Three- and 4-year-olds encode modeled actions in two ways leading to immediate imitation and delayed emulation

When copying a model's behavior with a tool, children tend to imitate (copy the specific actions to replicate the model's goal) rather than emulate (bring about the model's goal in the most efficient way). Tasks producing these findings test children immediately after the behavior is modeled. In 2 experiments, we investigated children's copying behavior after a delay (of a week). In Experiment 1 (n = 90), we found that although 3- and 4-year-olds often imitate in the short term, they are more likely to emulate in the long term. Data from Experiment 2 (n = 80) were consistent with children remembering actions that were relevant to a causal narrative of the task. Overall, our data suggest that children simultaneously encode modeled behavior in 2 ways that lead to both imitation and emulation. In the discussion, we consider what kind of information leads children to emulate in the long term.     

A regulatory focus model of self-evaluation

Regulatory focus theory [Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1-46). New York: Academic Press.] argues that concerns with growth and nurturance (i.e., a promotion focus) and concerns with safety and security (i.e., a prevention focus) produce different motives and perception. The current studies test whether regulatory focus also affects individuals’ strivings for self-evaluation. Specifically, we argue that a promotion or a prevention focus directs the self-evaluation process to self-esteem or self-certainty, respectively. Two studies supported this prediction by demonstrating that regulatory focus affects the strength of self-evaluation goals and individuals’ reactions to goal failure. In Study 1, we found that a promotion focus led to a stronger self-esteem goal (as measured by greater accessibility of esteem-related words), whereas a prevention focus led to a stronger self-certainty goal (as measured by greater accessibility of certainty-related words). In Study 2, a promotion failure led to lower self-esteem than a prevention failure, but a prevention failure led to lower self-certainty than a promotion failure. This research suggests an unrecognized role of nurturance and safety concerns in understanding the self-evaluation process.     

权力感与亲社会倾向：自我获益的中介和情境的调节作用

本研究基于情境聚焦理论探讨权力感与亲社会倾向的关系,以及自我获益和情境所起的作用。两项研究通过测量一般权力感（研究一, N= 271）和启动权力感（研究二, N=139名）,考察权力感在不同情境（合作vs.竞争）中的亲社会倾向。结果发现：自我获益在权力感与亲社会倾向之间存在中介作用,竞争合作情境能够调节权力感与自我获益的关系从而影响亲社会倾向,在竞争下,高权者感知到更少获益,表现出更少的亲社会倾向,在合作情境下则相反。     

权力感对个体的影响:调节定向的视角

采用4个研究探究了权力感对调节定向的影响。研究1通过测量被试的特质性权力感和特质性调节定向初步探索权力感水平与调节定向的关系。研究2和研究3分别通过外显角色扮演和故事回忆法来探究状态性权力感对调节定向目标表征和策略选择的影响。研究4采用身体姿势法启动权力感,进一步探究在内隐层面权力感对调节定向的影响。结果发现,高权力感个体更倾向于促进定向;而低权力感个体更倾向于预防定向,并且排除了其中可能的无关变量(情绪)的影响。本研究有助于更好地理解和整合现有的权力感研究结果,并能预测更多未知的权力感效应。     

Questioning the preparatory function of counterfactual thinking

Why do individuals mentally modify reality (e.g., “If it hadn’t rained, we would have won the game”)? According to the dominant view, counterfactuals primarily serve to prepare future performance. In fact, individuals who have just failed a task tend to modify the uncontrollable features of their attempt (e.g., “If the rules of the game were different, I would have won it”), generating counterfactuals that are unlikely to play any preparatory role. By contrast, they generate prefactuals that focus on the controllable features of their ensuing behavior (e.g., “If I concentrate more, I will win the next game”). Here, we test whether this tendency is robust and general. Studies 1a and 1b replicate this tendency and show that it occurs regardless of whether individuals think about their failures or their successes. Study 2 shows that individuals generate relatively few controllable counterfactuals, unless explicitly prompted to do so. These results raise some questions regarding the generality of the dominant view according to which counterfactuals mainly serve a preparatory function.     

