Minimizing inequality versus maximizing joint gains: On the relation between personality traits and different prosocial motivations

The Social Value Orientation (SVO) Slider Measure allows a differentiation between two prosocial motivations: minimizing inequality versus maximizing joint gains. In two studies (N = 1202), we investigated the relation between this suggested continuum from Inequality Aversion (IA) to Joint Gain Maximization (JGM), the HEXACO personality dimensions, and SVO. To account for differences in fairness perception, we also considered whether inequality favored oneself or the other. As hypothesized, Honesty-Humility was the best basic trait predictor of IA, showing a slightly stronger positive link when inequality was self-advantageous. SVO, in turn, showed a stronger (negative) link when inequality was disadvantageous for the self. Overall, the results show that IA is related to (basic) personality traits in a theoretically meaningful way.     

Uncertainty Avoidance Influences Choices for Potential Gains but not Losses

Uncertainty of outcomes is a primary dimension underlying human judgment and decision making, and is a defining feature of risk. Even though uncertainty almost always exists in decision making contexts, individuals and cultures vary in their preference for avoiding uncertainty. This study examines how uncertainty avoidance influences judgments involving uncertain and risky alternatives. Participants were presented with problems that involve potential gains or losses and contain options reflecting uncertain or certain outcomes. Greater uncertainty avoidance predicted choices for uncertain outcomes that involved gains, which tend to promote risk aversion, but not for uncertain outcomes that led to losses, which tend to promote risk seeking. These results demonstrate that culturally-relevant dispositions such as uncertain avoidance can have complex effects on judgment.     

Sharing losses and sharing gains: Increased demand for fairness under adversity

There is ample experimental evidence showing that people have a strong preference for equity in wealth allocation and social interaction. Although the behavior of gain sharing and responses to (un)fairness in allocation of wealth has been extensively investigated in studies employing economic exchange games, few studies have focused on how people respond to an unfair division of loss between individuals. In this study we developed a new variant of the ultimatum game and examined the participants' reactions to (un)fairness in both gain and loss sharing. Results from three experiments showed that the rejection rates to unfair offers were generally higher in the loss than in the gain domain. Moreover, participants were inclined to associate loss with “unfair” and gain with “fair”, with stronger associations leading to higher rejection rates in the ultimatum game. Furthermore, in subjective rating, unfair offers were perceived as being more unfair in the loss than in the gain domain. These results demonstrate an increased demand for fairness under adversity and the importance of justice in liability sharing.     

An economic perspective on the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of personality

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory postulates personality factors of ‘reward sensitivity’ and ‘punishment sensitivity’ linked to neural systems that control approach and avoidance, respectively. In contrast, behavioural economics distinguishes gain (‘reward’) and loss (‘punishment’) valuation systems that are orthogonal to approach/avoidance behaviour. We combined gain and loss with both their presentation and omission and found evidence for separate gain valuation, loss valuation, approach, and avoidance systems. This suggests that it is possible to integrate valuation/input and behaviour/output views of ‘reward’ and ‘punishment’ in a way that may be of use to both personality theory and economics and so forge closer links between these two major perspectives on decision-making and behaviour.     

The bright side of brooding: State orientation increases positive emotions about positive outcomes

Research has by and large shown the negative effects of state orientation, that brooding over past events (i.e., state orientation) leads to more negative emotions and less well-being than quickly getting over past events (i.e., action orientation). However, this past research has primarily focused on how people cope with negative events and bad outcomes. The present research focuses on how people cope with positive events with good outcomes. Study 1 found that state-oriented people felt better after a windfall than action-oriented people. Study 2 found that state-oriented people felt not only worse when things turned out bad but also better when things turned out well than action-oriented people. Study 3 replicated the positive effect of state orientation on positive emotions with an experimental induction of action vs. state orientation. These results show that in positive situations state orientation can have emotional benefits – in other words, they show the bright side of brooding.     

