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.     

Regulatory Focus and Political Decision Making: When People Favor Reform Over the Status Quo

Two studies examined the impact of self‐reported use of promotion‐related (i.e., eagerness) and prevention‐related (i.e., vigilance) strategies when making “risky” or “conservative” decisions about economic reform under good, average, or poor economic conditions. Consistent with regulatory focus theory ( Higgins, 1997, 1998, 2000 ), in both studies strategic vigilance was associated with making a conservative choice, whereas strategic eagerness was associated with making a risky choice. In addition, along with perceptions of economic conditions, chronic strength of prevention focus (Study 1) or situationally induced prevention focus (Study 2) was associated with using strategic vigilance, whereas chronic strength of promotion focus (Study 1) or situationally induced promotion focus (Study 2) was associated with using strategic eagerness. Finally, regulatory focus and economic perceptions indirectly predicted economic reform decisions through their impact on strategy use. Our studies are the first to demonstrate that vigilant or eager strategy use is associated with “conservative” or “risky” political decisions.     

How regulatory focus influences consumer behavior

According to Higgins ( 1997 ) the theory of regulatory focus says that in terms of both information processing and motivation it makes a difference whether people have a promotion or prevention focus. In this paper, this theory will be applied to the area of consumer psychology. In three experiments we show that consumer's regulatory focus either measured or induced in a given situation influences product evaluations. Study 1 shows that consumers are interested in different product features depending on their focus; whereas in the prevention focus they are more interested in safety‐oriented aspects, in the promotion focus they concentrate more on comfort‐oriented qualities. In Study 2, a typical prevention product and a typical promotion product are compared with one another and data shows that focus compatible products are evaluated more positively. In Study 3 we demonstrate that advertisments that correspond to the focus of the consumer lead to more positive evaluations of the product than advertisments that are incompatible with the focus of the consumer. Theoretical and practical implications will be discussed. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Regulatory fit in framing strategy of parental persuasive messages to young children

The present research examined regulatory fit in parental messages aimed at young children. Study 1 measured parents' chronic regulatory focus, asking them to select either positively or negatively framed messages for promotion‐ and prevention‐focused outcomes. The results showed that parents preferred positive frames for promotion‐focused messages and negative frames for prevention‐focused messages. Furthermore, parents with a chronic promotion focus favored a positively framed strategy more than parents with a prevention focus. Study 2 found that parents adopted different message strategies depending on whether they favored an active responsive or an active restrictive parenting style. Together, these findings demonstrate for the first time the applicability of regulatory focus/fit theory to explain parents' preferences for positively and negatively framed messages targeting children.     

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.     

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.     

Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (Un)ethical behavior

In four laboratory studies, we find that regulatory focus induced by situational cues (such as the framing of an unrelated task) or primed influences people’s likelihood to cross ethical boundaries. A promotion focus leads individuals to be more likely to act unethically than a prevention focus (Studies 1, 2, and 3). These higher levels of dishonesty are explained by the influence of a person’s induced regulatory focus on his or her behavior toward risk. A promotion focus leads to risk-seeking behaviors, while a prevention focus leads to risk avoidance (Study 3). Through higher levels of dishonesty, promotion focus also results in higher levels of virtuous behavior (Studies 2 and 3), thus providing evidence for compensatory ethics. Our results also demonstrate that the framing of ethics (e.g., through an organization’s ethics code) influences individuals’ ethical behavior and does so differently depending on an individual’s induced regulatory focus (Study 4).     

Social change as an important goal or likely outcome: how regulatory focus affects commitment to collective action

The results of three experiments showed that regulatory focus influences the way in which the importance and likelihood of social change affect individuals' commitment to collective action. In Studies 1 (N= 82) and 2 (N= 153), the strength of participants' chronic regulatory focus was measured. In Study 3 (N= 52), promotion or prevention focus was experimentally induced. The results showed that for individuals under promotion focus, commitment to collective action depended on the perceived likelihood that through this action important social change would be achieved. Individuals under prevention focus were willing to commit to collective action when they attached high importance to its goal, regardless of the extent to which they believed that attainment of this goal was likely. Implications of these results for work on regulatory focus and collective action are discussed.     

Regulatory focus and attitudes to migrants

In two studies we examined the role of two regulatory foci (i.e., prevention and promotion) in predicting Australian's attitudes to different types of migrants. According to regulatory focus theory, promotion-focused self-regulation is concerned with nurturance and accomplishment needs and involves the pursuit of wishes and aspirations. As such, it results in sensitivity to positive outcomes and to relative pleasure from gains. On the other hand, prevention-focused self-regulation is concerned with security needs and is directed at meeting duties and obligations. As such, it results in sensitivity to negative outcome and relative pain from losses. In Study 1, as predicted, the extent of promotion focus (i.e., a concern with accomplishment and the pursuit of ideals) predicted more positive attitudes to culturally similar and economically beneficial migrants, whereas the extent of prevention focus (i.e., concern with security and meeting obligations) predicted more negative attitudes to migrants who are culturally dissimilar. In Study 2 we replicated and extended these findings, showing that the extent of promotion focus and a lack of concern with threats predicted positive attitudes to both culturally similar and economically beneficial migrants, which, in the case of the latter group, was mediated by a focus on the benefits these migrants provide. In the case of culturally dissimilar migrants, the extent of promotion focus and a concern with gains predicted more positive attitudes. However, for economically less beneficial migrants, neither the extent of promotion nor prevention focus was a predictor. Only lower concerns with threat predicted more positive attitudes to this migrant group. The results are discussed with respect to other determinants of attitudes to migrants and the implications for migration and asylum-seeker policy.     

