</strong></p>
<p>I figured &quot;empathy&quot; at first but that would require emotional transference with a real or hypothetical individual which is not given in this case. &quot;Reverse Projection&quot; came to mind as well, but it is a very loose fit and projection usually implies the unawareness of the person projecting while the process above is not influenced by the person's awareness.</p>
<hr />
<h3>Examples of mechanism in use:</h3>
<p><em><strong>Issue</strong></em>: Is killing good or bad?</p>
<p><em>Person</em>:</p>
<p>If someone were to kill me, it would end my life which is bad. --&gt; Killing is bad.</p>
<p><em><strong>Issue</strong></em>: Should a government provide free healthcare financed by taxation to everyone without restriction?</p>
<p><em>Person A</em> (history of health issues, low income job, insecure):</p>
<p>If I become sick again, I may not be able to afford the treatment myself. The added taxation will not concern my income bracket. The added security net thus increases chances of my survival at no or little expense to me. --&gt; Yes, a government should provide free healthcare financed by taxation to everyone without restriction.</p>
<p><em>Person B</em> (health freak, high income job, arrogant):</p>
<p>I take care of my health which is why I am not sick. The added taxation would take away from the money I make while providing no additional benefit to me. --&gt; No, a government should not provide free healthcare financed by taxation to everyone without restriction.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-25T08:02:19.853Z
So individuals accept the application of a general rule based on whether the general rule at least partially benefits themselves? It sounds a bit like a version of utilitarian morality with a dash of self-interest and rationalisation.
Jeromy Anglim
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-25T08:10:14.590Z
Yes, that would sum it up nicely in social contexts. However I am observing it as a subconscious routine that several (albeit by far not all) people exposed to experiment are able to recognize in their own decision making and which was unconscious before.
0x90
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-25T08:14:00.633Z
Just checking, when you say "experiment", are you saying that you've actually run this experiment and obtained certain results? If so, you might want to say a little bit more about your procedure and results.
Jeromy Anglim
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-25T08:59:25.073Z
I apologize for the confusing term "experiment". They do not hold up to scientific scrutiny and are thus not a true "experiment" in the scientific sense. I requested 7 people (3 male, 4 female) to make a judgement on a general rule (various rules). Afterwards, I asked each person to trace the process of his/her decision-making. All had issues with this process. When presented with the theory above, 3 out of 7 (1 male, 2 female) agreed that this matched their decision making process - thus my assumption that I'm dealing with a common and perhaps already scientifically examined phenomena.
0x90
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-25T09:44:27.433Z
Especially your second example sounds a lot like egocentrism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism)
H.Muster
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-25T18:58:22.560Z
My first thought after reading the title was that it related to the literature on egocentric judgment, but after reading the full question, it seems to be more about moral judgments in particular, which that literature has not focused on as much. Is it accurate to say that what you are interested in is judgments from the moral domain?
Jake Westfall
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-25T21:41:45.680Z
@H.Muster You're right: Egocentrism. You should provide it as the answer.
John Pick
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-25T21:49:52.237Z
@JohnPick: Nah, it's too short as an answer.
H.Muster
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-28T07:42:48.587Z
@H.Muster -> Egocentrism from my understanding is defined by the individual's inability to understand he/she is being egocentric and thus being unable to simulate the same setting in the context of a different person. This is explicitly not the case as the people tested were able to understand choices made by others when "putting themselves in their shoes".
0x90
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-28T07:44:57.740Z
@Jake -> See above for egocentrism. I wouldn't say it is focussed on moral judgements albeit they are included. The important difference is that all people identifying with this approach had no problem understanding other peoples' decisions. To the contrary, they found it easy running on the assumption that everyone else simply simulated the results of the moral choice for their own environment. This clashes with the basic assumption of egocentrism that the egocentric is unable to see past his/her limited environment.
0x90
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-28T23:33:15.193Z
I suggested prototypical prospection as an answer, but took the suggestion to make it a comment instead.  I just recently gained commenting privileges.  My thinking is that protoypical prospection means you prototype your feelings/judgments about an experience through prosepction, which seems to be the definition the OP wants a word for.
Keegan Keplinger
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-29T04:06:38.893Z
"The results of four experiments support the hypothesis that mental time travel is more prototypical in the future tense than in the past tense. That is, prospection more than retrospection is grounded in scripts, schemas, stereotypes, and other prototypical mental representations of what people, places, and events are typically like."

-JOANNE KANE, LEAF VAN BOVEN* AND A. PETER MCGRAW (2012)
Prototypical prospection: future events are more prototypically represented and simulated than past events.
European Journal of Social Psychology
Volume 42, Issue 3.
Keegan Keplinger
<terminology><social-psychology><decision-making>
What is the term for judging based on a simulation of the same parameters on oneself
0x90
# What is the term for judging based on a simulation of the same parameters on oneself

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-05-25)

Allow me to outline the observed process and three hypothetical examples below. For the sake of keeping the samples simple, I will ignore prior moral or religious convictions that a regular person would hold.

