Eager feelings and vigilant reasons: Regulatory focus differences in judging moral wrongs

The effect of approach and avoidance motivation on self-perception

This work addresses the link between motivation and self-perception by systematically studying visual self-representations. We propose that the way individuals perceive themselves may be associated with dispositional and situationally induced approach and avoidance motivation. First, we investigate how dispositional differences in approach/avoidance motivation and self-esteem relate to self-perception. Second, we investigate how state differences in approach/avoidance motivation relate to self-perception. Based on motivation literature, we predicted that self-perception would reflect psychological equanimity at the dispositional level (seeing the self in a favorable light), and motivational flexibility at the situational level (situational avoidance motivation results in a more realistic view of one's qualities). We use up-to-date face modeling methods to measure individuals' self-perceptions in a systematic, nuanced, and implicit way: Participants are repeatedly asked to indicate which of two portrait versions better represents themselves. Then we relate distortions in self-perceptions to agency and communion dimensions. We demonstrate that (1) participants low in self-esteem show more communion enhancement than participants high in self-esteem; (2) participants in an avoidance state show less agency enhancement (i.e., more realistic self-perceptions) than participants in an approach state. This research is first to demonstrate regularities in visual self-perception that are linked to approach and avoidance motivation.

Approach versus Avoidance: A Self-Regulatory Perspective on Hypocrisy Induction in Anti-Cyberbullying CSR Campaigns

Governments, institutions, and brands try various intervention strategies for countering growing cyberbullying, but with questionable effectiveness. The authors use hypocrisy induction, a technique for subtly reminding consumers that they have acted contrary to their moral values, to see whether it makes consumers more willing to support brand-sponsored anti-cyberbullying CSR campaigns. Findings demonstrate that hypocrisy induction evokes varying reactions depending on regulatory focus, mediated by guilt and shame. Specifically, consumers who have a dominant promotion (prevention) focus feel guilt (shame), which motivates them to overcome their discomfort by supporting (avoiding) an anti-cyberbullying campaign. Moral regulation is drawn as a theoretical underpinning to explain various consumer reactions to hypocrisy induction, the moderating role of regulatory focus, and mediating role of guilt and shame. The research contributes to the literature and provides practical implications by explaining when and why brands can use hypocrisy induction to persuade consumers to support social causes through the lens of moral regulation theory.

Can Regulatory Fit Improve Elementary School Students’ Performance? Effects of Different Types of Regulatory Fit

Previous studies have demonstrated the effect of regulatory fit on Japanese elementary school students (aged 9–12 years). The hypotheses were that promotion focused students tend to show good performance related to speed when they use an eager manner; on the other hand, prevention focused students tend to show good performance related to accuracy when they use a vigilant manner. In Study 1, the class teacher assessed their student’s regulatory focus and then manipulated the students’ manner of solving a calculation task by asking the students to engage speedily so that they solve many tasks in eager manner condition, or accurately so that they can avoid making errors in the vigilant manner condition. The results indicated that students with a promotion focus tended to solve more tasks in the eager manner condition. In addition, the same result was replicated in Study 2. These combined results suggest that regulatory fit is experienced not only by adults but also by young children. Moreover, the influence of regulatory fit depended on the type of regulatory fit. It is suggested that regulatory fit theory could be applied to educational settings to efficiently enhance the performance of students.

Hurry Up, We Need to Find the Key! How Regulatory Focus Design Affects Children's Trust in a Social Robot

In educational scenarios involving social robots, understanding the way robot behaviors affect children's motivation to achieve their learning goals is of vital importance. It is crucial for the formation of a trust relationship between the child and the robot so that the robot can effectively fulfill its role as a learning companion. In this study, we investigate the effect of a regulatory focus design scenario on the way children interact with a social robot. Regulatory focus theory is a type of self-regulation that involves specific strategies in pursuit of goals. It provides insights into how a person achieves a particular goal, either through a strategy focused on "promotion" that aims to achieve positive outcomes or through one focused on "prevention" that aims to avoid negative outcomes. In a user study, 69 children (7-9 years old) played a regulatory focus design goal-oriented collaborative game with the EMYS robot. We assessed children's perception of likability and competence and their trust in the robot, as well as their willingness to follow the robot's suggestions when pursuing a goal. Results showed that children perceived the prevention-focused robot as being more likable than the promotion-focused robot. We observed that a regulatory focus design did not directly affect trust. However, the perception of likability and competence was positively correlated with children's trust but negatively correlated with children's acceptance of the robot's suggestions.