The impact of regulatory focus on affective responses to social discrimination

The impact of individuals' regulatory focus and the domain of outcomes (non‐gains vs. losses) on the target's affective responses to social discrimination were tested. Based on regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997 ), it was predicted that a prevention focus would lead to more anger and agitation after social discrimination, because experiencing social discrimination is similar to experiencing failure. This pattern was predicted to be more pronounced when social discrimination was based on losses than when social discrimination was based on non‐gains (i.e., when the in‐group was evaluated more negatively vs. less positively compared to the out‐group). The results of three studies using chronic and situationally induced regulatory focus confirmed these predictions. No effect was found for the promotion focus. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Shield of Defense or the Sword of Prosecution?How Self‐Regulatory Focus Relates to Responses to Crime

People can strive to attain goals in one of two ways: They can be tolerant of risk and focus on attaining successes, or they can be intolerant of risk and focus on avoiding pitfalls and failures. These differences, termed promotion focus and prevention focus, respectively, have been related to differences in how personal goals are understood, but not yet applied to policy issues. Two studies examine the implications of chronic (Study 1) and experimentally induced (Study 2) promotion vs. prevention goals for a law‐and‐order mind set. Participants high in promotion focus assigned more punishment to a criminal (Study 1). Compared to prevention‐focused participants, experimentally induced promotion focus increased the likelihood of arresting a suspect and justifying this choice (Study 2).     

A regulatory focus model of self-evaluation

Regulatory focus theory [Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1-46). New York: Academic Press.] argues that concerns with growth and nurturance (i.e., a promotion focus) and concerns with safety and security (i.e., a prevention focus) produce different motives and perception. The current studies test whether regulatory focus also affects individuals’ strivings for self-evaluation. Specifically, we argue that a promotion or a prevention focus directs the self-evaluation process to self-esteem or self-certainty, respectively. Two studies supported this prediction by demonstrating that regulatory focus affects the strength of self-evaluation goals and individuals’ reactions to goal failure. In Study 1, we found that a promotion focus led to a stronger self-esteem goal (as measured by greater accessibility of esteem-related words), whereas a prevention focus led to a stronger self-certainty goal (as measured by greater accessibility of certainty-related words). In Study 2, a promotion failure led to lower self-esteem than a prevention failure, but a prevention failure led to lower self-certainty than a promotion failure. This research suggests an unrecognized role of nurturance and safety concerns in understanding the self-evaluation process.     

Vigilant self‐regulation,cues of being watched and cooperativeness

The present research examined the interplay of individual differences in self‐regulatory mechanisms as outlined in regulatory focus theory (promotion‐ and prevention‐focus) and a cue of being watched in the context of cooperative behaviour. Study 1 revealed that the more individuals' habitual self‐regulatory orientation is dominated by a vigilant prevention focus, the more likely they are to act cooperatively (i.e. to donate money to natural conservation organizations) when a subtle cue of being watched renders reputational concerns salient. In contrast, when no such cue is provided individuals' habitual vigilant self‐regulatory orientation is negatively related to cooperative behaviour. Study 2 replicated the results of the initial study and examined interpersonal sensitivity (empathic concern) as a potential mediator of the observed effects. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Regulatory Framing and Collective Action: The Interplay of Individual Self‐Regulation and Group Behavior

Two studies examined the relations between regulatory focus and collective action. In Study 1, undergraduate women expressed stronger action intentions when they were primed to consider prevention (ought‐self) self‐discrepancies than promotion (ideal‐self) self‐discrepancies, suggesting that collective action is more likely to occur when individuals are prevention‐ rather than promotion‐focused. In Study 2, however, prevention‐focused women expressed stronger action intentions in response to security framing, whereas promotion‐focused women expressed stronger action intentions in response to achievement framing. This suggests that the relative disinterest in collective action among promotion‐focused individuals can be overcome with the appropriate promotion‐focused framing. Implications for analyses of both collective action and regulatory focus are discussed.     

