Search

Objective: Scholars disagree on whether income inequality has incentive or disincentive effects. In the present research, we move beyond such debate and focus on the motivational processes that income inequality predicts. First, income inequality makes economic stratification salient; therefore, it should promote perceived competitiveness. Second, competitiveness can be appraised as both a challenge and a threat; therefore, it should promote both approach and avoidance motivation., Method: In three studies (N = 2,543), U.S. residents from various ZIP codes reported the extent to which they perceived competitiveness in their town/city (Studies 1-3), as well as their economic achievement goals, achievement motives, and self-regulatory foci (Studies 2-3)., Results: Level of local income inequality was found to be a positive predictor-via increased perceived competitiveness-of other-approach economic goals, need for achievement, and promotion focus, as well as other-avoidance economic goals, fear of failure (specifically, the shame/embarrassment component), and prevention focus. Furthermore, actual and perceived income inequality were positively correlated., Conclusions: The conceptual and empirical work herein is the first to show how the economic environment predicts individuals' perceptions of competitiveness, influencing personal goals, motives, and orientations. It provides a more nuanced perspective on the implications of income inequality than perspectives currently available., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The present research investigates the moderating role of goal interdependence and dissent on individual preference confirmation in hidden-profile tasks. We propose that preference confirmation can be used strategically to deal with competition and dissent likely to arise in group decision making. In two studies, participants first received incomplete information about a car accident investigation, and then read a fictitious discussion with two other participants containing full information. The interaction with the fictitious participants was presented either as cooperative or competitive. We predicted and found preference confirmation to be higher in competition than cooperation, when initial preferences were dissenting (Studies 1 & 2), but to be higher in cooperation than in competition, when initial preferences were consensual (Study 2). Also, the increased versus decreased preference confirmation in competition with, respectively, dissent and no dissent were found to be predicted by self-enhancement strategies (Study 2). These findings contribute to a better understanding of the boundary conditions of preference confirmation in hidden profiles and shed a new light on the role of motivated information processing in these tasks., (© 2011 The British Psychological Society.)

Expertise assignment has been proposed to improve unshared information pooling in group decision making. The current research revises this view by hypothesizing that expertise assignment is beneficial when group members have cooperative goals, but is detrimental when group members have competitive goals. Three-person groups were confronted with a hidden-profile task. Members were either assigned experts or not and were instructed to either cooperate or compete with other members. The results confirmed that expertise decreased unshared information pooling and repetitions in competition, while the reverse was found in cooperation. This interaction effect was mediated by self-other difference in perceived competence. Thus, expertise favours or hinders information sharing in group decision making as a function of members' cooperative or competitive goals., (© 2012 The British Psychological Society.)

Two experiments investigated the differential impact of cooperation and competition on strategic information sharing and use in a three-person group decision-making task. Information was distributed in order to create a hidden profile so that disconfirmation of group members' initial preferences was required to solve the task. Experiment 1 revealed that competition, compared to cooperation, led group members to withhold unshared information, a difference that was not significant for shared information. In competition, compared to cooperation, group members were also more reluctant to disconfirm their initial preferences. Decision quality was lower in competition than in cooperation, this effect being mediated by disconfirmation use and not by information sharing. Experiment 2 replicated these findings and revealed the role of mistrust in predicting strategic information sharing and use in competition. These results support a motivated information processing approach of group decision making.

This article contends that the presence of a coactor leads to a focusing effect whenever this presence represents a threat or a potential threat to self-evaluation. Experiment 1 showed that attentional focusing appears in the presence of an actual (in the case of upward comparison) or potential (in the case of mere coaction) threat to self-evaluation but not in its absence (in the case of downward comparison). Experiments 2 and 3 confirmed that the presence of a coactor affects focusing because the coactor represents a potential threat and showed that introducing a threat in downward comparison can produce a focusing effect. Experiment 4 showed that removing the threat in upward comparison decreases the focusing effect. Experiment 5 confirmed that the effects observed in upward comparison are due to attentional focusing and not to an increase in effort. Contributions to social facilitation, social comparison, and attention research are discussed.