Regulatory focus as a predictor of omission bias in moral judgment

Mediating role of anticipated regrets

Eun Kyoung Chung, Soo Jung Kim, Young Woo Sohn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Omission bias occurs when people are more reluctant to accept negative consequences caused by their actions than by their inaction. Recent research on omission bias in decision-making has found evidence for individual differences, thus indicating that some people are more likely to show omission inclination than others. The present research aims to explore the role of regulatory focus as individual difference variables in omission bias. Moreover, we examine whether anticipated regret mediates the relationship between regulatory focus and moral judgement. Moral judgement tasks utilized include: (i) moral dilemma scenarios (Study 1); and (ii) ethical scenarios embracing apparent legal rule violations (Study 2). The results of both studies show that only prevention focus is significantly related to omission bias in moral judgement. Specifically, this relationship holds regardless of the nature of the 'omission' (whether they are deontological or utilitarian). In addition, anticipated regret/guilt for action was found to mediate the relationship between prevention focus and omission bias. Implications and limitations are discussed based on the results of the current study.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)302-311
Number of pages10
JournalAsian Journal of Social Psychology
Volume17
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014 Jan 1

Fingerprint

moral judgement
Emotions
Individuality
trend
Guilt
Research
Decision Making
scenario
guilt
decision making
evidence

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Social Psychology
  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

@article{69875f0284d845fe8fe8d94bd2477ed9,
title = "Regulatory focus as a predictor of omission bias in moral judgment: Mediating role of anticipated regrets",
abstract = "Omission bias occurs when people are more reluctant to accept negative consequences caused by their actions than by their inaction. Recent research on omission bias in decision-making has found evidence for individual differences, thus indicating that some people are more likely to show omission inclination than others. The present research aims to explore the role of regulatory focus as individual difference variables in omission bias. Moreover, we examine whether anticipated regret mediates the relationship between regulatory focus and moral judgement. Moral judgement tasks utilized include: (i) moral dilemma scenarios (Study 1); and (ii) ethical scenarios embracing apparent legal rule violations (Study 2). The results of both studies show that only prevention focus is significantly related to omission bias in moral judgement. Specifically, this relationship holds regardless of the nature of the 'omission' (whether they are deontological or utilitarian). In addition, anticipated regret/guilt for action was found to mediate the relationship between prevention focus and omission bias. Implications and limitations are discussed based on the results of the current study.",
author = "Chung, {Eun Kyoung} and Kim, {Soo Jung} and Sohn, {Young Woo}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/ajsp.12060",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "302--311",
journal = "Asian Journal of Social Psychology",
issn = "1367-2223",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

Regulatory focus as a predictor of omission bias in moral judgment : Mediating role of anticipated regrets. / Chung, Eun Kyoung; Kim, Soo Jung; Sohn, Young Woo.

In: Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 4, 01.01.2014, p. 302-311.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Regulatory focus as a predictor of omission bias in moral judgment

T2 - Mediating role of anticipated regrets

AU - Chung, Eun Kyoung

AU - Kim, Soo Jung

AU - Sohn, Young Woo

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Omission bias occurs when people are more reluctant to accept negative consequences caused by their actions than by their inaction. Recent research on omission bias in decision-making has found evidence for individual differences, thus indicating that some people are more likely to show omission inclination than others. The present research aims to explore the role of regulatory focus as individual difference variables in omission bias. Moreover, we examine whether anticipated regret mediates the relationship between regulatory focus and moral judgement. Moral judgement tasks utilized include: (i) moral dilemma scenarios (Study 1); and (ii) ethical scenarios embracing apparent legal rule violations (Study 2). The results of both studies show that only prevention focus is significantly related to omission bias in moral judgement. Specifically, this relationship holds regardless of the nature of the 'omission' (whether they are deontological or utilitarian). In addition, anticipated regret/guilt for action was found to mediate the relationship between prevention focus and omission bias. Implications and limitations are discussed based on the results of the current study.

AB - Omission bias occurs when people are more reluctant to accept negative consequences caused by their actions than by their inaction. Recent research on omission bias in decision-making has found evidence for individual differences, thus indicating that some people are more likely to show omission inclination than others. The present research aims to explore the role of regulatory focus as individual difference variables in omission bias. Moreover, we examine whether anticipated regret mediates the relationship between regulatory focus and moral judgement. Moral judgement tasks utilized include: (i) moral dilemma scenarios (Study 1); and (ii) ethical scenarios embracing apparent legal rule violations (Study 2). The results of both studies show that only prevention focus is significantly related to omission bias in moral judgement. Specifically, this relationship holds regardless of the nature of the 'omission' (whether they are deontological or utilitarian). In addition, anticipated regret/guilt for action was found to mediate the relationship between prevention focus and omission bias. Implications and limitations are discussed based on the results of the current study.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84911420129&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84911420129&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/ajsp.12060

DO - 10.1111/ajsp.12060

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 302

EP - 311

JO - Asian Journal of Social Psychology

JF - Asian Journal of Social Psychology

SN - 1367-2223

IS - 4

ER -