My way: How strategic preferences vary by negotiator role and regulatory focus

Negotiators may use vigilant, loss-minimizing strategies or eager, gain-maximizing strategies. The present study provides evidence that preferences for these different strategies depend on negotiator role and personal orientation. In a price negotiation, buyers and prevention-focused individuals prefer vigilant strategies, whereas sellers and promotion-focused individuals prefer eager strategies. When there is a match between the strategy and the role (role–strategy fit) or between the strategy and the individual's regulatory focus orientation (focus–strategy fit), the negotiator experiences more fit and plans to be more demanding in the negotiation. By manipulating strategy in a real, binding negotiation, we reveal its importance in determining negotiators' subjective experiences and planned demand. Our results show that shared strategic preferences between different motivational orientations—negotiator role and personal regulatory focus—can create self-regulatory compatibility.     

The role of passion for work and need satisfaction in psychological adjustment to retirement

Two studies tested a model in which passion for work predicts psychological adjustment to retirement through the satisfaction of basic psychological needs. With a sample of 103 French-Canadian retirees from a variety of occupations, the first study used a retrospective cross-sectional design. The second study followed 73 French-Canadian teachers over a 6-year period and examined the relationship between passion for work, assessed when participants were still working, and psychological adjustment to retirement, measured when participants were retired. All participants completed questionnaires on demographics, passion for work, basic psychological needs and psychological adjustment to retirement. Results from structural equation modeling confirmed the hypothesized model, such that both studies confirmed the mediating role of basic psychological need satisfaction in the passion–psychological adjustment to retirement relationship. Need satisfaction significantly mediated the relationship between harmonious passion for work and psychological adjustment to retirement in Studies 1 and 2. The mediation was also confirmed between obsessive passion and psychological adjustment to retirement in Study 1, but not in Study 2. These findings suggest that passion for work matters in psychological adjustment to retirement. Being passionate about work can thus lead to positive or negative outcomes in retirement, depending on whether the passion is harmonious or obsessive, respectively.     

Assessment of Individual Differences in Regulatory Focus among Cigarette Smokers

Smoking cessation programs might benefit from tailoring messages to individual differences in regulatory focus (see Higgins, American Psychologist, 52:1280–1300, 1997), but there is little evidence on the stability or convergent validity of regulatory focus measures. In two studies, smokers completed four measures of regulatory focus: (a) Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ); (b) actual–ideal and actual–ought self-discrepancies; (c) response duration in naming ideal or ought self-guides; and (d) reaction time for lexical decisions about one’s ideal or ought self-guides. Study 1 included a 1-month retest. Retest reliability was adequate, but convergent validity was poor. Questionnaire and self-discrepancy measures were unrelated to each other or to the reaction time measures. To facilitate future studies of tailored health behavior change interventions, research is needed to determine whether weak convergent validity resulted from (a) invalidity of some or all of the regulatory focus measures or (b) validity of each for measuring a different aspect of the construct.     

When does high procedural fairness reduce self-evaluations following unfavorable outcomes?: The moderating effect of prevention focus

The present studies were designed to delineate when procedural fairness would be more versus less likely to be inversely related to people’s self-evaluations in response to unfavorable outcomes. Prior theory and research have shown that: (1) the more that people assign psychological significance to unfavorable outcomes, the more likely are their self-evaluations to be adversely affected by such outcomes, and (2) people who are more prevention focused in their self-regulatory orientation assign greater psychological significance to unfavorable outcomes. Consequently, we predicted that in the face of unfavorable outcomes, the inverse relationship between procedural fairness and self-evaluations would be more likely to emerge among those who are more prevention focused. Using different conceptions or operationalizations of all of the independent and dependent variables, we found support for this prediction in three studies, spanning different cultures, contexts, and methodologies.     

Regulatory foci and organizational commitment

We use regulatory focus theory to derive specific predictions regarding the differential relationships between regulatory focus and commitment. We estimated a structural equation model using a sample of 520 private and public sector employees and found in line with our hypotheses that (a) promotion focus related more strongly to affective commitment than prevention focus, (b) prevention focus related more strongly to continuance commitment than promotion focus, (c) promotion and prevention focus had equally strong effects on normative commitment. Implications of these findings for the three-component model of commitment, especially the ‘dual nature’ of normative commitment, as well as implications for human resources management and leadership are discussed.     

