Suchergebnisse

Two motivations underlying punishment can be distinguished. On the one hand, the retributive motivation prescribes that punishment should be proportional to the moral offense caused. On the other hand, according the utilitarian perspective, punishment should be aimed at protecting society by reducing the likelihood of similar infractions. Previous research did not examine whether individual differences could lead to a preference for one of the two motivations. We propose that high need for closure could be associated with higher utilitarian motivation because of its general concern for group related consequences of violations. In support of our hypothesis, in Study 1 we found that individuals high in need for closure endorsed to a greater extent a zero-tolerance policy rather than a proportional one. Study 2 further showed that closed-minded individuals sought more information related to the utilitarian, rather than the retributive perspective, when judging a violation. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

This data article provides descriptive and analytic exploration of the links between anti-immigration policies, ideological and political attitudes and voting in an Italian Sample. More specifically, the data set comprises measures of socio-political dispositions (e.g., Right-Wing Authoritarianism), social world views (e.g. Dangerous World Beliefs), populist attitudes, self-reported voting in the last Italian political elections (March 4, 2018), and conspiracy beliefs. The sample consists of 774 participants, mostly non-student adult individuals. Participants completed an anonymous questionnaire

This data article provides descriptive and analytic exploration of the links between anti-immigration policies, ideological and political attitudes and voting in an Italian Sample. More specifically, the data set comprises measures of socio-political dispositions (e.g., Right-Wing Authoritarianism), social world views (e.g., Dangerous World Beliefs), populist attitudes, self-reported voting in the last Italian political elections (March 4, 2018), and conspiracy beliefs. The sample consists of 774 participants, mostly non-student adult individuals. Participants completed an anonymous questionnaire.

Abstract. Exertion of self-control produces distinct motivational consequences: the motivation to conserve energy and the motivation to seek rewards. We propose that heightened conservation inhibits reward-seeking, but only when the pursuit of the reward entails substantial energy expenditure. In two studies, we manipulated self-regulatory effort and then had participants engage in an additional task that was either easy or difficult. In Study 1, we found that self-regulatory effort tended to heighten reward-sensitivity but only when the subsequent task was easy. In Study 2, we measured pupil dilation to assess reward sensitivity while participants viewed images of rewarding stimuli. When the need to conserve was intense, we observed reduced pupil dilation for rewards that were energy-requiring but not for those that were energy-giving.

PurposeThe present paper aims to identify an important moderator of the effect of leader's fairness on the conflict handling style adopted by followers. Based on the uncertainty management model the authors hypothesize that the motivation to reduce uncertainty, reflected by individual differences in need for cognitive closure, moderates the use of constructive conflict handling style as a response to variation in leader's perceived procedural fairness.Design/methodology/approachA correlational study was conducted on a sample of 175 Italian public employees. Each participant filled out a questionnaire. Data analysis was carried out performing a series of multiple regression analyses.FindingsConsistent with previous research, regression analysis showed that perceived leader's fairness promoted a more constructive approach to manage conflict with leaders. More importantly this relationship was stronger under high rather than low need for cognitive closure.Practical implicationsPresent results suggest that in order to favor a solution‐oriented conflict handling style, leaders should promote perceptions of procedural fairness, especially among those with high need for closure.Originality/valueThis is one of the first studies that looks at a moderator of the relationship between leader's fairness and constructive conflict management. It integrates literature on procedural fairness and cooperation. Furthermore, as the current research focuses on need for closure, it has important implications with regard to the uncertainty management model.

Abstract. When considering how criminals should be punished, most individuals prefer retributive (i.e., punishment compensating for the harm caused by the perpetrator) over utilitarian justice (i.e., punishment with the intent to deter future crime). However, past research has found that individuals with a high (vs. low) need for cognitive closure (NCC) are more likely to endorse utilitarian punishment. In three studies, we replicated past research on the association between need for closure and utilitarian justice (Study 1), and found that this relationship is mediated by moral concerns pertaining to group unity and cohesion (Study 2). In Study 3 we examine another instance of utilitarian policy: torture. Our data provide evidence that preference for utilitarian punishment is rooted in basic moral concerns.