On the development of regulatory focus: the role of parenting styles

The present study was designed to contribute to our understanding of the development of chronic self‐regulatory orientations reflecting self‐regulation with a promotion and prevention focus, respectively. Little research addressed this issue empirically, although regulatory focus theory (RFT) explicitly entails assumptions concerning the role of parenting styles in the development of habitual self‐regulatory orientations. According to RFT, parenting styles involving a critical and punitive mode that is focused on attaining safety and meeting obligations increases the likelihood that the child will acquire a predominantly prevention‐focused style of self‐regulation. In contrast, parenting styles involving a bolstering mode that is focused on accomplishing ideal goals and fulfilling aspirations increases the likelihood that the child will acquire a predominantly promotion‐focused style of self‐regulation. To test these assumptions, the present study assessed via self‐reports the degree to which participants experienced different parenting styles as well as their chronic self‐regulatory focus. The results reveal positive associations between the critical and punitive parenting style and prevention‐focused self‐regulation and between the bolstering parenting style and promotion‐focused self‐regulation thus corroborating the propositions of RFT. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Regulatory Focus and the Interpersonal Dynamics of Romantic Partners’ Personal Goal Discussions

Guided by regulatory focus theory, we examined how romantic partners’ chronic concerns with promotion (advancement) and prevention (security) shape the interpersonal dynamics of couples’ conversations about different types of personal goals. Members of 95 couples (N = 190) first completed chronic regulatory focus measures and then engaged in videotaped discussions of two types of goals that were differentially relevant to promotion and prevention concerns. Participants also completed measures of goal‐ and partner‐relevant perceptions. Independent observers rated the discussions for support‐related behaviors. Highly promotion‐focused people approached their partners more, perceived greater partner responsiveness, and received more support when discussing goals that were promotion‐relevant and that they perceived as less attainable. When partners’ responsiveness to promotion‐relevant goals was low, highly promotion‐focused people reported greater self‐efficacy regarding these goals. Highly prevention‐focused people perceived more responsiveness when partners were less distancing during discussions of their prevention‐relevant goals, and greater responsiveness perceptions reassured them that these goals are less disruptive to the relationship. These findings suggest that chronic concerns with promotion and prevention orient people to their relationship environment in ways that are consistent with these distinct motivational needs, especially when discussing goals that increase the salience of these needs.     

When fit matters more: The effect of regulatory fit on adaptation to change

Regulatory fit theory predicts that motivation and performance are enhanced when individuals pursue goals framed in a way that fits their regulatory orientation (promotion vs. prevention focus). Our aim was to test the predictions of the theory when individuals deal with change. We expected and found in three studies that regulatory fit is beneficial only when a prevention focus is involved. In Study 1, an experiment among students, prevention- but not promotion-focused participants performed better in a changed task when it was framed in fit with their regulatory orientation. In Study 2, a survey among employees experiencing organizational changes, only the fit between individual prevention (and not promotion) focus and prevention framing of the changes by the manager was associated with higher employee adaptation to changes. In Study 3, a weekly survey among employees undergoing organizational change, again only prevention regulatory fit was associated with lower employee exhaustion and higher employee work engagement. Theoretical and practical implications of applying regulatory focus theory to organizational change are discussed.     

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.     

Clash of the climates: Examining the paradoxical effects of climates for promotion and prevention

Organizations often communicate seemingly paradoxical strategic imperatives to their employees that reflect a focus on promotion (take risks) and prevention (be prudent), as outlined by regulatory focus theory. When consistently emphasized and reinforced in an organization, these strategic inclinations can emerge as divergent climates for promotion and prevention that cloud the organization's perceived identity and reduce collective organizational commitment among employees. With a coherent organizational identity acting as both a sensemaking tool and a means of potential self-enhancement for employees, we use social identity theory to hypothesize that similarly emphasized promotion and prevention climates are negatively related to employees’ collective organizational commitment and indirectly, negatively related to organizational productivity. We test our hypotheses in a sample of 107 manufacturing organizations, using polynomial regression with response surface analysis to examine how similarly emphasized promotion and prevention climates relate to collective commitment and organizational productivity. Our analyses reveal that as organization-level promotion and prevention climate scores became more similar, collective organizational commitment decreases. Furthermore, we find that similarly emphasized promotion and prevention climates are negatively related to organizational productivity via collective commitment. We reconcile these findings with the organizational paradox and ambidexterity literatures and implicate promising avenues for future research.     

Regulatory focus and illusions of control

Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997, 1998) suggests that individuals in a promotion focus emphasize a congruence between an action and an intended outcome, which may foster illusions of control (IOC) even in the absence of an objective relationship between action and outcome. Individuals in a prevention focus should demonstrate a reverse bias that buffers against the development of IOC. Three studies were conducted to test this hypothesis, which either measured chronic individual differences in regulatory focus (Study 1) or manipulated regulatory focus (Studies 2 and 3). All studies found evidence that promotion-focused individuals report higher IOC concerning an uncontrollable outcome than prevention-focused individuals. In addition, Study 3 showed that IOC developed in a promotion focus buffer against the emotional consequences of failure. The results suggest that IOC evolve in a way that increases regulatory fit (Higgins, 2000).