Regulatory focus and affective recall

In two studies, we tested the impact of regulatory focus on recalled affect for past academic outcomes. Because promotion focus concerns achieving gains, it should be related to greater recalled positive affect. In contrast, prevention focus concerns avoiding losses, and should be related to greater recalled negative affect. In Study 1, promotion focus led to greater recalled positive affect for positive events, while prevention focus led to greater recalled negative affect regardless of event valence. In Study 2, promotion focus increased recalled positive affect for both positive and negative events, whereas prevention focus increased recalled negative affect for both positive and negative events. These studies demonstrate that current motivation can alter memory for past affective experiences; the regulatory focus ascribed to a previous event changes the extent to which people remember their emotional experience. Implications are discussed.     

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.     

Less negative=more positive? Social discrimination as avoidance or approach

A motivational approach to ingroup favoritism based on regulatory focus theory (RFT; Higgins, 1997) is introduced. RFT suggests that individual self-regulation is either more concerned with approaching positive events (promotion focus) or with avoiding negative events (prevention focus). It is suggested that if an individual self-categorizes as a group member, resource allocations to one’s group will be based on these mechanisms of self-regulation. Thus, a promotion focus should engender ingroup favoritism during the distribution of positive resources but not during the distribution of negative resources, whereas a prevention focus should engender ingroup favoritism for negative but not for positive resources. The results of two studies support this prediction based on momentary and chronic regulatory focus. The self-regulation approach to ingroup favoritism provides an explanation for social discrimination in the distribution of positive and negative resources.     

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.     

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.     

Conflict and Convergence: The Ethics Review of Action Research

The article is based on the author’s experience as an administrator of three primarily social science institutional review boards (IRBs) to which researchers presented research protocols that purported to be minimal risk studies of teacher practice where the “teacher–researcher” was the “research subject.” Recently, educational, social, and behavioral science researchers encounter many problems with regard to their methodologies and the oversight mandate of the IRBs. There is a divergence between the IRB’s role and assumed bio-clinical predisposition and the ability of behavioral and social science researchers to have their research methodologies and research understood and appreciated by IRB members. The article explores some of the dilemmas confronting IRB members and administrators in the review and administration of the action research protocols, particularly those that involve vulnerable populations and which, from the practitioner–researcher’s perspective, focus on the practitioner–researcher as the object of the research.     

Imagining how you'd feel: the role of motivational experiences from regulatory fit

The authors propose that how people imagine they would feel about making a choice is affected not only by the outcome's anticipated pleasure or pain but also by regulatory fit. Regulatory fit occurs when people pursue a goal in a manner that sustains their regulatory state and it intensifies the motivation to pursue that goal. Considering positive outcomes fits a promotion focus more than a prevention focus, whereas the reverse is true for negative outcomes. Thus, it is proposed that anticipating a desirable choice is more intensely positive for promotion than prevention, and anticipating an undesirable choice is more intensely negative for prevention than promotion. The results of three studies support these predictions. Studies 2 and 3 also demonstrate that motivational intensity underlies the stronger responses. Thus, to understand fully what it means to feel good or bad about a prospective choice, motivational experiences from regulatory fit must be considered.     

Framing effects of per‐person versus aggregate prices in group meals

This research draws on regulatory focus theory and applies it to the context of price framing in group meals. Specifically, it examines the possibility that a per‐person framing of price (an aggregate price) may activate a promotion focus (prevention focus) in consumers. The results of five experiments show that participants (a) generated more promotion‐relevant (vs. prevention‐relevant) thoughts, (b) were more inclined to consume the group meal when a persistent focus on promotion (vs. prevention) was exhibited, (c) rated promotion‐focused (vs. prevention‐focused) messages more favorably, and (d) reported a higher intention to opt for an offer where the chance of obtaining a positive goal was enhanced, in response to a per‐person price rather than an aggregate price. Mediation analyses provide additional evidence for the notion that pursuit of promotion goals (prevention goals), which relate to obtaining value (avoiding loss) primed by a per‐person price (an aggregate price), had the effect of regulating one's choices. Managerial implications of the findings are discussed, followed by recommendations for future research.     

