Search

Ample correlational evidence exists that perceived unfair treatment is negatively related to well-being, health, and goal striving but the underlying process is unclear. We hypothesized that effects are due in part to contextual priming of prevention focus and the negative consequences of chronic prevention-focused vigilance. Indeed, reasonable responses to unfair treatment—to avoid situations in which it occurs or if this is not possible, confront it head on—fit prevention self-regulatory focus response patterns. Results from three experiments support this notion. Priming stigmatized social category membership heightened students’ prevention (not promotion) focus (n = 117). Priming non-stigmatized social category membership (i.e., white) did not change prevention focus (n = 46). Priming prevention (not promotion) increased perceptions of unfair treatment (and aroused prevention-relevant fight or flight responses) in response to a negative ambiguous job situation among low and moderate income adults (n = 112).

Visualizing oneself engaging in future actions has been shown to increase the likelihood of actually engaging in the visualized action. In three studies, we examined the effect of perspective taken to visualize a future action (first-person vs. third-person) as a function of the degree to which individuals worry about others' evaluation of themselves (face) and whether the visualized behavior is public or private. Across all studies, the effect of visual perspective was present only for participants with a high level of face. In this group, the third-person visualization induced stronger intentions to engage in the behavior when the imagined behavior was public (Study 1), whereas the first-person visualization induced stronger intentions and greater likelihood to engage in that behavior when it was private (Study 2). The influence of the first-person perspective on flossing behavior was eliminated when people with high levels of face were encouraged to consider inter-personal consequences of the action (Study 3). Results are discussed in the light of recent theorizing on the cognitive consequences of taking a third-person versus a first-person perspective in visual imagery.