Responding to negativity: How a risky tactic can serve a vigilant strategy |
| |
Authors: | Abigail A. Scholer Steven J. Stroessner |
| |
Affiliation: | a Department of Psychology, Columbia University, 1190 Amsterdam Ave., 406 Schermerhorn Hall, MC 5501, New York, NY 10027, USA b Department of Psychology, Barnard College, Columbia University, USA |
| |
Abstract: | Regulatory focus theory distinguishes between two motivational systems—a promotion system concerned with nurturance and advancement and a prevention system concerned with security and safety [Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300]. In signal detection terms, a preference for eager strategies within the promotion system has been equated with a “risky” bias, whereas a preference for vigilant strategies within the prevention system has been equated with a “conservative” bias. However, we propose that when prevention-focused individuals face negative input, they should be willing to incur false alarms to ensure that negative stimuli are correctly identified. Across six studies, we found for negative stimuli a reversal of the traditional finding that prevention participants show a conservative bias in information processing. In these studies, prevention participants consistently exhibited a risky bias when the input was negative. We suggest that this new tactic—a risky bias in response to negativity—best serves the prevention strategy of vigilance. |
| |
Keywords: | Self-regulation Motivation Regulatory focus Negativity Vigilance Signal detection |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|