Optimism, promotion pride, and prevention pride as predictors of quality of life

The relationship between optimism and two potential sources of optimistic beliefs--promotion pride (based on a history of success in promotion regulation) and prevention pride (based on a history of success in prevention regulation)--was explored. Optimism was more strongly related to promotion pride than prevention pride (controlling for neuroticism), consistent with past work showing that anticipating success increases eagerness motivation but decreases vigilance motivation. This suggests that the psychology of prevention regulators is not captured well by the existing literature on optimism. Although prevention pride does not predict self-reports of well-being, it does predict adaptive functioning independent of optimism, neuroticism, and promotion pride. Promotion pride uniquely predicted a sense of purpose in life or goal directedness. Both promotion and prevention pride predicted active coping. It is argued that promotion and prevention pride tell us something unique and important about the role of successful self-regulation in determining quality of life.     

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.     

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.     

Tactical differences in coping with rejection sensitivity: the role of prevention pride

Prevention pride reflects a person's subjective history of success in preventing negative outcomes, leading to a strategic avoidance of errors of commission (e.g., explicit mistakes) in new situations. Two studies examined the impact of prevention pride on the strategies that highly rejection sensitive (HRS) people use to cope with the anxiety of anticipated rejection and the negative feelings elicited by perceived rejection. It was hypothesized that prevention pride orientation would lead HRS people toward covert and passive rather than overt and active forms of negative coping. Results indicated that HRS individuals who were also high in prevention pride reported increased use of self-silencing, presumably to prevent rejection. When rejection was perceived, however, they expressed hostility passively, by reducing positive behavior (e.g., withdrawing love and support) while inhibiting direct, active acts of hostility (e.g., yelling).     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Bringing the frame into focus: the influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion

This research demonstrates that people's goals associated with regulatory focus moderate the effect of message framing on persuasion. The results of 6 experiments show that appeals presented in gain frames are more persuasive when the message is promotion focused, whereas loss-framed appeals are more persuasive when the message is prevention focused. These regulatory focus effects suggesting heightened vigilance against negative outcomes and heightened eagerness toward positive outcomes are replicated when perceived risk is manipulated. Enhanced processing fluency leading to more favorable evaluations in conditions of compatibility appears to underlie these effects. The findings underscore the regulatory fit principle that accounts for the persuasiveness of message framing effects and highlight how processing fluency may contribute to the "feeling right" experience when the strategy of goal pursuit matches one's goal.     

期望与绩效的关系:调节定向的调节作用

经典动机理论认为高期望能提高绩效水平,本研究结合调节定向理论进一步回答这种效应"何时"存在或"如何"产生的问题。研究1通过测量期望水平、并用任务框架操作调节定向,检验了情景启动的调节定向对期望与行为间关系的影响;研究2采取更严格的被试内设计通过任务难度操作期望,考察了作为个体长期差异的调节定向的作用。结果表明:①调节定向调节成功期望与绩效之间的关系:对于促进定向,成功期望与绩效正相关;对于预防定向,期望与绩效相关不显著。②动机可以部分解释调节定向与期望的交互作用机制:高水平的成功期望会提高促进定向个体的动机强度,进而产生高的绩效结果;其对预防定向个体的动机强度的影响不显著。     

The Motivational Function of Regulatory Focus in Creativity

The Regulatory Focus Theory maintains that people may focus on achieving positive outcomes (have a promotion focus) or avoiding negative ones (have a prevention focus) when they pursue their goals. Under a promotion focus, people would formulate as many strategies as possible to attain their goal, and hence be fluent in idea generation when they perform a creative task. In contrast, people under a prevention focus would seek to avoid the negative consequences of failing to attain a valued goal, and persist even when the likelihood of success in a creativity situation is small. We tested these predictions in a study, where regulatory focus was measured as an individual differences variable (Part 1) and induced by a goal framing manipulation (Part 2). The results supported our predictions, and suggested that creative accomplishment requires flexible alternation of regulatory foci at the different stages of creative undertakings.     