Effects of regulatory focus on endorsement of religious beliefs

Regulatory focus has an impact on different judgments. Specifically, promotion focus is directed at achieving positive outcome whereas prevention focus is directed at preventing negative outcomes. Thus, people in promotion focus endorse positive outcome-framed messages whereas people in prevention focus endorse negative outcome-framed messages. In two experiments, we examined whether this holds true for religious beliefs. In Experiment 1, participants were undergraduate students; we found the expected interaction between regulatory focus and verse frame. In Experiment 2, we replicated this finding with participants from conservative Lutheran communities, demonstrating that there was a transient influence of induced regulatory focus. This finding suggests that regulatory focus either is difficult to discount or is not a peripheral cue that is used in heuristic processing only, but an internal state that has a pervasive impact even if people are highly motivated to process information systematically.     

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).     

评论效价、新产品类型与调节定向对在线评论有用性的影响

对于新产品推出的成功与否, 较早采用者的评论和建议的影响相当巨大, 本研究通过两个实验研究评论效价(正面评论/负面评论)、新产品类型(渐进性新产品/革新性新产品)和调节定向(促进定向/防御定向)对新产品在线评论有用性的影响。实验1设计为2(新产品类型：渐进性新产品/革新性新产品)×2(评论效价：正面/负面)的组间操控设计, 结果表明：相对于渐进性新产品, 负面评论对革新性新产品的有用性更高, 正面评论对渐进性新产品和革新性新产品的有用性差异不显著。实验2设计为2(新产品类型：渐进性新产品/革新性新产品)×2(评论效价：正面/负面)×2(调节定向：促进/防御)的组间操控设计, 结果表明：促进定向的个体认为正负面评论有用性差异不大, 而防御定向的个体认为负面评论有用性显著高于正面评论; 对于促进定向的个体来说, 新产品类型对于评论效价对评论有用性的影响有调节作用, 而对于防御定向的个体来说, 新产品类型的这种调节作用则不存在。     

青少年调节聚焦对心理复原力的影响：元情绪和应对方式的链式中介

研究旨在考察应对方式、元情绪在不同类型调节聚焦与心理复原力关系中的中介效应。使用简易应对方式量表、调节聚焦量表、特质性元情绪量表和心理复原力量表对随机抽取的安徽省四所初高中899名青少年进行调查。结果发现：（1）调节聚焦、应对方式和元情绪能显著预测心理复原力。（2）促进聚焦不仅能够直接正向预测心理复原力,还能够通过元情绪、积极应对以及消极应对间接预测心理复原力。（3）防御聚焦能够通过消极应对、元情绪以及积极应对间接预测心理复原力。本研究结果显示,元情绪与应对方式能够解释青少年调节聚焦与心理复原力关系的内在机制。     

Impact of regulatory focus on ambiguity aversion

Although prior research has shown that some people prefer a risky to an ambiguous option, this study further proposes that people's regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention) might influence their ambiguity aversion. Three experiments have tested whether people with promotion focus showed less ambiguity aversion than those with prevention focus: The first experiment revealed that, compared with chronically promotion‐focused individuals, prevention‐focused subjects preferred a risky to an ambiguous option. In the second experiment, priming of the subjects' goal orientations led to similar results. Experiment 3 demonstrated that participants showed less ambiguity aversion for the expected performance of an investment product representative of promotion (e.g., a stock fund) rather than one representative of prevention (e.g., a bond fund). In other words, people showed less preference for a bond fund when the probability distribution of its expected performance was unknown than when it was known, whereas they showed less preference difference between known and unknown probability distributions for the expected performance of a stock fund. This study has integrated research pertaining to regulatory focus and ambiguity aversion, and the results have confirmed that the impact of regulatory focus on ambiguity aversion is robust across different methods and decision tasks. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Role of Regulatory Focus in the Experience and Self‐Control of Desire for Temptations

