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.     

Decisions for others are more creative than decisions for the self

Four studies investigate whether decisions for others produce more creative solutions than do decisions for the self and if construal level explains this relation. In Study 1, participants carried out a structured imagination task by drawing an alien for a story that they would write, or alternatively for a story that someone else would write. As expected, drawing an alien for someone else produced a more creative alien. In Studies 2a and 2b, construal level (i.e., psychological distance) was independently manipulated. Participants generated more creative ideas on behalf of distant others than on behalf of either close others or themselves. Finally, in Study 3, a classic insight problem was investigated. Participants deciding for others were more likely to solve the problem; furthermore, this result was mediated by psychological distance. These findings demonstrate that people are more creative for others than for themselves and shed light on differences in self-other decision making.     

The lived experiences of people diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in relation to exercise

The purpose of this study was to examine the lived experiences of people diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis (MS). Seven active exercisers with MS participated in semi-structured interviews regarding their exercise experiences since diagnosis. Data were analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA; Smith?&?Osborn, 2003 Smith, JA and Osborn, M. 2003. “Interpretive phenomenological analysis”. In Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods, Edited by: Smith, JA. 51–80. London: Sage.  [Google Scholar]). Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis. The results and interpretations of narratives revealed a number of functional limitations due to the severity of MS symptoms, which were found to have a major effect on the ability of the participants to exercise. Furthermore, psychological problems and the heightened behavioural adjustments to the progressive disability led to re-appraisal of ability to exercise. Previous, relevant exercise experience made participants more determined to continue to be able to exercise after diagnosis. The wider exercise experience narratives were related to concerns about safety, dependability on others to overcome the challenges, and potential environmental hazards. The loss of spontaneous opportunities to exercise because of these actual and perceived barriers was key to this population. This research highlighted the need to rethink the health and social service arrangements in relation to exercise provision for individuals with MS.     

Examining the role of parental self-regulation in family physical activity: A mixed-methods approach

Physical activity (PA) is essential for good health. However, parents risk becoming less active because of the demands of parenting. This has consequences for children as parents are role models. The present study used a mixed-methods approach to explore parental self-regulation associated with PA. Data were collected from 36 parents with preschool-aged children. They were interviewed about their PA and their family’s PA. Parents also completed PA and self-regulation questionnaires and wore an accelerometer for five days. Qualitative data were examined using an inductive approach to thematic analysis. It showed that parents felt that they had limited time for personal PA. Mothers’ self-regulation was driven by an ethic of care and subjective norms, whereas fathers’ self-regulation was driven by beliefs about the importance of autonomy. Nevertheless, both parents saw caring for their children as the main priority. Quantitative data were examined using multiple regression analyses. Results showed that different self-regulatory behaviours predicted the PA of mothers and fathers. Which predictors were significant depended on the type of activity and how it was measured. The findings warrant longitudinal research that would enable the effect of family dynamics on self-regulation associated with PA to be assessed.     

Why are maximizers less happy than satisficers? Because they maximize positive and negative outcomes

Although extant research suggests maximizing is related to objectively positive outcomes (e.g., job offers), I propose maximizing may be simultaneously and positively related to objectively negative outcomes (e.g., job rejections). Specifically, I argue maximizers bear more instances of positive and negative outcomes than satisficers, and that in spite of their positive outcomes—yet because of their negative outcomes—maximizers are less happy than satisficers. In Study 1, participants took the alternate uses test; as expected, maximizing was related to seeking alternatives, yet, maximizing was also related to seeking low‐quality alternatives. Moreover, the number of low‐quality alternatives partially mediated the relationship between maximizing and negative affect. In Study 2, the impact of maximizing on experiencing negative affect was further assessed by examining whether maximizing is related to seeking and choosing low‐quality alternatives. Participants played the Iowa Gambling Task; it was found maximizing was related to alternating among decks, and in particular, sampling bad decks; ultimately, maximizing was related to winning less money, and experiencing more negative affect. Finally, in Study 3, participants responded to questionnaires about positive and negative life outcomes; it was found that maximizing was simultaneously related to experiencing more positive and more negative outcomes, and that negative outcomes predicted happiness to a greater degree than positive outcomes. These findings suggest an irony of maximizing: It produces both positive and negative outcomes, contributing to literature explaining why maximizers are less happy than satisficers, and ultimately whether happiness is a matter of choice. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Experimental study of the differential effects of playing versus watching violent video games on children's aggressive behavior

