Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns?

In four studies we show that participants’ regulatory focus influences speed/accuracy decisions in different tasks. According to regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997), promotion focus concerns with accomplishments and aspirations produce strategic eagerness whereas prevention focus concerns with safety and responsibilities produce strategic vigilance. Studies 1–3 show faster performance and less accuracy in simple drawing tasks for participants with a chronic or situationally induced promotion focus compared to participants with a prevention focus. These studies also show that as participants move closer to the goal of completing the task, speed increases and accuracy decreases for participants with a promotion focus, whereas speed decreases and accuracy increases for participants with a prevention focus. Study 4 basically replicates these results for situationally induced regulatory focus with a more complex proofreading task. The study found that a promotion focus led to faster proofreading compared to a prevention focus, whereas a prevention focus led to higher accuracy in finding more difficult errors than a promotion focus. Through speed and searching for easy errors, promotion focus participants maximized their proofreading performance. In all four studies, the speed effects were independent of the accuracy effects and vice versa. These results show that speed/accuracy (or quantity/quality) decisions are influenced by the strategic inclinations of participants varying in regulatory focus rather than by a built-in trade-off.     

Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride

A new task goal elicits a feeling of pride in individuals with a subjective history of success, and this achievment pride produces anticipatory goal reactions that energize and direct behavior to approach the task goal. By distinguishing between promotion pride and prevention pride, the present paper extends this classic model of achievement motivation. Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997 ) distinguishes between a promotion focus on hopes and accomplishments (gains) and a prevention focus on safety and responsibilities (non‐losses). We propose that a subjective history of success with promotion‐related eagerness (promotion pride) orients individuals toward using eagerness means to approach a new task goal, whereas a subjective history of success with prevention‐related vigilance (prevention pride) orients individuals toward using vigilance means to approach a new task goal. Studies 1–3 tested this proposal by examining the relations between a new measure of participants' subjective histories of promotion success and prevention success (the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ)) and their achievement strategies in different tasks. Study 4 examined the relation between participants' RFQ responses and their reported frequency of feeling eager or vigilant in past task engagements. Study 5 used an experimental priming technique to make participants temporarily experience either a subjective history of promotion success or a subjective history of prevention success. For both chronic and situationally induced achievement pride, these studies found that when approaching task goals individuals with promotion pride use eagerness means whereas individuals with prevention pride use vigilance means. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Effects of Regulatory Focus on Braking Speed1

According to regulatory focus theory ( Higgins, 1997 ), promotion focus is concerned with accomplishments and aspirations leading to strategic eagerness; whereas prevention focus is concerned with safety and responsibilities leading to strategic vigilance. In this study, we investigate how regulatory focus theory can predict braking behavior in driving. In Study 1, participants' assessed regulatory focus strength as measured by chronic personality differences in regulatory focus predicted braking speed, in that chronic prevention‐oriented participants initiated braking earlier, as compared to promotion‐oriented people. In Study 2, we experimentally induced regulatory focus and showed that induced prevention focus enhanced braking speed (i.e., faster), as compared to induced promotion focus.     

Everyday risk taking as a function of regulatory focus

Uncertainty is an inherent aspect of everyday life. However, faced with uncertainty, some individuals take risks more eagerly than others. Regulatory focus theory may explain such differences because risky behavior may arise naturally from the eagerness of promotion focused individuals, while safe behavior may arise naturally from the vigilance of prevention focused individuals. A highly relevant real-life context for studying risk is mobility, as engaging in traffic inherently carries uncertainty about negative outcomes. We present two studies showing a direct link between regulatory focus and risky behavior going beyond traditional laboratory approaches. In both naturalistic speeding behavior (Study 1) and simulated risk taking (Study 2) promotion focus was positively, and prevention focus was negatively related to actual risky behavior.     

Development of Strategic Norms in Groups

In his classic norm formation research, Sherif (1935) demonstrated convergence in group members' judgments of ambiguous perceptual stimuli. In the present study, we investigated convergence in group members' strategic orientations for solving problems, specifically riskiness and conservatism. According to Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1998), people in a “promotion focus” (who are sensitive to the presence and absence of positive outcomes and who desire accomplishments) adopt risky strategies for solving problems, whereas people in a “prevention focus” (who are sensitive to the absence and presence of negative outcomes and who desire security) adopt conservative strategies. Using a modified version of Sherif's classic paradigm, we introduced a subtle manipulation to induce promotion vs prevention focus in three-person groups working on a multitrial recognition memory task. We found evidence that group members' responses converged and that this convergence was associated with a directional bias in strategic orientation (i.e., promotion groups were riskier than prevention groups). Implications of these results for understanding shared reality in groups were discussed.     