Harbingers of foul play: A field study of gain/loss frames and regulatory fit in the NFL

Do people cheat more when they have something to gain, or when they have something to lose? The answer to this question isn’t straightforward, as research is mixed when it comes to understanding how unethical people will be when they might acquire something good versus avoid something bad. To wit, research has found that people cheat more in a loss (vs. gain) frame, yet research on regulatory focus has found that people cheat more in a promotion focus (where the focus is on acquiring gains) than in a prevention focus (where the focus is on avoiding losses). Through a large-scale field study containing 332,239 observations including 27,350 transgressions, we address the contradictory results of gain/loss frames and regulatory focus on committing unethical behavior in a context that contains a high risk of detecting unethical behavior (NFL football games). Our results replicated the separate effects of more cheating in a loss frame, and more cheating in a promotion focus. Furthermore, our data revealed a heretofore undocumented crossover interaction, in accordance with regulatory fit, which could disentangle past results: Specifically, we found promotion focus is associated with more cheating in a loss (vs. gain) frame, whereas prevention focus is associated with more cheating in a gain (vs. loss) frame. In gridiron football, this translates to offensive players fouling more when their team is losing (vs. winning) and defensive players fouling more when their team is winning (vs. losing).

Easy on the mind, easy on the wrongdoer? No evidence for perceptual fluency effects on moral wrongness ratings

Processing fluency-the subjective ease of information processing-influences a variety of judgments (e.g., judgments of familiarity, liking, and truth). A study by Laham, Alter, and Goodwin (2009) suggests that this is also true for moral judgments. More specifically, the authors found that discrepant perceptual fluency mitigates moral wrongness ratings. In five studies (total N = 694), we tested the replicability of this finding for different kinds of scenarios (moral versus conventional transgressions) and different perceptual fluency manipulations. In Studies 1a and 1b we manipulated fluency by text background, in Studies 2a and 2b by font type, and in Study 3 by word spaces. Critically, none of the studies replicated Laham et al.'s discrepant fluency effect on moral wrongness ratings. In turn, we found that moral wrongness ratings were strongly affected by participants' emotional responses to the scenarios. Taken together, the findings of our five studies cast very strong doubt on perceptual fluency effects on moral judgments.

Beyond Value in Moral Phenomenology: The Role of Epistemic and Control Experiences

Many researchers in moral psychology approach the topic of moral judgment in terms of value-assessing outcomes of behaviors as either harmful or helpful, which makes the behaviors wrong or right, respectively. However, recent advances in motivation science suggest that other motives may be at work as well-namely truth (wanting to establish what is real) and control (wanting to manage what happens). In this review, we argue that the epistemic experiences of observers of (im)moral behaviors, and the perceived epistemic experiences of those observed, serve as a groundwork for understanding how truth and control motives are implicated in the moral judgment process. We also discuss relations between this framework and recent work from across the field of moral psychology, as well as implications for future research.

Sense of Personal Control Intensifies Moral Judgments of Others' Actions

Recent research in moral psychology has highlighted how the current internal states of observers can influence their moral judgments of others' actions. In this article, we argue that an important internal state that serves such a function is the sense of control one has over one's own actions. Across four studies, we show that an individual's own current sense of control is positively associated with the intensity of moral judgments of the actions of others. We also show that this effect extends not only to judgments of rightness and wrongness (Study 1), but also to assignments of reward and punishment (Study 2). Finally, we demonstrate that this effect is based on the current experience of control by showing a moderation of the effect via motivational states (promotion; prevention) that either lead one to incorporate or disregard internal states when making judgments (Study 3) and by subtly manipulating participants' sense of control (Study 4).

Beyond Affective Influences on Deontological Moral Judgment: The Role of Motivations for Prevention in the Moral Condemnation of Harm

Past research suggests that deontological judgments, which condemn deliberate harm no matter what the beneficial consequences, typically arise from emotional and intuitive reactions to the harm, whereas utilitarian judgments, which acknowledge the potential benefits of deliberate harm, typically arise from rational deliberation about whether these benefits outweigh the costs. The present research explores whether specific motivational orientations might, at times, increase the likelihood of deontological judgments without increasing emotional reactions. A meta-analysis of 10 newly conducted studies indicated that, compared with when focused on advancement ( promotion), when people were focused on security ( prevention) they made stronger deontological judgments in hypothetical moral dilemmas. Moreover, this effect could not be explained by participants' differing emotional reactions to the dilemmas when prevention-focused, but instead mirrored reports of their explicit reasoning. Implications for expanding current models of deontological and utilitarian moral judgment are discussed.