Work engagement accumulation of task, social, personal resources: A three-wave structural equation model

Drawing on Conservation of Resources Theory and previous research on work engagement, the present study investigates gain spirals between employees' engagement and their task, social, and personal resources. It focuses on the key resources of job control, positive work relationships, and active coping behavior. In a three-wave design, work engagement (T2) is suggested to function both as an outcome and antecedent of these resources, so that engagement mediates indirect longitudinal effects of initial (T1) on subsequent (T3) resources. Item-level structural equation modeling supported our hypotheses in a three-wave panel (N = 416) of hospital physicians with measurement intervals of 14 and 19 months. Connections between engagement research and other evolving perspectives in organizational research are highlighted. Unique contributions of the present study and their implications for further research and practice are discussed.     

Increased social distance makes people more risk-neutral

Individuals are consistently observed to be risk-averse over gains and risk-seeking over losses. This study examined whether increased social distance would change these behavioral patterns. To test our hypothesis, social distance was manipulated by asking the participants to make decisions either for themselves or for another person (Experiment 1), either for a known person or for an unknown person (Experiment 2), and either for a close friend or for a distant friend (Experiment 3). The results of Experiments 1 and 3 showed that increased social distance made people more risk-neutral, and such an effect was stronger in the gain domain than in the loss domain. However, the effect of social distance was not observed in Experiment 2. These findings suggest that risk preferences are influenced by the social distance between decision makers and beneficiaries.     

Selective exposure and decision framing: The impact of gain and loss framing on confirmatory information search after decisions

When people make decisions, they often prefer to receive information that supports rather than conflicts with their decision. To date, this effect has mainly been investigated in the context of decisions about gains, whereas decisions about losses have received less attention. Based on Prospect Theory, we expected information search to be differently affected by whether people previously have decided about gains or losses. Three studies have revealed that selectivity of information search is stronger after gain-framed rather than after loss-framed decision problems. An investigation of the underlying psychological processes revealed that gain decisions are made with increased subjective decision certainty (i.e. they are easier and less effortful to make), which in turn systematically increases confirmatory information search.     

Young children's affective decision-making in a gambling task: Does difficulty in learning the gain/loss schedule matter?

This research investigated the development of affective decision-making (ADM) during early childhood, in particular role of difficulty in learning a gain/loss schedule. In Experiment 1, we administrated the Children's Gambling Task (CGT) to 60 Chinese children aged 3 and 4, replicating the results obtained by Kerr and Zelazo [Kerr, A., & Zelazo, P. D. (2004). Development of “hot” executive function: The Children's Gambling Task. Brain and Cognition, 55, 148–157]. In Experiment 2, the CGT was modified to make it easier for young children to learn the gain/loss schedule by increasing delayed loss frequency and magnitude in the disadvantageous deck, and a larger sample (181 children aged 3–5) was assessed. Age-differences between 3- and 4-year-olds, rather than 4- and 5-year-olds, showed that ADM develops rapidly between 3 and 4 years. The reduction of the difficulty in learning the gain/loss schedule provides the basis for an account of the development of young children's AMD.     

A naturalistic study of the impact of message framing on highway speeding

Speeding is the most common road violation, and is one of the main causes of crashes. To protect road users, authorities use sanctions and preventive measures to prompt drivers to observe speed limits. However, the efficacy of prevention messages varies according to a number of factors, among which risk framing is important. We ran a study to test whether gain is more effective than loss (framing effect). Four anti-speeding messages were presented on variable-message signs, along one side of a busy 8-lane highway in France (speed limit: 130 km/h – 80 mph), during 6 weekends. Within a between subject design, the messages differed in orientation (gain vs. loss vs. no message) and theme (crash vs. fuel consumption). The drivers’ speed was recorded on the highway 2 km (1.25 miles) after the sign (6486 recordings of speed). The results showed that speed was lower when a message was displayed than in the control condition, and when the message was gain-framed rather than loss-framed. These effects were stronger on the left lanes (overtaking lanes). Hence, gain framed messages are recommended for prevention campaigns at least when no risk factor is salient.