There is great concern about the effects of playing violent video games on aggressive behavior. The present experimental study was aimed at investigating the differential effects of actively playing vs. passively watching the same violent video game on subsequent aggressive behavior. Fifty-seven children aged 10-13 either played a violent video game (active violent condition), watched the same violent video game (passive violent condition), or played a non-violent video game (active non-violent condition). Aggression was measured through peer nominations of real-life aggressive incidents during a free play session at school. After the active participation of actually playing the violent video game, boys behaved more aggressively than did the boys in the passive game condition. For girls, game condition was not related to aggression. These findings indicate that, specifically for boys, playing a violent video game should lead to more aggression than watching television violence.     

A Meta-Analysis of the Distinction between Reactive and Proactive Aggression in Children and Adolescents

The present meta-analytic review aimed to clarify divergent findings concerning the relation between reactive and proactive aggression in children and adolescents. Fifty-one studies with 17,965 participants were included in the analysis. A significant correlation between reactive and proactive aggression was found. The strength of this relation varied considerably between studies, from -.10 to .89. Observational assessment and tilt/noise tasks were associated with smaller correlations than questionnaires. Within the large group of questionnaire studies, studies disentangling the form and function of aggression found lower correlations than studies that did not disentangle form and function. Among questionnaire studies, higher reliability was associated with larger correlations. Effect size did not depend on other study characteristics such as sample type, age, and informant type. It is concluded that reactive and proactive aggression are most clearly distinguished with behavioral observations and questionnaires that unravel form and functions of aggression.     

Using the Short Form-36 with multiple sclerosis patients in five countries: a cross-cultural comparison

Questionnaires measuring health-related quality of life are increasingly used in international studies of medical effectiveness. It is important to know if data from these instruments are comparable across countries. We initiated a collaboration among five research groups--from the USA, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, and the UK--in the field of health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis. All groups used the 36-item Short Form Health Survey. The goal of our study was to make a cross-cultural comparison. In the five countries under study the sample size varied from 50 to 134 patients with multiple sclerosis. The survey was completed by a total of 457 patients, who were heterogeneous in relation to age, duration of illness, severity and type of multiple sclerosis. There appeared to be major differences among the samples in scores on each of the eight scales. These findings may be influenced by differences in method of recruitment, demographic and disease-related characteristics, administration, and cultural factors. After having performed a number of analyses, it appeared that the differences were mainly attributable to sampling effects; however, cultural influences could not be excluded.     

Effects of anger, guilt, and envy on moral hypocrisy

In the current article the authors examined the impact of specific emotions on moral hypocrisy, the tendency among people to judge others more severely than they judge themselves. In two studies, they found that (a) anger increased moral hypocrisy, (b) guilt eliminated moral hypocrisy, and (c) envy reversed moral hypocrisy. In particular, these findings were observed in two domains. In Study 1, participants responded to moral dilemmas describing unethical behavior and rated how acceptable it would be if others engaged in the unethical behavior, or alternatively, if they themselves engaged in the unethical behavior. In Study 2, participants were asked how much they would like to donate to research on cancer, or alternatively, how much they think others should donate. The results demonstrate that specific emotions influence moral decision making, even when real money is at stake, and that emotions of the same valence have opposing effects on moral judgment.     

Self–other decision making and loss aversion

In eight studies, we tested the prediction that making choices for others involves less loss aversion than making choices for the self. We found that loss aversion is significantly lessened among people choosing for others in scenarios describing riskless choice (Study 1), gambling (Studies 2 and 3), and social aspects of life, such as likeably and status (Studies 4a–e). Moreover, we found this pattern in relatively realistic conditions where people are rewarded for making desirable (i.e., profitable) choices for others (Study 2), when the other for whom a choice is made is physically present (Study 3), and when real money is at stake (Studies 2 and 3). Finally, we found loss aversion is moderated when factors associated with self–other differences in decision making are taken into account, such as decision makers’ construal level (Study 4a), regulatory focus (Study 4b), degree of information seeking (Study 4c), omission bias (Study 4d), and power (Study 4e).