When fit fosters favoring: The role of private self-focus

The present research extends work on the ‘the value from fit’ principle by showing that regulatory fit effects on persuasion and behavioral compliance are stronger for people high, as opposed to low, in private self-focus. Previous research has shown that people high in private self-focus are strongly affected by external information. In the current work, we demonstrated that people high (vs. low) in private self-focus are more persuaded by information that matches (vs. mismatches) activated self-knowledge.     

Differential effects of regulatory fit on category learning

Motivation affects the degree to which people engage in tasks as well as the processes that they bring to bear. We explore the proposal that a fit between a person’s situationally induced self-regulatory focus and the reward structure of the task that they are pursuing supports greater flexibility in processing than does a mismatch between regulatory focus and reward structure. In two experiments, we prime regulatory focus and manipulate task reward structure. Our participants perform a rule-based learning task whose solution requires flexible strategy testing as well as an information-integration task for which flexible strategy use hinders learning. Across two experiments, we predict and obtain a three-way interaction between regulatory focus, reward structure, and task. Relative to a mismatch, a match leads to better rule-based task performance, but worse performance on the information-integration task. We relate these findings to other work on motivation and choking under pressure.     

Stressed out over possible failure: The role of regulatory fit on claimed self-handicapping

The self-protective mechanism of self-handicapping appears to be motivated by the need to protect ability attributions in the face of concern about possible failure. Indeed, the present research finds a correlation between trait self-handicapping and chronic prevention focus. Moreover, the present research examines the role of “regulatory fit” on the use of claimed self-handicapping by exposing high and low trait self-handicappers to performance situations framed in prevention or promotion terms. Consistent with our regulatory fit hypothesis, high self-handicappers (HSHs) handicapped significantly more (by reporting higher levels of stress) when the task was framed in prevention focus rather than promotion focus terms, and did so even when the viability of the handicap was dubious. Self-handicapping in the prevention focus condition was mediated by elevated feelings of evaluative concern. The findings suggest that conditions of regulatory fit (i.e., HSHs under prevention focus) can lead to increased use of self-handicapping.     

Regulatory focus and the Michelangelo Phenomenon: How close partners promote one another's ideal selves

This work examines the consequences of regulatory focus in the context of the Michelangelo phenomenon, a process whereby interaction partners shape one another's goal pursuits. We advanced predictions regarding the intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences of target and partner promotion orientation using the concepts of target-goal congruence, partner-goal congruence, and interpersonal match. We used data from four complementary measurement methods—self-report questionnaires, daily diary records, partners' ratings of ideal-relevant interaction behaviors, and coders' ratings of interaction behaviors—and using both target- and partner-reports of model criteria. Consistent with predictions, (a) target promotion orientation is associated with the elicitation of partner affirmation, (b) partner promotion orientation is associated with the display of partner affirmation, and (c) partner affirmation partially mediates the associations of target and partner promotion orientation with target movement toward the ideal self. We also examine the motivational, cognitive, and behavioral mechanisms that account for these associations.     

Workplace duties or opportunities? Challenge stressors,regulatory focus,and creativity

Previous research has produced contradictory findings about the impact of challenge stressors on individual and team creativity. Based on the challenge–hindrance stressors framework (LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005) and on regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997), we argue that the effect of challenge stressors on creativity is moderated by regulatory focus. We hypothesize that while promotion focus strengthens a positive relationship between challenge stressors and creativity, prevention focus reinforces a negative relationship. Experimental data showed that high demands led to better results in a creative insight task for individuals with a strong trait promotion focus, and that high demands combined with an induced promotion focus led to better results across both creative generation and insight tasks. These results were replicated in a field R&D sample. Furthermore, we found that team promotion focus moderated the effect of challenge stressors on team creativity. The results offer both theoretical insights and suggest practical implications.     

How regulatory focus impacts the process-by-outcome interaction for perceived fairness and emotions

Judgments of fairness take into account at least two pieces of information—the outcome received and the process by which the outcome was assigned. Generally speaking, low levels of fairness are apt to be reported when the outcome is unfavorable and the allocation process is deemed inappropriate. In this study, we investigate how regulatory focus theory can further our understanding of the process by outcome interaction. Specifically, when individuals are working to add to their earnings (a promotion focus) the typical effect is observed. However, when individuals are focused on maintaining something that is their own (a prevention focus) the most negative emotion occurs when individuals are allocated an unfavorable outcome through a process that contains procedural safeguards.