This research investigates how the impact of persuasive messages in the political domain can be improved when fit is created by subliminally priming recipients' regulatory focus (either promotion or prevention) and by linguistic framing of the message (either strategic approach framing or strategic avoidance framing). Results of two studies show that regulatory fit: a) increases the impact of a political message favoring nuclear energy on implicit attitudes of the target audience (Study 1); and b) induces a more positive evaluation of, and intentions to vote for, the political candidate who is delivering a message concerning immigration policies (Study 2).

"Difficult issues in negotiation act as interfering forces but their effects on negotiation processes and outcomes are unclear. Perhaps facing such obstacles leads individuals to take a step back, attend to the big picture and, therefore, to be able to craft creative, mutually beneficial solutions. Alternatively, facing obstacles may lead negotiators to focus narrowly on the obstacle issue, so that they no longer consider issues simultaneously, and forego the possibility to reach high quality, integrative agreements. Three experiments involving face-to-face negotiation support the "getting stuck" hypothesis, but only when negotiators are in a local processing mode and not when they are in a global processing mode. Implications for the art and science of negotiation, and for construal level theory, are discussed." [author's abstract]

AbstractThe present work proposes that the relation of employment conditions (i.e., unemployment and precarious work vs. permanent employment) with participation in collective action and satisfaction with life depends on the extent to which acceptance of inequality is high or low, and that collective action mediates the association between employment conditions and satisfaction with life. We analyzed data from the European Social Survey (Round 8, 2016) and found that (1) when acceptance of inequality is low (vs. high), employment disadvantage is positively related to engagement in collective action and, in turn, satisfaction with life; (2) employment disadvantage is negatively related to satisfaction with life, and this relation increases when acceptance of inequality is low (vs. high). This study generates findings of interest to inequality researchers by showing the relevance of acceptance of inequality for collective action and life satisfaction in the context of employment.

Grounded in the theoretical framework of the dual-process motivational model of ideology and politics, we investigated the mediational role of RWA and SDO on the relationship between voting for populist parties and conspiracy beliefs; the moderation of political interest was also explored. Collapsing different convenience samples gathered after the European election (2014/2015) and the General National Election (2018/2019) allowed us to analyse two datasets (Study 1, n = 4141; Study 2, n = 2301). We hypothesised that populist voters would report higher conspiracy beliefs, RWA, and SDO, compared to non-populist voters and abstainers, and that populist voters would report more conspiracy beliefs through indirect pathways running through RWA and SDO. Furthermore, we hypothesised that such direct and indirect associations would be stronger for individuals with high rather than low political interest. Analyses of variance and moderated mediation models mostly confirmed our expectations, although RWA, and not SDO, mediated the relationships in the expected directions.

PurposeTo avoid (costly) conflict, it is imperative to uncover when negotiators cooperate. The previous study has shown that negotiators' cooperative or competitive behavior is oftentimes guided by cues about their counterpart; information about his/her traits or behavior. Using regulatory focus theory, this paper aims to investigate when this is likely to happen. The authors hypothesize and test that because prevention focus (rather than promotion focus) is associated with concerns for safety and concrete surroundings, it strengthens the impact of counterpart cues.Design/methodology/approachThe authors used two scenario studies and one behavioral negotiation study to test the general hypothesis. The authors measured or manipulated participants' regulatory focus, manipulated counterpart cues by varying the information negotiators received about their counterpart's traits and behavior, and measured participants' cooperative or competitive concession making behavior.FindingsResults from the studies confirmed that under prevention focus, negotiators' cooperative behavior depended on whether they received cooperative versus competitive counterpart cues more than under promotion focus. Furthermore, results also showed that under prevention focus, negotiators' behavior was relatively unaffected by their own social motivation – i.e. their personal goal to obtain favorable outcomes for oneself or for both negotiation parties.Originality/valueBy showing that regulatory focus determines when counterpart cues affect negotiation behavior, this paper furthers the understanding of when contextual factors affect negotiators' behavior. In addition, it contributes to the understanding of the complex effects of prevention focus in interpersonal behavior.