Copying actions and copying outcomes: social learning through the second year

The present work documents how the logic of a model's demonstration and the communicative cues that the model provides interact with age to influence how children engage in social learning. Children at ages 12, 18, and 24 months (n=204) watched a model open a series of boxes. Twelve-month-old subjects only copied the specific actions of the model when they were given a logical reason to do so--otherwise, they focused on reproducing the outcome of the demonstrated actions. Eighteen-month-old subjects focused on copying the outcome when the model was aloof. When the model acted socially, the subjects were as likely to focus on copying actions as outcomes, irrespective of the apparent logic of the model's behavior. Finally, 24-month-old subjects predominantly focused on copying the model's specific actions. However, they were less likely to produce the modeled outcome when the model acted non-socially.     

Online versus conventional shopping: consumers' risk perception and regulatory focus.

In two experiments, the impact of shopping context on consumers' risk perceptions and regulatory focus was examined. We predicted that individuals perceive an online (vs. conventional) shopping environment as more risky and that an online shopping environment, by its risky nature, primes a prevention focus. The findings in Study 1 demonstrate these effects by using self-report measures for risk perception and prevention focus. In Study 2, we replicated these findings and demonstrated that the effect of an online shopping environment carries over to behavior in a domain unrelated to shopping.     

Everyday risk taking as a function of regulatory focus

Uncertainty is an inherent aspect of everyday life. However, faced with uncertainty, some individuals take risks more eagerly than others. Regulatory focus theory may explain such differences because risky behavior may arise naturally from the eagerness of promotion focused individuals, while safe behavior may arise naturally from the vigilance of prevention focused individuals. A highly relevant real-life context for studying risk is mobility, as engaging in traffic inherently carries uncertainty about negative outcomes. We present two studies showing a direct link between regulatory focus and risky behavior going beyond traditional laboratory approaches. In both naturalistic speeding behavior (Study 1) and simulated risk taking (Study 2) promotion focus was positively, and prevention focus was negatively related to actual risky behavior.     

‘No fair, copycat!’: what children’s response to plagiarism tells us about their understanding of ideas

Adults believe that plagiarizing ideas is wrong, which requires an understanding that others can have ideas and that it is wrong to copy them. In order to test when this understanding emerges, we investigated when children begin to think plagiarism is wrong. In Study 1, children aged 7, 9 and 11 years old, as well as adults, disliked someone who plagiarized compared to someone who drew an original drawing or someone who drew an identical picture by chance. Study 2 investigated the same question with younger children, focusing on children aged 3–6 years old. Children aged 5–6 years old evaluated plagiarizers negatively relative to unique drawers, but 3–4-year-olds did not. Study 3 replicated the findings from Study 2 and found that children justify their negative evaluations of plagiarizers by mentioning concerns over copying. These experiments provide evidence that, by age 5 years old, children understand that others have ideas and dislike the copying of these ideas.     

Mindsets,shopping motivations and compulsive buying: Insights from China

This study investigates how mindsets (i.e., the beliefs that individuals have about the nature of human characteristics) are associated with compulsive buying behavior (i.e., the tendency to buy impulsively and obsessively). In particular, we test the relationships between consumer mindsets, three shopping motivations (deal proneness, social comparison, and hedonic motives) and compulsive buying. Based on a survey of 421 respondents conducted in China, our findings reveal the mechanism through which mindsets affect compulsive buying. The results show that when consumers believe in the consistency of personal traits (fixed mindset), they tend to be more vulnerable to deal offers and social comparison. These motivations increase the desire to seek hedonic pleasure, which is associated with a greater propensity for compulsive buying. However, when consumers believe that personal traits can be changed and developed (growth mindset), they seek hedonic pleasure in shopping, which result in a greater tendency to engage in compulsive buying. The present study adds to the existing body of knowledge by unveiling how different mindsets are associated with compulsive buying. In terms of practical implications, this study provides policy makers and marketers with a better understanding of the different motivations that lead to compulsive buying.     

Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (Un)ethical behavior

In four laboratory studies, we find that regulatory focus induced by situational cues (such as the framing of an unrelated task) or primed influences people’s likelihood to cross ethical boundaries. A promotion focus leads individuals to be more likely to act unethically than a prevention focus (Studies 1, 2, and 3). These higher levels of dishonesty are explained by the influence of a person’s induced regulatory focus on his or her behavior toward risk. A promotion focus leads to risk-seeking behaviors, while a prevention focus leads to risk avoidance (Study 3). Through higher levels of dishonesty, promotion focus also results in higher levels of virtuous behavior (Studies 2 and 3), thus providing evidence for compensatory ethics. Our results also demonstrate that the framing of ethics (e.g., through an organization’s ethics code) influences individuals’ ethical behavior and does so differently depending on an individual’s induced regulatory focus (Study 4).     

Regulatory focus and preference reversal between hedonic and utilitarian consumption

This article explores the impact of consumers' regulatory goals on their relative focus on hedonic (versus utilitarian) benefits of products. Drawing from extant literature, we argue that promotion‐focused consumers will exhibit more favorable attitude towards a product when its hedonic benefits are highlighted in comparison to its utilitarian benefits. Prevention‐focused consumers on the other hand will exhibit more favorable attitude towards a product when its utilitarian benefits are highlighted in comparison to its hedonic benefits. We further argue that this effect is moderated by contextual factors, such as evaluation mode. In addition, we argue that the posited difference only holds when the hedonic and utilitarian products are evaluated individually. When the two products are evaluated jointly, both promotion and prevention‐focused individuals will exhibit more favorable attitude towards the hedonic product. Two studies were conducted to test the hypotheses and findings supported our predictions. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Promoting success or preventing failure: cultural differences in motivation by positive and negative role models

In two studies, cross-cultural differences in reactions to positive and negative role models were examined. The authors predicted that individuals from collectivistic cultures, who have a stronger prevention orientation, would be most motivated by negative role models, who highlight a strategy of avoiding failure; individuals from individualistic cultures, who have a stronger promotion focus, would be most motivated by positive role models, who highlight a strategy of pursuing success. In Study 1, the authors examined participants' reported preferences for positive and negative role models. Asian Canadian participants reported finding negative models more motivating than did European Canadians; self-construals and regulatory focus mediated cultural differences in reactions to role models. In Study 2, the authors examined the impact of role models on the academic motivation of Asian Canadian and European Canadian participants. Asian Canadians were motivated only by a negative model, and European Canadians were motivated only by a positive model.     

Regulatory Framing and Collective Action: The Interplay of Individual Self‐Regulation and Group Behavior

Two studies examined the relations between regulatory focus and collective action. In Study 1, undergraduate women expressed stronger action intentions when they were primed to consider prevention (ought‐self) self‐discrepancies than promotion (ideal‐self) self‐discrepancies, suggesting that collective action is more likely to occur when individuals are prevention‐ rather than promotion‐focused. In Study 2, however, prevention‐focused women expressed stronger action intentions in response to security framing, whereas promotion‐focused women expressed stronger action intentions in response to achievement framing. This suggests that the relative disinterest in collective action among promotion‐focused individuals can be overcome with the appropriate promotion‐focused framing. Implications for analyses of both collective action and regulatory focus are discussed.     

Regulatory focus and reliance on implicit preferences in consumption contexts

The present research tested the assumption that implicit preferences fit the eagerness of a promotion focus, but not the need for safe judgments and decisions of a prevention focus. In three studies, we assessed individual differences in implicit preferences for consumer goods and investigated their influence on self-regulatory behavior. In line with expectations, implicit preferences predicted choice intentions (Study 1), single and repeated choices between consumer goods (Study 2), and the amount of product consumption (Study 3) better for individuals in a promotion focus than in a prevention focus. The results were found with two different measures of implicit preferences.     