A person is confronted with an issue or approach to be judged. The person places themselves in the hypothetical situation and evaluates the implications for themselves according to their beliefs and convictions. The outcome of the evaluation determine the person's stance on the issue.

**What is the term for this decision mechanism?**

I figured "empathy" at first but that would require emotional transference with a real or hypothetical individual which is not given in this case. "Reverse Projection" came to mind as well, but it is a very loose fit and projection usually implies the unawareness of the person projecting while the process above is not influenced by the person's awareness.

---

### Examples of mechanism in use:

***Issue***: Is killing good or bad?

*Person*:

If someone were to kill me, it would end my life which is bad. --> Killing is bad.

***Issue***: Should a government provide free healthcare financed by taxation to everyone without restriction?

*Person A* (history of health issues, low income job, insecure):

If I become sick again, I may not be able to afford the treatment myself. The added taxation will not concern my income bracket. The added security net thus increases chances of my survival at no or little expense to me. --> Yes, a government should provide free healthcare financed by taxation to everyone without restriction.

*Person B* (health freak, high income job, arrogant):

I take care of my health which is why I am not sick. The added taxation would take away from the money I make while providing no additional benefit to me. --> No, a government should not provide free healthcare financed by taxation to everyone without restriction.

**Tags:** terminology, social-psychology, decision-making

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: So individuals accept the application of a general rule based on whether the general rule at least partially benefits themselves? It sounds a bit like a version of utilitarian morality with a dash of self-interest and rationalisation.  
> **username_0**: Yes, that would sum it up nicely in social contexts. However I am observing it as a subconscious routine that several (albeit by far not all) people exposed to experiment are able to recognize in their own decision making and which was unconscious before.  
> **username_1**: Just checking, when you say "experiment", are you saying that you've actually run this experiment and obtained certain results? If so, you might want to say a little bit more about your procedure and results.  
> **username_0**: I apologize for the confusing term "experiment". They do not hold up to scientific scrutiny and are thus not a true "experiment" in the scientific sense. I requested 7 people (3 male, 4 female) to make a judgement on a general rule (various rules). Afterwards, I asked each person to trace the process of his/her decision-making. All had issues with this process. When presented with the theory above, 3 out of 7 (1 male, 2 female) agreed that this matched their decision making process - thus my assumption that I'm dealing with a common and perhaps already scientifically examined phenomena.  
> **username_2**: Especially your second example sounds a lot like egocentrism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism)  
> **username_3**: My first thought after reading the title was that it related to the literature on egocentric judgment, but after reading the full question, it seems to be more about moral judgments in particular, which that literature has not focused on as much. Is it accurate to say that what you are interested in is judgments from the moral domain?  
> **username_4**: @username_2 You're right: Egocentrism. You should provide it as the answer.  
> **username_2**: @JohnPick: Nah, it's too short as an answer.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 -> Egocentrism from my understanding is defined by the individual's inability to understand he/she is being egocentric and thus being unable to simulate the same setting in the context of a different person. This is explicitly not the case as the people tested were able to understand choices made by others when "putting themselves in their shoes".  
> **username_0**: @Jake -> See above for egocentrism. I wouldn't say it is focussed on moral judgements albeit they are included. The important difference is that all people identifying with this approach had no problem understanding other peoples' decisions. To the contrary, they found it easy running on the assumption that everyone else simply simulated the results of the moral choice for their own environment. This clashes with the basic assumption of egocentrism that the egocentric is unable to see past his/her limited environment.  
> **username_5**: I suggested prototypical prospection as an answer, but took the suggestion to make it a comment instead.  I just recently gained commenting privileges.  My thinking is that protoypical prospection means you prototype your feelings/judgments about an experience through prosepction, which seems to be the definition the OP wants a word for.  
> **username_5**: "The results of four experiments support the hypothesis that mental time travel is more prototypical in the future tense than in the past tense. That is, prospection more than retrospection is grounded in scripts, schemas, stereotypes, and other prototypical mental representations of what people, places, and events are typically like."  -JOANNE KANE, LEAF VAN BOVEN* AND A. PETER MCGRAW (2012) Prototypical prospection: future events are more prototypically represented and simulated than past events. European Journal of Social Psychology Volume 42, Issue 3.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2012-05-29. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

In [naïve realism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_%28psychology%29), the subject acknowledges others' points of view while affirming the superiority of his/her own. Ross and Ward (1996) review the literature. I tried to write a summary of their fine paper, but I couldn't do it justice. I provide a link to it below.

In [selfishness](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness) or [unenlightened self-interest](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest#Unenlightened_self-interest), the subject may consider multiple points of view, but ultimately chooses by myopically predicting maximal net personal gain.

In philosophy, [moral relativism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism) is concerned with (inter-personal or inter-group) differences in moral judgements, and whether and how they can be reconciled. My point here is that your subjects' moral relativistic beliefs may impact their decision mechanisms and thus may be worth surveying.

### References

> * Ross, L., & Ward, A. (1996) Naive realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In T. Brown, E. S. Reed & E. Turiel (Eds.), Values and knowledge (pp. 103–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [[pdf]](http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/RossWardNaiveRealismChapter.pdf)


---

