Search

Theoretical work on attitudinal ambivalence suggests that anticipated regret may play a role in causing awareness of contradictions that subsequently induce a feeling of an evaluative conflict. In the present paper we empirically examined how the anticipation of regret relates to the association between the simultaneous presence of contradictory cognitions and emotions (objective ambivalence), and the evaluative conflict associated with it (subjective ambivalence), in the context of decision-making. Across three studies ( N s = 204,127,244), manipulating both objective ambivalence and regret, we consistently found that when a dichotomous ambivalent choice had to be made, (objectively) ambivalent attitude holders for whom feelings of anticipated regret were made salient reported higher levels of subjective-attitude ambivalence than participants in the other conditions. Moreover, in Studies 2 and 3 we found that the effect of anticipated regret on subjective ambivalence had consequences on information processing. Specifically, anticipating regret made ambivalent participants search for attitude-congruent information. This effect was mediated by the increase in subjective ambivalence. This work provides the first empirical evidence for the role of regret in the association between objective-and- subjective attitude ambivalence, and its consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why do some people escalate commitment to a project that is unlikely to succeed? Existing research shows that people tend to escalate when prior expenditures (e.g., sunk costs) are high, whereas other research suggests that people tend to escalate when a project nears completion, regardless of prior expenditures. In this paper, we argue that decision-makers have diverse goals driven by regulatory foci that represent alternative motivations for escalation. Specifically, people who regulate their behaviour towards achieving gains (i.e., a promotion focus) are influenced more strongly by proximity to project completion than those who focus on the presence or absence of losses (i.e., a prevention focus). Across empirical studies using different operationalizations of regulatory focus, we show that increased promotion focus, but not prevention focus, exacerbates escalation behaviour as a project nears completion. Our findings highlight the importance of accounting for individual motivations when designing interventions to curb escalation behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hsee and Zhang (2004) argued that when people face a decision and must predict future affective states, they are often in a joint evaluation (JE) mode where direct comparisons between different choice options are relatively easy. When actually experiencing (or predicting affective states for) only one of these options, people are usually in single evaluation (SE) mode where direct comparisons are more difficult. This situational difference in evaluation mode was observed to lead to overpredictions of positive affect (happiness) when people were in JE in comparison to SE for options that were quantitatively different, but there were no overpredictions for options that were qualitatively different. This effect was coined distinction bias. In the present paper, we replicated (and extended on) Studies 1 and 2 from Hsee and Zhang with 824 MTurk participants. In Study 1 we replicated the original findings: Relative to people in SE, people in JE overpredicted the happiness derived from quantitatively different hypothetical scenarios (i.e., selling 80 vs 160 books, or 160 vs 240 books), but did not overpredict the difference between qualitatively different hypothetical scenarios (i.e., selling 0 books vs 80 books; 0 being the implicit reference point that makes the two scenarios qualitatively different). Study 2 failed to find support for the original findings: People in JE did not consistently overpredict happiness for quantitatively different scenarios (i.e., copy-pasting 25 negative words vs 10 negative words, or 10 positive words vs 25 positive words). Taken together, the present paper provides mixed support for distinction bias. • People can easily compare the relevant features of multiple options in an array. • Presented with a single option, comparisons are less easy. • People thus overpredict differences in affective outcomes for options in an array. • Two replications provide mixed support for this theory of distinction bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper tests the competing hypotheses that social dominance orientation (SDO) reflects a specific desire to protect ingroup interests vs. a general desire to maintain status hierarchies by examining attitudes toward hierarchy-enhancing (i.e., legacy) and hierarchy-attenuating (i.e., affirmative action) selection policies. Study 1 found that social dominance orientation (SDO) was positively related to support for legacy policies and negatively related to support for affirmative action. In a more direct test of the ingroup interest vs. general dominance hypotheses, Study 2 found that among Asian participants, SDO is negatively related to policy support when a legacy policy is perceived to benefit the ingroup (i.e., fellow Asians); however, when the policy is perceived to benefit the dominant group (i.e., Whites), SDO is positively related to support. In all, these findings suggest that attitudes toward selection policies depend not on their specific content or effects on the ingroup, but rather on their impact on status hierarchies. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This study examines how attachment styles affect business negotiations, particularly, the impasses that negotiation research has rarely investigated. Extending attachment theory to the managerial principal–agent literature, this paper explains when and why agents effectively negotiate on behalf of their principals. We experimentally primed distinct principal-agent attachments (i.e., secure, anxious, or avoidant). In the simulation, negotiators'' underlying interests were incompatible—the negotiation had no actual bargaining zone. However, agents were motivated to reach a deal, which would not be in the best interest of their principals. Agents securely attached to their principals avoided ill-fated deals (at their own expense); whereas agents avoidantly attached were most likely to agree to an ill-fated deal, thereby jeopardizing their principals'' interests. An analysis of participants'' own descriptions of why they reached such decisions reveals that secure agents negotiated for the best interest of their principals; whereas anxious and avoidant counterparts were oblivious to the principals'' underlying interests. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The question raised in this paper is whether goal conflicts can occur outside of conscious awareness. Given the numerous and potentially conflicting goals people pursue, and the severe scarcity of mental resources, we offer a positive answer. Six experiments that employed a dissociation paradigm tested this hypothesis. Using three implicit behavioral markers of goal conflict (increased decision times, increased decision variance and heightened sensitivity to environmental information), and one physiological marker (increased arousal as measured by skin conductance level), these experiments document goal conflicts that do not reach conscious awareness. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: In both organizational and social arenas, individuals make decisions for themselves and for other individuals. But research in decision making has provided little input into whether or how these decisions are psychologically different. In this paper, I propose that decisions—depending on whom they are for—vary according to the extent of information distortion, such that, individuals who choose for themselves demonstrate more postdecisional distortion, yet less predecisional distortion than individuals who choose on behalf of others. To test this hypothesis, participants in an experiment made a decision between two restaurants. Attributes about each restaurant were presented sequentially, and preferences were measured following each attribute. As expected, participants who chose for themselves experienced more postdecisional distortion. However, among participants who chose on behalf of others, greater distortion of predecisional attribute information was observed. These findings shed light on the differences in self-other decision making, as well as on research concerning information distortion. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Participants are not always as diligent in reading and following instructions as experimenters would like them to be. When participants fail to follow instructions, this increases noise and decreases the validity of their data. This paper presents and validates a new tool for detecting participants who are not following instructions – the Instructional manipulation check (IMC). We demonstrate how the inclusion of an IMC can increase statistical power and reliability of a dataset. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: We assume that a state of distrust is the mental system’s signal that the environment is not normal—things may not be as they appear. Hence, individuals sense they should be on guard. In particular, they are likely to avoid routine strategies, ones proven to be optimal and regularly used in normal environments, because these strategies are easily anticipated by whoever may be seeking to deceive them. Conversely, a state of trust is associated with a feeling of safety. The environment is as it normally is and things really are as they appear to be. Thus, individuals see no reason to refrain from doing what they routinely do. Accordingly, we hypothesize that figuring out a new situation depends on the type of environment and the actor’s state of mind: in normal environments, where routine strategies are optimal, individuals who trust should outperform those who distrust; however, in unusual environments, where non-routine strategies are optimal, individuals who distrust should outperform those who trust. This paper reports three experiments that manipulate distrust via orienting tasks that participants perform prior to attempting to predict a series of events (Experiments 1 and 2) or solve matchstick arithmetic problems (Experiment 3). Performance success depends on discovering and implementing an appropriate rule. We found that, as predicted, the manipulation of distrust sensitized participants to the existence of non-routine contingencies, that is, contingencies that were not expected. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: In this paper, we found that fairness judgments in intergenerational allocation decisions depend on (1) individuals’ position in the intergenerational sequence (i.e., whether they are in the preceding or succeeding generation), (2) the amount of uncertainty about the effect of the preceding generation’s decisions on the succeeding one, and (3) whether the preceding generation is primed with power. We found that both power priming and greater levels of uncertainty about the future consequences of present decisions can elicit stewardship attitudes, which may temper self-interested behavior on the part of the preceding generation. Our data also indicate that the nature of the uncertainty is important; it is not just a matter of how much future generations will be affected, but also whether or not they will be affected at all by the decisions of earlier generations. Our findings help to explain (1) how intergenerational inequities can occur even when people are explicitly focused on achieving fair allocations of resources between generations, and (2) how social responsibility concerns can motivate intergenerational beneficence in the face of intergenerational conflict. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This paper presents people accounting—a hypothesis that describes how a simple numerical imbalance in representation along nominal social category lines can affect people’s choice of candidates in highly competitive situations (e.g., awards, jobs, etc.). For example, two scholarship finalists from California and New York may be equally qualified, but the award-winning chance for the California candidate will drop precipitously if 8 of the past 10 winners were from California. Studies 1–3 illustrate this effect. Study 4 links people accounting to intergroup fairness concerns and suggests that people accounting is more likely to occur when the category dimension is meaningful (e.g., Stanford/Princeton) than when it is not (e.g., left/right-handedness). Study 5 shows that candidates from overrepresented categories (e.g., “Californians”) must achieve higher minimum standards in order to be selected. The implication is that highly competitive decisions are often influenced by headcounts along mundane social category lines. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]