Culture, Learning and Risk

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology - Vol 102, Iss 5

1. Effects of self–other decision making on regulatory focus and choice overload.
   A growing stream of research is investigating how choices people make for themselves are different from choices people make for others. In this paper, I propose that these choices vary according to regulatory focus, such that people who make choices for themselves are prevention focused, whereas people who make choices for others are promotion focused. Drawing on regulatory focus theory, in particular work on errors of omission and commission, I hypothesize that people who make choices for others experience a reversal of the choice overload effect. In 6 studies, including a field study, I found that people who make choices for themselves are less satisfied after selecting among many options compared to few options, yet, people who make choices for others are more satisfied after selecting among many options compared to few options. Implications and suggestions for other differences in self–other decision making are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
2. Primed interference: The cognitive and behavioral costs of an incongruity between chronic and primed motivational orientations.
   Research has shown that temporarily primed motivational orientations have essentially the same effects on how people pursue their goals as their chronic orientations. This article shows that, despite the interchangeability of temporary and chronic motivations, primed motivational orientations that are incongruent with chronic orientations create interference, requiring the deployment of cognitive resources and thus undermining performance on subsequent tasks that rely on these resources. Across 6 studies, we primed motivational orientations that were either congruent or incongruent with participants' chronic orientations and then assessed their performance on subsequent tasks that required cognitive resources. Consistent with the primed interference hypothesis, we found that incongruity between temporary and chronic motivational orientations undermined participants' (a) inhibition of incorrect but highly accessible responses, (b) mental arithmetic, (c) analytical reasoning, and (d) resistance to temptation. These results—which were observed following the activation of motivations for promotion or prevention (Studies 1–2 and 5–6), high or low need for belonging (Study 3), and high or low power orientations (Study 4)—illustrate the broad implications of holding incongruent chronic and primed orientations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
3. The erosive effects of racism: Reduced self-control mediates the relation between perceived racial discrimination and substance use in African American adolescents.
   Perceived racial discrimination, self-control, anger, and either substance use or use cognitions were assessed in 2 studies conducted with samples of African American adolescents. The primary goal was to examine the relation between discrimination and self-control over time; a 2nd goal was to determine whether that relation mediates the link between discrimination and substance use found in previous research. Study 1, which included a latent growth curve analysis with 3 waves of data, indicated that experience with discrimination (from age 10 years to age 18 years) was associated with reduced self-control, which then predicted increased substance use. Additional analyses indicated anger was also a mediator of this discrimination to use relation. Study 2, which was experimental, showed that envisioning an experience involving discrimination was associated with an increase in substance-related responses to double entendre words (e.g., pot, roach) in a word association task, especially for participants who were low in dispositional self-control. The effect was again mediated by reports of anger. Thus, the “double mediation” pattern was discrimination → more anger and reduced self-control → increased substance use and/or substance cognitions. Results are discussed in terms of the long-term impact of discrimination on self-control and health behavior. Implications for interventions aimed at ameliorating the negative effects of discrimination and low self-control on health are also discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
4. Generational differences in young adults' life goals, concern for others, and civic orientation, 1966–2009.
   Three studies examined generational differences in life goals, concern for others, and civic orientation among American high school seniors (Monitoring the Future; N = 463,753, 1976–2008) and entering college students (The American Freshman; N = 8.7 million, 1966–2009). Compared to Baby Boomers (born 1946–1961) at the same age, GenX'ers (born 1962–1981) and Millennials (born after 1982) considered goals related to extrinsic values (money, image, fame) more important and those related to intrinsic values (self-acceptance, affiliation, community) less important. Concern for others (e.g., empathy for outgroups, charity donations, the importance of having a job worthwhile to society) declined slightly. Community service rose but was also increasingly required for high school graduation over the same time period. Civic orientation (e.g., interest in social problems, political participation, trust in government, taking action to help the environment and save energy) declined an average of d = −.34, with about half the decline occurring between GenX and the Millennials. Some of the largest declines appeared in taking action to help the environment. In most cases, Millennials slowed, though did not reverse, trends toward reduced community feeling begun by GenX. The results generally support the “Generation Me” view of generational differences rather than the “Generation We” or no change views. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
5. The origins of deference: When do people prefer lower status?
   Although the desire for high status is considered universal, prior research suggests individuals often opt for lower status positions. Why would anyone favor a position of apparent disadvantage? In 5 studies, we found that the broad construct of status striving can be broken up into two conceptions: one based on rank, the other on respect. While individuals might universally desire high levels of respect, we find that they vary widely in the extent to which they strive for high-status rank, with many individuals opting for middle- or low-status rank. The status rank that individuals preferred depended on their self-perceived value to the group: when they believed they provided less value, they preferred lower status rank. Mediation and moderation analyses suggest that beliefs about others' expectations were the primary driver of these effects. Individuals who believed they provided little value to their group inferred that others expected them to occupy a lower status position. Individuals in turn conformed to these perceived expectations, accepting lower status rank in such settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)