Regulatory focus theory: Disentangling goals and strategies

The purpose of this research was to develop and test the Regulatory Goals and Strategies Questionnaire (RGSQ) to promote conceptual and empirical clarity in the literature on regulatory focus theory (RFT). According to RFT, construing an end-state as a maximal goal (ideal, gain, and advancement) elicits the adoption of an eager promotion-focused strategy, whereas construing an end-state as a minimal goal (ought, non-loss, and security) elicits the adoption of a vigilant prevention-focused strategy. This means that promotion-focused eagerness and prevention-focused vigilance can be elicited by various goals and that eager and vigilant strategies are in fact separate from goals. However, extant measurement instruments have not treated them as such. The RGSQ was developed to distinguish various maximal and minimal goals and to separate these goals from promotion- and prevention-focused strategies of eagerness and vigilance. Across three studies that combine six samples (total N = 1848), we examined the factor structure and nomological network of the RGSQ (Study 1: four samples of students and adults) and its predictive validity in a task context (Study 2) and working sample (Study 3). Overall, we found support for the RGSQ's validity and demonstrated that the RGSQ operationalizes regulatory focus in accordance with the theory's core assumptions.     

Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change

Two situations involving choice between stability and change were examined: task substitution, which deals with choosing between resuming an interrupted activity and doing a substitute activity, and endowment, which deals with choosing between a possessed object and an alternative object. Regulatory focus theory (E. T. Higgins, 1997, 1998) predicts that a promotion focus will be associated with openness to change, whereas a prevention focus will be associated with a preference for stability. Five studies confirmed this prediction with both situational induction of and chronic personality differences in regulatory focus. In Studies 1 and 2, individuals in a prevention focus were more inclined than individuals in a promotion focus to resume an interrupted task rather than do a substitute task. In Studies 3-5, individuals in a prevention focus, but not individuals in a promotion focus, exhibited a reluctance to exchange currently possessed objects (i.e., endowment) or previously possessed objects.     

Strategies of self‐regulation in goal attainment versus goal maintenance

We propose that there exists an important difference between attainment and maintenance in terms of the goal pursuit strategies for which they call. Specifically, we propose that goal attainment calls for the use of eager approach strategies, whereas goal maintenance calls for the use of vigilant avoidance strategies. We distinguish between attainment versus maintenance as two different goal pursuit conditions on the one hand, and promotion versus prevention focus as two different self‐regulatory concerns on the other hand. We then use insights from Regulatory Fit Theory to make predictions concerning the interactive effects of these two motivational dimensions on outcome valuations. Consistent with our proposal about attainment and maintenance, we found that participants in a promotion focus valued the outcome of an attainment task more than did participants in a prevention focus, whereas the opposite was true for a maintenance task. Implications for maintenance‐related phenomena such as belief perseverance effects are subsequently discussed. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Determinants of pride and shame: outcome, expected success and attribution

In two experiments we investigated the relationship between subjective probability of success and pride and shame. According to Atkinson (1957), pride (the incentive of success) is an inverse linear function of the probability of success, shame (the incentive of failure) being a negative linear function. Attribution theory predicts an inverse U-shaped relationship between subjective probability of success and pride and shame. The results presented here are at variance with both theories: Pride and shame do not vary with subjective probability of success. However, pride and shame are systematically correlated with internal attributions of action outcome.     

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.     

长期倾向调节聚焦量表述评

本文将分散在各种文献中有关长期倾向调节聚焦测量的5种常用量表工具进行了全面梳理,并结合最新文献,探讨每个量表测量效果问题。     

个体及同伴调节聚焦对目标追求的影响

探讨个体与同伴的调节聚焦对目标追求的影响及感知相似性在其中的作用。回归分析显示,个体促进聚焦×同伴促进聚焦交互项显著预测同伴作用评价、求助意愿及动机水平,简单斜率分析表明,同伴为高促进聚焦时个体促进聚焦的积极效应更明显。中介分析表明,感知相似性是个体促进聚焦×同伴促进聚焦交互项与同伴作用评价、求助意愿之间关系的中介变量。总的来说,同伴调节聚焦能调节个体调节聚焦与目标追求的关系,且这一作用部分受到感知相似性的中介。     

调节定向的测量维度及其问卷的信度和效度检验

采用RFQ、B IS/BAS和LOT-R对331名企业新员工和920名在校大学生施测,以探讨H iggins等提出的调节定向测量维度在中国文化中的适应性及其问卷（RFQ）的信度和效度。结果表明：（1）在删除1个偏重从策略角度测量调节定向的项目后,得到由10个项目组成的调节定向问卷,可有效测量促进定向和预防定向两个基本维度;（2）调节定向问卷具有较好的内部一致性信度和区分效度,可作为开展相关研究的评定工具。     

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.