This research examines the role of regulatory focus in the experience and control of desire for temptations, the fulfillment of which conflicts with other salient goals of the consumer. Relative to a prevention focus (i.e., an orientation away from negative outcomes), our findings demonstrate that a promotion focus (i.e., an orientation toward positive outcomes) not only increases the intensity of desire experienced on encountering a temptation, but also increases success of its subsequent resistance. Differences in self‐control efficacy are found to be mediated by the type of self‐control strategies consumers use in the 2 foci. Convergent evidence obtained in 4 studies, considering situational and dispositional aspects of regulatory focus, indicates that when temptations are encountered by consumers, regulatory focus is an important determinant of the degree of desire, and the nature and outcome of self‐control.     

A self-regulatory framework for message framing

After several decades of research on message framing, there is still no clear and consistent answer to the question of when emphasizing positive or negative outcomes in a persuasive message will be most effective. Whereas early framing research considered the type of recommended behavior (health-affirming vs. illness-detection) to be the determining factor, more recent research has looked to individual differences to answer this question. In this paper, we incorporate both approaches under a single framework. The framework describes the multiple self-regulatory levels at which a message can be framed and predicts when framing at each level will be most effective. Two central predictions were confirmed across four studies: (1) messages describing the pleasures of adhering to the recommended behavior are most effective for recipients in a promotion focus (who are concerned with meeting growth needs), whereas messages describing the pains of not adhering are most effective for recipients in a prevention focus (who are concerned with meeting safety needs), and (2) the content of an advocacy message is essential, as different topics induce different regulatory orientations. By showing that different message content can induce a promotion or prevention focus, past findings and theories can be accommodated within the proposed framework, and a single set of self-regulatory principles can be used to understand message framing.     

Motivation by positive or negative role models: regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us

In 3 studies, the authors demonstrated that individuals are motivated by role models who encourage strategies that fit their regulatory concerns: Promotion-focused individuals, who favor a strategy of pursuing desirable outcomes, are most inspired by positive role models, who highlight strategies for achieving success; prevention-focused individuals, who favor a strategy of avoiding undesirable outcomes, are most motivated by negative role models, who highlight strategies for avoiding failure. In Studies 1 and 2, the authors primed promotion and prevention goals and then examined the impact of role models on motivation. Participants' academic motivation was increased by goal-congruent role models but decreased by goal-incongruent role models. In Study 3, participants were more likely to generate real-life role models that matched their chronic goals.     

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.     

No pain,no gain? A resource-based model of work-to-family enrichment and conflict

Work–family scholars tend to work in two largely disconnected research streams, focusing on either work–family enrichment—the positive side of the work–family interface—or work–family conflict—the negative side of this interface. The purpose of this study is to suggest a reconciliation of the two research streams by proposing and testing a resource-based model of work-to-family enrichment and conflict. Specifically, we propose that an individual's work role engagement has two independent outcomes, work role resource gain and loss, and they separately mediate the relationships between work role engagement and work-to-family enrichment and conflict. We further propose that two dimensions of regulatory focus, promotion focus and prevention focus, moderate the relationships between work role engagement and work role resource gain and loss respectively. Structural equation modeling results based on data from 1052 employees of Chinese firms offer general support for these notions.     

心理预防概念的更新及其对实践的指导意义

继Caplan的“公共卫生预防模型”之后,Gordon提出另一个综合性预防模型;美国国家科学院医学研究所绘制了“心理健康干预光谱”; 美国国家研究所和国家科学院医学院则进一步将“心理健康促进”正式纳入心理预防概念。“心理健康促进”是针对消极被动的传统预防而提出的积极主动的预防。心理预防概念的发展与更新,特别是将“心理健康促进”纳入心理预防体系,要求树立预防的全局观念,提高预防的针对性,将消极心理预防与积极心理健康促进结合起来。