Regulatory focus and reliance on implicit preferences in consumption contexts

The present research tested the assumption that implicit preferences fit the eagerness of a promotion focus, but not the need for safe judgments and decisions of a prevention focus. In three studies, we assessed individual differences in implicit preferences for consumer goods and investigated their influence on self-regulatory behavior. In line with expectations, implicit preferences predicted choice intentions (Study 1), single and repeated choices between consumer goods (Study 2), and the amount of product consumption (Study 3) better for individuals in a promotion focus than in a prevention focus. The results were found with two different measures of implicit preferences.     

How regulatory fit enhances motivational strength during goal pursuit

Higgins' (2000) theory of regulatory fit proposes that motivational strength will be enhanced when the manner in which people work toward a goal sustains (rather than disrupts) their regulatory orientation. This enhanced motivational strength in turn should improve efforts at goal attainment. In Experiment 1, predominantly promotion‐ and prevention‐focused participants were given the goal of writing a report on their leisure time, and were assigned either eagerness‐ or vigilance‐framed means to use. Promotion/eagerness and prevention/vigilance participants were about 50% more likely to turn in their reports than promotion/vigilance and prevention/eagerness participants. In Experiment 2, participants read either a promotion‐ or a prevention‐framed health message urging them to eat more fruits and vegetables, and were then asked to imagine either the benefits of compliance or the costs of non‐compliance. Promotion/benefits and prevention/costs participants subsequently ate about 20% more fruits and vegetables over the following week than promotion/costs and prevention/benefits participants. The implications of regulatory fit's enhancement of motivational strength are discussed. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Room for advancement: The regulatory fit of bottom‐rank intermediate feedback

This research tests the hypothesis that promotion‐focused individuals experience regulatory fit from bottom rank, intermediate performance‐feedback. Prior research suggests promotion‐focused individuals experience fit in high social ranks (power). Bottom performance ranks may appear psychologically opposite to high power, which might lead one to expect that promotion‐focused individuals experience fit at top ranks. We propose that the opposite occurs in intermediate performance ranking feedback, in that promotion‐focused individuals experience regulatory fit at a bottom rank, because bottom rank implies having something to gain (yielding eagerness), whereas top rank implies having something to lose (yielding vigilance). Study 1 (N = 261) supports the notion that ranks affect eagerness/vigilance. Study 2 (N = 199) extends these findings by examining engagement from regulatory fit.     

Enhanced Cardiac Perception Is Associated With Increased Susceptibility to Framing Effects

Previous studies suggest in line with dual process models that interoceptive skills affect controlled decisions via automatic or implicit processing. The “framing effect” is considered to capture implicit effects of task‐irrelevant emotional stimuli on decision‐making. We hypothesized that cardiac awareness, as a measure of interoceptive skills, is positively associated with susceptibility to the framing effect. Forty volunteers performed a risky‐choice framing task in which the effect of loss versus gain frames on decisions based on identical information was assessed. The results show a positive association between cardiac awareness and the framing effect, accounting for 24% of the variance in the framing effect. These findings demonstrate that good interoceptive skills are linked to poorer performance in risky choices based on ambivalent information when implicit bias is induced by task‐irrelevant emotional information. These findings support a dual process perspective on decision‐making and suggest that interoceptive skills mediate effects of implicit bias on decisions.     

Promotion and prevention focus on alternative hypotheses: implications for attributional functions

Five studies examined hypothesis generation and discounting in causal attribution from the perspective of regulatory focus theory (E. T. Higgins, 1997, 1998). According to this theory, a promotion focus is associated with generating more and simultaneously endorsing multiple hypotheses, whereas a prevention focus is associated with generating only a few hypotheses and selecting 1 hypothesis from a given set. Five studies confirmed these predictions for both situationally induced and chronic individual differences in regulatory focus. In Studies 1, 2, and 3, individuals in a promotion focus generated more hypotheses than individuals in a prevention focus. In Studies 4 and 5, individuals in a promotion focus discounted explanations in light of alternatives less than individuals in a prevention focus. Study 5 also found that in a promotion focus, person explanations were generalized across situations less than in a prevention focus.     

