TY - JOUR
T1 - I Have a Dream but Ought to Do Something Else
T2 - Time Allocation to Prevention and Promotion Goals
AU - Schodl, Michal Milka
AU - Van Dijk, Dina
PY - 2014/1
Y1 - 2014/1
N2 - In everyday life, we need to allocate limited resources (e.g., time, money) to different types of goals. On the one hand, we wish to pursue our dreams and aspirations (promotion goals), but on the other hand, we need to meet obligations and duties (prevention goals). How, then do people allocate their resources between these two types of goals? In four studies, participants were asked to plan how they would allocate resources to hypothetical activities (Studies 1 & 2) and to their real-life activities (Studies 3 & 4). We consistently found (Studies 1, 2, & 3) that people chose to allocate about 60% of their resources to duties and obligations, while the remaining 40% was allocated to dreams and aspirations. This ratio of 1.5:1 in favor of prevention goals resembles the ratio that was previously found between the impacts of loss versus gain, known as the loss aversion effect (e.g., Tversky & Kahneman, 1991). In addition, we found that prevention focus moderates this ratio: the lower the prevention level (chronic and induced), the higher the allocation to promotion goals. Yet, the allocations to promotion goals rarely exceed 50%. The results are discussed in light of the hierarchy principle.
AB - In everyday life, we need to allocate limited resources (e.g., time, money) to different types of goals. On the one hand, we wish to pursue our dreams and aspirations (promotion goals), but on the other hand, we need to meet obligations and duties (prevention goals). How, then do people allocate their resources between these two types of goals? In four studies, participants were asked to plan how they would allocate resources to hypothetical activities (Studies 1 & 2) and to their real-life activities (Studies 3 & 4). We consistently found (Studies 1, 2, & 3) that people chose to allocate about 60% of their resources to duties and obligations, while the remaining 40% was allocated to dreams and aspirations. This ratio of 1.5:1 in favor of prevention goals resembles the ratio that was previously found between the impacts of loss versus gain, known as the loss aversion effect (e.g., Tversky & Kahneman, 1991). In addition, we found that prevention focus moderates this ratio: the lower the prevention level (chronic and induced), the higher the allocation to promotion goals. Yet, the allocations to promotion goals rarely exceed 50%. The results are discussed in light of the hierarchy principle.
U2 - 10.5465/ambpp.2014.12946abstract
DO - 10.5465/ambpp.2014.12946abstract
M3 - Meeting Abstract
SN - 0065-0668
VL - 1
SP - 12946
JO - Academy of Management Proceedings
JF - Academy of Management Proceedings
ER -