Regulatory Focus and Interdependent Economic Decision-Making

Traditional theories of self-interest cannot predict when individuals pursue relative and absolute economic outcomes in interdependent decision-making, but we argue that regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997) can. We propose that a concern with security (prevention focus) motivates concerns with social status, leading to the regulation of relative economic outcomes, but a concern with growth (promotion focus) motivates the maximization of opportunities, leading to a focus on absolute outcomes. Two studies supported our predictions; regardless of prosocial or proself motivations, a promotion focus yielded greater concern with absolute outcomes, but a prevention focus yielded greater concern with relative outcomes. Also, Study 3 revealed that a prevention focus led to a greater rejection of a negative relative but positive absolute outcome in an ultimatum game because of concerns with status. This research reveals that apparently opposing orientations to interdependence – equality and relative gain – serve the same self-regulatory purpose: the establishment of security

Security Seeking in a Regulatory Focus Whodunit: The Case of the Relative Orientation in Behavioral Economics

[Excerpt] As a complement to other chapters in this handbook, this chapter’s initial focus is about understanding security concerns in interdependent economic decision-making, that is, contexts wherein individuals are asked with distributing resources between two or more parties, typically themselves and another. The economics component of economic decision-making concerns the manufacturing, distribution, and exchange of resources, whether money or ornament-shaped chocolates. The decision-making component involves applying psychological principles, such as motivation, to understanding how individuals choose among alternatives. For these reasons, it is a topic that falls under the study of behavioral economics (Camerer & Loewenstein, 2004; De Cremer, Zeelenberg, & Murnighan, 2006). It is the interdependent component of economic decision-making, however, that helps us investigate individuals\u27 intentions to cooperate or compete, to explore self-interest and its manifestation in individuals\u27 treatment (or lack thereof) of other parties. This intersection of topics allows us to answer the types of questions raised by examples like the one described above, such as, Why might someone sacrifice her own absolute gains simply to avoid receiving less than someone else? Understanding the answers to these kinds of questions about how resources are manufactured, distributed, and exchanged is a topic with great ramifications for, among other things, domestic and international politics (e.g., Lancaster, 2007; Waltz, 1979), the funding of research disciplines or functional areas within organizations, deal-making and dispute resolution, and basic survival functions, through the sharing of food, shelter, and other basic resources (e.g., Boyd & Silk, 2012; Hill, 2002)

Reply to Nielsen et al. social mindfulness is associated with countries’ environmental performance and individual environmental concern

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

From local social mindfulness to global sustainability efforts?

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Social mindfulness and prosociality vary across the globe

Humans are social animals, but not everyone will be mindful of others to the same extent. Individual differences have been found, but would social mindfulness also be shaped by one’s location in the world? Expecting cross-national differences to exist, we examined if and how social mindfulness differs across countries. At little to no material cost, social mindfulness typically entails small acts of attention or kindness. Even though fairly common, such low-cost cooperation has received little empirical attention. Measuring social mindfulness across 31 samples from industrialized countries and regions (n = 8,354), we found considerable variation. Among selected country-level variables, greater social mindfulness was most strongly associated with countries’ better general performance on environmental protection. Together, our findings contribute to the literature on prosociality by targeting the kind of everyday cooperation that is more focused on communicating benevolence than on providing material benefits

Security Seeking in a Regulatory Focus Whodunit: The Case of the Relative Orientation in Behavioral Economics

[Excerpt] As a complement to other chapters in this handbook, this chapter’s initial focus is about understanding security concerns in interdependent economic decision-making, that is, contexts wherein individuals are asked with distributing resources between two or more parties, typically themselves and another. The economics component of economic decision-making concerns the manufacturing, distribution, and exchange of resources, whether money or ornament-shaped chocolates. The decision-making component involves applying psychological principles, such as motivation, to understanding how individuals choose among alternatives. For these reasons, it is a topic that falls under the study of behavioral economics (Camerer & Loewenstein, 2004; De Cremer, Zeelenberg, & Murnighan, 2006). It is the interdependent component of economic decision-making, however, that helps us investigate individuals' intentions to cooperate or compete, to explore self-interest and its manifestation in individuals' treatment (or lack thereof) of other parties. This intersection of topics allows us to answer the types of questions raised by examples like the one described above, such as, "Why might someone sacrifice her own absolute gains simply to avoid receiving less than someone else?" Understanding the answers to these kinds of questions about how resources are manufactured, distributed, and exchanged is a topic with great ramifications for, among other things, domestic and international politics (e.g., Lancaster, 2007; Waltz, 1979), the funding of research disciplines or functional areas within organizations, deal-making and dispute resolution, and basic survival functions, through the sharing of food, shelter, and other basic resources (e.g., Boyd & Silk, 2012; Hill, 2002).Bohns16_Security_seeking.pdf: 64 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020