Responding to negativity: How a risky tactic can serve a vigilant strategy

Regulatory focus theory distinguishes between two motivational systems—a promotion system concerned with nurturance and advancement and a prevention system concerned with security and safety [Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300]. In signal detection terms, a preference for eager strategies within the promotion system has been equated with a “risky” bias, whereas a preference for vigilant strategies within the prevention system has been equated with a “conservative” bias. However, we propose that when prevention-focused individuals face negative input, they should be willing to incur false alarms to ensure that negative stimuli are correctly identified. Across six studies, we found for negative stimuli a reversal of the traditional finding that prevention participants show a conservative bias in information processing. In these studies, prevention participants consistently exhibited a risky bias when the input was negative. We suggest that this new tactic—a risky bias in response to negativity—best serves the prevention strategy of vigilance.     

The influence of lay theories of Feng Shui on consumers' peace of mind: The role of regulatory fit

With its history dating back five millennia, the art of creating harmonious surroundings – commonly referred to as Feng Shui – has become deeply rooted in Chinese culture. Yet despite its significant effect on people's daily lives, a dearth of research is available on how Feng Shui influences consumers' decisions. This study investigates the influence of Feng Shui on customers' attitude based on their regulatory focus, providing suggestions for business opportunities. Three studies examine whether Feng Shui's goals influence participants' decisions and feelings of appropriateness. Study 1 demonstrated that the fit between Feng Shui's suggestions and consumers' regulatory focus impacted decision making. Participants were more likely to adopt the Feng Shui practitioner's suggestions of a goal compatible with the consumers' regulatory focus. Study 2 provided evidence that a regulatory focus also impacts participants' peace of mind. Study 3 tested whether the value experienced from regulatory fit is reflected in the price. Specifically, promotion‐oriented individuals feel more accepting of promotion‐focused Feng Shui that is consistent with an approach goal while prevention‐oriented individuals are more persuaded by prevention‐focused Feng Shui that is consistent with an avoidance goal. When the Feng Shui appeal is compatible with the self‐regulatory focus, individuals demonstrate a greater feeling of appropriateness and produce a higher level of peace of mind.     

People higher in self-control do not necessarily experience more happiness: Regulatory focus also affects subjective well-being

A number of studies have shown that self-control is a key variable influencing subjective well-being (SWB). The present research demonstrated the effects of regulatory focus on SWB. Study 1 surveyed college students and found that (1) promotion-dominant people reported more SWB than prevention-dominant people, even after controlling for the effect of TSC as a covariate, and (2) the direct effect of promotion focus on SWB was significant, but the direct effect of prevention focus on SWB was not significant in the model with TSC as a mediator. Study 2 manipulated situational regulatory foci and required participants to execute a self-control task. The results showed that the two groups did not differ in task performance, or self-control, however, the promotion-focused group reported more task pleasure. These results indicate that promotion focused people are happier than prevention focused people during goal pursuit, that people can chronically and situationally benefit from promotion focus, and moreover, that people higher in self-control do not necessarily experience more SWB.     

Effects of Parent‐Extension Similarity and Self Regulatory Focus on Evaluations of Brand Extensions

Research has shown that a similar extension of a brand is evaluated more favorably than a dissimilar one. In this research we demonstrate that self‐regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention focus) significantly moderates the effect. Four experiments demonstrated that similar extensions were evaluated more favorably than less similar extensions when participants were chronically or momentarily prevention focused, whereas such effect was eliminated and sometimes even reversed when participants were chronically or situationally promotion focused. This discrepancy was attributed to different weights attached to the perceived risk and to the perceived hedonic value of the extension by promotion‐focused vs. prevention‐focused individuals.     

Regulatory Focus and Individual Sales Performance of Field Marketers: A Constructive Replication

abstract

We tested whether field marketers’ regulatory focus predicted their performance. Promotion focus spurs eagerness (acting on opportunity, to advance), whereas prevention focus spurs vigilance (not acting, to maintain security). When sales work involves approaching as many new buyers as possible for single transactions (and little else), promotion focus is well suited for sales performance, and prevention focus is counterproductive. Accordingly, prior research found that promotion focus positively, and prevention focus negatively, predicts performance in such a context. We attempt constructive replication of these findings using stronger methodology. Our study (N?=?156) showed that promotion focus positively, and prevention focus negatively, predicted performance. The study replicated previous findings and showed similar, though in most cases slightly smaller, effect sizes than the original study.     

