The Effect of Regulatory Focus on Ethical Decision-making


Book Description

Regulatory focus is a goal attainment theory that states that people use one of two self-regulations to achieve their goals. The first self-regulation is promotion; promotion focused people are risk-takers, they are more likely to use heuristics or biases to make decisions, and they make decisions quickly. The other self-regulation is prevention; these people are risk-averse, they are more likely to use analytic reasoning to make decisions, and they make decisions slowly. In this study, the authors measured the participants’ work regulatory focus and then attempted to manipulate them into one of the two conditions (prevention or promotion). The manipulation was not strong enough to influence the participants’ regulatory focus. For this reason, the study was completed using the chronic work regulatory focus. The authors aimed to determine how the participants’ work regulatory focus affected their ethical decision making on three cases (two university situations and one career situation). Overall, promotion focused participants we more likely than prevention focused participants to partake in the unethical behavior. These results were only significant for Cases 1 and 2, which is believed to be because the students could relate better to these situations than the career situation (Case 3).




Regulatory Focus and Interdependent Economic Decision-Making


Book Description

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.







Decision Making and Problem Solving in Organizations: Assessing and Expanding the Carnegie Perspective


Book Description

Within the broader study of decision-making, the Carnegie perspective occupies a unique place. Initially developed by pioneering scholars such as Herbert Simon and James March, it views organizational decisions as resulting from the combined influences of a.) psychological processes of attention allocation, interpretation of experience, and motivated search, and b.) features of the organizational context that direct attention, influence preferences, contend with ambiguity, contain conflict, and divide labor. Despite its unique strengths and a considerable body of work (see below some foundational references), research that adopts the Carnegie perspective is still relatively unknown outside the field of organization studies. As James March noted, Carnegie has been primarily an importer of ideas, rather than an exporter. The goal of this research topic is to facilitate dialogue and integration between this well-established Carnegie perspective and other lines of inquiry into the study of decision making and problem solving. We are interested in bringing to the fore what is distinctive in the accumulated body of evidence produced by the Carnegie perspective and highlighting similarities, differences, and potential points of connection with other research done on similar topics. To achieve this goal, we hope that the front end of each submission will cover the following four components:




The Psychology of Thinking


Book Description

How do we define thinking? Is it simply memory, perception and motor activity or perhaps something more complex such as reasoning and decision making? This book argues that thinking is an intricate mix of all these things and a very specific coordination of cognitive resources. Divided into three key sections, there are chapters on the organization of human thought, general reasoning and thinking and behavioural outcomes of thinking. These three overarching themes provide a broad theoretical framework with which to explore wider issues in cognition and cognitive psychology and there are chapters on motivation and language plus a strong focus on problem solving, reasoning and decision making – all of which are central to a solid understanding of this field. The book also explores the cognitive processes behind perception and memory, how we might differentiate expertise from skilled, competent performance and the interaction between language, culture and thought.




Beyond Pleasure and Pain


Book Description

Rather, they work together.




Models in Environmental Regulatory Decision Making


Book Description

Many regulations issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are based on the results of computer models. Models help EPA explain environmental phenomena in settings where direct observations are limited or unavailable, and anticipate the effects of agency policies on the environment, human health and the economy. Given the critical role played by models, the EPA asked the National Research Council to assess scientific issues related to the agency's selection and use of models in its decisions. The book recommends a series of guidelines and principles for improving agency models and decision-making processes. The centerpiece of the book's recommended vision is a life-cycle approach to model evaluation which includes peer review, corroboration of results, and other activities. This will enhance the agency's ability to respond to requirements from a 2001 law on information quality and improve policy development and implementation.




Regulatory Focus and Fit Effects in Organizations


Book Description

Regulatory focus theory distinguishes between two different value concerns: promotion concerns with advancement and growth, and prevention concerns with safety and security. Since its publication more than 20 years ago, regulatory focus theory has generated a substantial amount of research and it has been applied to numerous organizational contexts. We identified four main domains: decision making, messaging, people management (e.g., leadership, organizational development, wellness and employees' productivity), and entrepreneurship. We selected significant findings in those domains based on individuals, teams, and organizations being motivated by promotion or prevention goals and on the consequences of the match between regulatory focus goal orientation and the manner in which the goal is pursued, as conceptualized by regulatory fit theory. We also highlighted whether the research was concerned with the individual or with a broader group within the organization (including the organization itself). We conclude by suggesting future avenues for research.




Correlates and Consequences of Women and Men's Group Regulatory Focus


Book Description

"According to regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997, 2001), individuals may take either a promotion or a prevention focus to obtain their goals. These two foci have consequences for emotional outcomes, behaviors, and decision-making biases. However, social groups also play a large role in people’s identity (Sedikides & Brewer, 2001; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). I examined the role of regulatory focus with respect to an important social identity, one’s gender group membership. In Studies 1 and 2 , 1 examined the consequences of group promotion and prevention focus for individuals’ affective outcomes, using a measure of chronic focus (Study 1) and primed focus (Study 2). In Study 3 , 1 examined some of the correlates of group regulatory focus in terms o f beliefs about sexism and gender relations. In Study 4 , 1 examined the extent to which group regulatory focus predicts decision-making biases in contexts relevant to the group. In Study 5 , 1 examined the effects o f group regulatory focus for impressions of promotion and prevention focused targets. The overall pattern o f results from the first three studies suggests that group promotion and group prevention focus may have different antecedents and consequences for men and women. Women may be more comfortable adopting a group promotion focus, whereas men may be more comfortable adopting a group prevention focus. There was only limited support in Study 4 for the hypothesis that the effects of group regulatory focus would be limited to group contexts. In Study 5, ratings of an ingroup and outgroup target’s prototypicality were affected by the participants’ group regulatory focus, as well as the target’s regulatory focus and status as an ingroup or outgroup member. However, impressions were also strongly driven by the target’s regulatory focus: promotion focused targets were preferred over prevention focused targets. I discuss implications for regulatory focus theory in terms o f understanding the differential consequences o f regulatory focus for men and women, improved understanding o f how promotion and prevention focus are perceived by observers, and direction for research on group regulatory focus."--Pages ix-x.