Article

Morality and Its Relation to Political Ideology: The Role of Promotion and Prevention Concerns

1Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (Impact Factor: 2.52). 05/2013; 39(9). DOI: 10.1177/0146167213489036
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Our research investigated whether promotion concerns with advancement and prevention concerns with security related to moral beliefs and political ideology. Study 1 found that chronic prevention and promotion focus had opposite relations to binding foundation endorsement (as measured by the Moral Foundations Questionnaire), that is, positive for prevention and negative for promotion, and opposite relations to political ideology, that is, more conservative for prevention and more liberal for promotion, and the relation between focus and political ideology was partially mediated by binding foundation endorsement. Study 2 showed that promotion and prevention, even as situationally induced states, can contribute to differences in binding foundation endorsement, with prevention producing stronger endorsement (compared with a control) and promotion producing weaker endorsement.

1 Follower
 · 
81 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A promotion focus is concerned with advancement, growth, and accomplishment, whereas a prevention focus is concerned with security, safety, and responsibility. We hypothesized that the promotion focus inclination is to insure hits and insure against errors of omission, whereas the prevention focus inclination is to insure correct rejections and insure against errors of commission. This hypothesis yielded three predictions: (a) when individuals work on a difficult task or have just experienced failure, those in a promotion focus should perform better, and those in a prevention focus should quit more readily; (b) when individuals work on a task where generating any number of alternatives is correct, those in a promotion focus should generate more distinct alternatives, and those in a prevention focus should be more repetitive; and (c) when individuals work on a signal detection task that requires them to decide whether they did or did not detect a signal, those in a promotion focus should have a "risky" response bias, and those in a prevention focus should have a "conservative" response bias and take more time to respond. These predictions were supported in two framing studies in which regulatory focus was experimentally manipulated independent of valence.
    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 02/1997; 69(2):117-132. DOI:10.1006/obhd.1996.2675 · 3.13 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this experiment, we combined the measurement of observable facial behavior with simultaneous measures of brain electrical activity to assess patterns of hemispheric activation in different regions during the experience of happiness and disgust. Disgust was found to be associated with right-sided activation in the frontal and anterior temporal regions compared with the happy condition. Happiness was accompanied by left-sided activation in the anterior temporal region compared with disgust. No differences in asymmetry were found between emotions in the central and parietal regions. When data aggregated across positive films were compared to aggregate negative film data, no reliable differences in brain activity were found. These findings illustrate the utility of using facial behavior to verify the presence of emotion, are consistent with the notion of emotion-specific physiological patterning, and underscore the importance of anterior cerebral asymmetries for emotions associated with approach and withdrawal.
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 03/1990; 58(2):330-41. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.330 · 5.08 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Applying regulatory focus theory (17), we hypothesized that success-related approach motivation and increased expectancies are more likely to occur when performers are in a promotion than a prevention focus and that failure-related avoidance motivation and decreased expectancies are more likely to occur when performers are in a prevention than a promotion focus. Study 1 used arm flexion pressure as an on-line measure of approach strength and arm extension pressure as an on-line measure of avoidance strength. Study 2 used a persistence measure of motivational strength. The “goal looms larger” effect of increased motivational strength as one moves closer to a goal was greatest for approach when there was success feedback and promotion focus framing and was greatest for avoidance when there was failure feedback and prevention focus framing. Performance expectancies were increased more by promotion than prevention success and were decreased more by prevention than promotion failure. These effects support the hypotheses and were independent of one another.
    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 05/2001; DOI:10.1006/jesp.2000.1455 · 2.22 Impact Factor