Lay theories and consumer perceptions of dietary supplements

Consumers lack awareness and concern of potential adverse reactions, interactions, and inappropriate usage associated with dietary supplements. The lack of strict governmental regulation of supplements accompanied by consumers' lack of knowledge often results in them relying on ordinary lay (naïve) beliefs and theories when making supplement‐based decisions. We use an accessibility–diagnosticity framework to explore the impact of lay theories/beliefs on consumers' perceptions and judgments of dietary supplements. Two experiments prime two lay theories relevant to dietary supplement decision making: “less is more” (LIM: Study 1) and “no‐pain no‐gain” (NPNG: Study 2). Supplement form (single‐ vs. multi‐ingredient) is also manipulated in both studies, and Study 2 includes a Food and Drug Administration disclaimer intervention. Findings show that when a LIM lay theory is primed (Study 1), supplement form is a diagnostic cue. Specifically, consumers perceive that multi‐ingredient supplements possess more severe adverse side effects compared with single‐ingredient supplements. In the presence of an NPNG mindset (Study 2), supplement form was not diagnostic in the decision process, and a disclaimer intervention that draws attention to the lack of government regulation and testing of supplements was ineffective at influencing perceived side effect severity and attitude. The data confirm that lay theories impact dietary supplement decision making and that the observed effects are consistent with an accessibility–diagnosticity framework. Implications for public policy are also discussed.     

Do not fear your opponent: suboptimal changes of a prevention strategy when facing stronger opponents

The time spent making a decision and its quality define a widely studied trade-off. Some models suggest that the time spent is set to optimize reward, as verified empirically in simple-decision making experiments. However, in a more complex perspective compromising components of regulation focus, ambitions, fear, risk and social variables, adjustment of the speed-accuracy trade-off may not be optimal. Specifically, regulatory focus theory shows that people can be set in a promotion mode, where focus is on seeking to approach a desired state (to win), or in a prevention mode, focusing to avoid undesired states (not to lose). In promotion, people are eager to take risks increasing speed and decreasing accuracy. In prevention, strategic vigilance increases, decreasing speed and improving accuracy. When time and accuracy have to be compromised, one can ask which of these 2 strategies optimizes reward, leading to optimal performance. This is investigated here in a unique experimental environment. Decision making is studied in rapid-chess (180 s per game), in which the goal of a player is to mate the opponent in a finite amount of time or, alternatively, time-out of the opponent with sufficient material to mate. In different games, players face strong and weak opponents. It was observed that (a) players adopt a more conservative strategy when facing strong opponents, with slower and more accurate moves, and (b) this strategy is suboptimal: Players increase their winning likelihood against strong opponents using the policy they adopt when confronting opponents with similar strength.     

Decide like Lionel Messi! The impact of regulatory focus on divergent thinking in sports

According to Higgins, the regulatory focus theory states that in terms of motivational information processing, it makes a difference whether people have a promotion or prevention focus. A focus on aspirations is labeled as promotion focus, whereas a focus on responsibility is called prevention focus. In our study, the theory will be applied to the area of sport decision making. We showed that soccer players make different decisions in a sport‐specific divergent‐thinking task depending on their regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention). Promotion‐framed athletes were able to produce more original, flexible, and adequate solutions than prevention‐framed athletes. Theoretical and practical implications for sport psychology are discussed.     

Stereotype threat and performance: how self-stereotypes influence processing by inducing regulatory foci

The authors hypothesized that activated self-stereotypes can influence the strategies of task solution by inducing regulatory foci. More specifically, positive self-stereotypes should induce a promotion focus state of eagerness, whereas negative stereotypes should induce a prevention focus state of vigilance. Study 1 showed that a negative ascribed stereotype with regard to task performance leads to better recall for avoidance-related statements whereas a positive stereotype leads to better recall for approach-related statements. In Studies 2 and 3, both an experimental manipulation of group performance expectation and the preexisting stereotype of better verbal skills in women than in men led to faster and less accurate performance in the positive as compared with the negative stereotype group. Studies 4 and 5 showed that positive in-group stereotypes led to more creative performance whereas negative stereotypes led to better analytical performance. These results point to a possible mechanism for stereotype-threat effects.     

What a Feeling: The Role of Immediate and Anticipated Emotions in Risky Decisions

The risk‐as‐feelings hypothesis argues that many risky decisions are not only predicted by anticipated emotions, as most consequentialistic decision making theories would presume, but also by immediate emotions. Immediate emotions refer to the “hot” visceral feelings people feel as they contemplate a specific decision option at the cusp of making a decision, whereas anticipated emotions are those emotions that people forecast that they will feel once they experience possible consequences of that decision. Four studies focused on the role of both types of emotions in decisions under risk and uncertainty. Decisions were substantively predicted by immediate emotional states beyond anticipated emotions or the subjective probability attached to outcomes. Thus, risky choices may be prompted, in part, by how people feel about the “riskless” portion of the decision—specifically, the various decision options they are contemplating—rather than the potential outcomes those options may produce. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.