Prevention-focused individuals are motivated to maintain the status quo. Given this, we predicted that individuals with a strong prevention focus, either as a chronic predisposition or situationally induced, would treat their initial decision on how to behave on a first task as the status quo and would thus be motivated to repeat that decision on a subsequent task—even for decisions that were ethically questionable. Results from five studies supported this prediction in multiple ethical domains: whether or not to overstate performance (Studies 1, 2a, and 2b), whether or not to disclose disadvantageous facts (Study 3), and whether or not to pledge a donation (Study 4). The prevention-repetition effect was observed both when the initial and subsequent decisions were in the same domain (Studies 1–3) and when they were in different domains (Study 4). Alternative accounts for this effect, such as justification for the initial decision and preference for consistency, were ruled out (Study 2b).
ArielyD. (2009). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. London, England: Harper.
2.
ArielyD.LoewensteinG.PrelecD. (2003). Coherent arbitrariness: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 73–106.
3.
AshforthB. E.AnandV. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 1–52.
4.
BeauvoisJ.-L.JouleR.-V.BrunettiF. (1993). Cognitive rationalization and act rationalization in an escalation of commitment. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 1–17.
5.
CamachoC. J.HigginsE. T.LugerL. (2003). Moral value transfer from regulatory fit: “What feels right is right” and “what feels wrong is wrong.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 498–510.
6.
CialdiniR. B.TrostM. R.NewsomJ. T. (1995). Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 318–328.
7.
ClinardM. B.YeagerP. C. (1980). Corporate crime. New York, NY: Free Press.
8.
CroweE.HigginsE. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 117–132.
9.
DarleyJ. M. (1992). Social organization for the production of evil. Psychological Inquiry, 3, 199–218.
10.
FlemingP.ZyglidopoulosS. C. (2008). The escalation of deception in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 837–850.
11.
FörsterJ.FriedmanR. S.ÖzelselA.DenzlerD. (2006). Enactment of approach and avoidance behavior influences the scope of perceptual and conceptual attention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 133–146.
12.
FriedmanR. S.FörsterJ. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001–1013.
13.
GinoF.BazermanM. H. (2009). When misconduct goes unnoticed: The acceptability of gradual erosion in others’ unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 708–719.
14.
GinoF.MargolisJ. D. (2011). Bring ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (un)ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 145–156.
15.
GreveH. R.PalmerD.PoznerJ.-E. (2010). Organizations gone wild: The causes, processes, and consequences of organizational misconduct. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 53–107.
16.
HalvorsonH. G.HigginsE. T. (2013). Know what really motivates you. Harvard Business Review, 91, 117–120.
17.
HigginsE. T. (1996). The “self digest”: Self-knowledge serving self-regulatory functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1062–1083.
18.
HigginsE. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.
19.
HigginsE. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1–46). New York, NY: Academic Press.
20.
HigginsE. T. (2005). Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 209–213.
21.
HigginsE. T. (2012). Beyond pleasure and pain: How motivation works. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
22.
HigginsE. T.FriedmanR. S.HarlowR. E.IdsonL. C.AydukO. N.TaylorA. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3–23.
23.
JordanJ.MullenE.MurnighanJ. K. (2011). Striving for the moral self: The effects of recalling past moral actions on future moral behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 701–713.
24.
KarpR.GoldD.TanM. (1998). Bullard Houses. In BrettJ. M. (Ed.), Teaching materials for negotiations and decision making. 2008 (p. 12). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, Dispute Resolution Research Center.
25.
KernM. C.ChughD. (2009). Bounded ethicality: The perils of loss framing. Psychological Science, 20, 378–384.
26.
LeonardelliG. J.LakinJ. L.ArkinR. M. (2007). A regulatory focus model of self-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 1002–1009.
27.
LibermanN.IdsonL. C.CamachoC. J.HigginsE. T. (1999). Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1135–1145.
28.
MazarN.AmirO.ArielyD. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 633–644.
29.
MoninB.JordanA. H. (2009). The dynamic moral self: A social psychological perspective. In NarvaezD.LapsleyD. K. (Eds.), Personality, identity, and character: Explorations in moral psychology (pp. 341–354). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
30.
MooreD. A.TetlockP. E.TanluL.BazermanM. H. (2006). Conflicts of interest and the case of auditor independence: Moral seduction and strategic issue cycling. Academy of Management Review, 31, 10–29.
31.
PfarrerM. D.DecellesK. A.SmithK. G.TaylorM. S. (2008). After the fall: Reintegrating the corrupt organization. Academy of Management Review, 33, 730–749.
32.
RuedyN. E.SchweitzerM. E. (2011). In the moment: The effect of mindfulness on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 73–87.
33.
SachdevaS.IlievR.MedinD. L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological Science, 20, 523–528.
34.
SchrandC. M.ZechmanS. (2012). Executive overconfidence and the slippery slope to financial misreporting. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 53, 311–329.
35.
ShahJ.HigginsE. T.FriedmanR. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 285–293.
36.
SteinelW.UtzS.KoningL. (2010). The good, the bad and the ugly thing to do when sharing information: Revealing, concealing and lying depend on social motivation, distribution and importance of information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 85–96.
37.
TangneyJ. P.StuewigJ.MashekD. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372.
38.
TenbrunselA. E.MessickD. M. (2004). Ethical fading: The role of self-deception in unethical behavior. Social Justice Research, 17, 223–236.
39.
WeissL.JoharG. V. (2012). Products as self-evaluation standards. Manuscript submitted for publication.
40.
ZhangS.HigginsE. T.ChenG. (2011). Managing others like you were managed: How prevention focus motivates copying interpersonal norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 647–663.
41.
ZhongC. B.KuG.LountR. B.Jr.MurnighanJ. K. (2010). Compensatory ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 323–339.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
