Should people be considered organ donors after their death unless they request not to be, or should they not be considered donors unless they request to be? Because people tend to stay with the default in a variety of domains, policymakers' choice of default has large and often important effects. In the United States, where the organ-donation policy default is "not a donor," about 5,000 people die every year because there are too few donors. Four experiments examined two domains-being an organ donor and saving for retirement-where default effects occur and have important implications. The results indicate that default effects occur in part because policymakers' attitudes can be revealed through their choice of default, and people perceive the default as indicating the recommended course of action. Policymakers need to be aware of the implicit messages conveyed by their choice of default.
This article explores the feedback individuals give, seek, and respond to in the course of pursuing their goals. We propose that positive feedback motivates goal pursuit when it signals an increase in goal commitment, whereas negative feedback motivates goal pursuit when it signals insufficient goal progress. We review research suggesting that whether individuals are drawn to evaluate their level of commitment versus rate of progress determines the type of feedback (positive or negative) that best motivates them to pursue their goals. We then review research suggesting that these effects of feedback operate by inducing positive and negative general moods as well as specific emotions.
Do subtle cues for imposed healthy eating make consumers hungry? Imposed healthy eating signals that the health goal was sufficiently met, and thus it increases the strength of the conflicting motive to fulfill one's appetite. Accordingly, consumers asked to sample an item framed as healthy later reported being hungrier and consumed more food than those who sampled the same item framed as tasty or those who did not eat at all. These effects of healthy eating depend on the consumer's perception that healthy eating is mandatory; therefore, only imposed healthy eating made consumers hungrier, whereas freely choosing to eat healthy did not increase hunger. E xternally imposed controls are common and help individuals adhere to their long-term interests. Thus, mandatory retirement savings, seat belt laws, compulsory physical education in college, and cafeterias that offer only healthy alternatives-all are common examples of how external controls help individuals resolve the internal conflict between options that offer larger but delayed benefits and those that offer lesser but immediate benefits. But, when external constraints lead individuals to adhere to their long-term interests, how does this influence the resultant strength of the compromised short-term interest? We explore this question in the domain of imposed healthy eating. We ask, for example, how having a healthy meal in a cafeteria that offers only healthy alternatives influences the motive to satisfy one's appetite. In particular, we examine how imposed healthy eating influences individuals' experienced hunger. We propose that because adherence to the health goal under externally imposed controls signals that progress has been made without also increasing the sense of personal commitment, it can ironically increase the strength of the competing motive to satisfy one's appetite afterward. Put simply, imposed healthy eating would make people feel hungrier than not eating at all or eating the same food without an emphasis on its healthiness. We further propose that this effect of imposed healthy eating is more pronounced among individuals who are less concerned with watching their diet, Stacey Finkelstein (sfinkels@chicagobooth.edu) is a doctoral candidate and Ayelet Fishbach (ayelet.fishbach@chicagobooth.edu) is professor of behavioral science and marketing at
Having a strong instrument is important to promote future research. Also, administrators can use it to assess organizational climate in their clinics and propose interventions to improve it, thus promoting NP practice and the expansion of NP workforce.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.