Effective Challenge Regulation Coincides with Promotion Focus-Related Success and Emotional Well-Being

Beyond a hedonic model of the good life—approach pleasure and avoid pain—evidence is accumulating across species that well-being depends on potentially painful goal pursuit processes, like effort, engagement, and discovery. We hypothesized that daily challenges may provide a unique opportunity to fulfill such processes and that challenges would be more relevant within the promotion (gain-focused) than prevention (nonloss-focused) motivational system. Accordingly, we predicted that: (1) individuals who tend to be successful versus unsuccessful in achieving promotion-type goals would be better at managing daily challenges; and (2) challenge dysregulation would undermine promotion-related well-being (depressive symptoms) more than prevention-related well-being (anxiety symptoms). Across three studies, we find evidence in support of these hypotheses. Notably, as we find consistent evidence that too many and too few challenges may be damaging to mental health, we conclude that effective challenge regulation—not minimization—is likely to be a necessary component of optimal well-being.     

“别人家的孩子”vs.平庸的自己：社会比较对独特性寻求行为的影响

人们在自我评价中普遍存在着优于平均值效应, 而上行社会比较会打破这一自我评价偏差, 引发后续的补偿性消费行为。通过5个实验, 依次论证上行比较(vs.下行比较)会提升个体对独特产品选项的偏好(实验1); 其心理机制在于上行比较降低了而非下行比较提升了个体的自我独特性感知, 从而促使个体出于补偿的目的而寻求独特性(实验2a、2b和2c); 上述效应适用于经济状况这一特定比较维度, 并且在感知经济流动性的调节作用下得到强化或削弱(实验3)。研究结论对于推动社会比较和独特性寻求行为相关领域的理论进展, 指导长尾市场中企业的营销策略、帮助个体缓解上行比较的威胁均有着积极的启示价值。     

Subjective Well-Being and Hedonic Editing: How Happy People Maximize Joint Outcomes of Loss and Gain

Hedonic editing refers to the decision strategy of arranging multiple events in time to maximize hedonic outcomes (Thaler in Market Sci 4:199–214, 1985). The present research investigated the relationship between subjective well-being and hedonic editing. In Study 1, we gave participants pairs of social or financial events and asked them to indicate their preferences regarding the sequence and interval length between the two events. Compared to participants with lower subjective well-being, those with higher subjective well-being preferred to experience a social gain (e.g., chatting with a close friend) temporally closer to a financial loss, suggesting that happy individuals are more inclined than less happy individuals to use positive social events as cross-domain buffers against loss. In Study 2, participants were asked to select the type of positive event they would want to experience after a negative event. Happy individuals displayed a stronger preference for social events. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.     

Profit maximization versus disadvantageous inequality: the impact of self‐categorization

Choice behavior researchers (e.g., Bazerman, Loewenstein, & White, 1992 ) have found that individuals tend to choose a more lucrative but disadvantageously unequal payoff (e.g., self—$600/other—$800) over a less profitable but equal one (e.g., self—$500/other—$500); greater profit trumps interpersonal social comparison concerns in the choice setting. We suggest, however, that self‐categorization (e.g., Hogg, 2000 ) can shift interpersonal social comparison concerns to the intergroup level and make trading disadvantageous inequality for greater profit more difficult. Studies 1–3 show that profit maximization diminishes when recipients belong to different social categories (e.g., genders, universities). Study 2 further implicates self‐categorization, as self‐categorized individuals tend to forgo profit whether making a choice for themselves or another ingroup member. Study 3, moreover, reveals that social categorization alone is not sufficient to diminish profit maximization; individuals must self‐categorize and identify with their categorization. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Stereotypes and terror management: evidence that mortality salience enhances stereotypic thinking and preferences

If stereotypes function to protect people against death-related concerns, then mortality salience should increase stereotypic thinking and preferences for stereotype-confirming individuals. Study 1 demonstrated that mortality salience increased stereotyping of Germans. In Study 2, it increased participants' tendency to generate more explanations for stereotype-inconsistent than stereotype-consistent gender role behavior. In Study 3, mortality salience increased participants' liking for a stereotype-consistent African American and decreased their liking for a stereotype-inconsistent African American; control participants exhibited the opposite preference. Study 4 replicated this pattern with evaluations of stereotype-confirming or stereotype-disconfirming men and women. Study 5 showed that, among participants high in need for closure, mortality salience led to decreased liking for a stereotype-inconsistent gay man.