When positive and negative expectancies disrupt performance: regulatory focus as a catalyst

The present research investigates the impact of negative and positive stereotypic expectancies on cognitive test performance. A theoretical framework that relates expectancy effects to self‐regulatory processes as postulated by Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT) is presented. Building on the differential sensitivity hypothesis proposed in this theoretical model, we argue that when self‐regulation in a prevention focus is activated individuals are particularly sensitive with regard to negative cues and therefore negative expectancies are likely to result in poor test performance due to an apprehension about meeting minimal goal standards. Conversely, when self‐regulation is guided by a promotion focus individuals are particularly sensitive with regard to positive cues and hence likely to show impaired performance when confronted with positive expectancies due to an apprehension about meeting maximal goal standards. The results of four experiments, relying on both situational and chronic regulatory focus, support these assumptions. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

To err is human: How regulatory focus and action orientation predict performance following errors

In the current study, we hypothesize that post-error performance is influenced by individual differences in action orientation and situationally induced regulatory focus. Two experiments employing a time-pressured flanker-like task, measured participants’ dispositional action orientation and manipulated regulatory focus. As expected, accuracy of the responses following errors was reduced for all participants except for action-oriented participants in a promotion focus. The latter participants are assumed to down-regulate error-related negative affect, thereby saving resources for subsequent performance. A promotion focus is assumed to facilitate the optimal use of these resources.     

Within‐person Relationship between Creative Self‐efficacy and Individual Creativity: The Mediator of Creative Process Engagement and the Moderator of Regulatory Focus

Integrating the dynamic self‐regulatory framework with the motivational self‐regulation perspective, we theorize and test how and when creative self‐efficacy increases individual creativity at the within‐person level. Conceptualizing creative process engagement as a self‐regulation effort, we theorize that creative process engagement mediates the within‐person effect of creative self‐efficacy on individual creativity. We further explore how creative self‐efficacy and chronic regulatory focus interact to affect the within‐person mediating effect. A sample of 145 R&D workers provided two monthly reports for their creative activities and experiences over 8 months. The findings provide empirical support for the hypothesized mediating mechanism. At the within‐person level, creative process engagement mediates the relationship between creative self‐efficacy and individual creativity. The results also show that chronic regulatory focus moderated the mediated relationship. Specifically, creative self‐efficacy is positively related to individual creativity for employees with a strong prevention focus and negatively related to individual creativity for employees with a strong promotion focus.     

Influence of achievement goals and self‐efficacy on students' self‐regulation and performance

It is widely admitted that low self‐efficacy has a detrimental impact on the functioning and performance of a person mainly concerned with performance goals but has no impact when a person is mainly concerned with learning goals (Dweck, 1986 ). However, results from both correlational and experimental studies are divergent. Since these studies examined very few indicators of participants' cognitive functioning, they may have failed to detect those aspects that could be more vulnerable to a negative impact of the combination of performance goals and low self‐efficacy. Another concern is the lack of most studies to clearly distinguish the type of performance goal examined, particularly the performance‐avoidance versus the performance‐approach goal. In the current study, we decided to focus on performance‐approach and learning goals in order to examine how self‐efficacy intervenes in their effects on participants' self‐regulation and performance on a cognitive task. One hundred and forty participants (85 females and 55 males) were examined. They were randomly assigned either to the learning or the performance‐approach goals condition. In each condition, half of the participants received feedback aimed at inducing either high or low self‐efficacy beliefs with regard to the task prior to executing it aloud. Examination of participants' verbal reports, direct observation of some of their behaviours while solving the task, and responses to a retrospective questionnaire allowed the assessment of several indicators of their self‐regulation and performance. As already reported by many studies, self‐efficacy influenced various aspects of participants' self‐regulation and performance. However, contrary to Dweck's hypothesis ( 1986 ), when interaction effects between self‐efficacy and goals were observed, they always involved learning instead of performance‐approach goals. Findings of this study suggest that the nature of the goal might not matter as much as its personal significance or value.     

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.     

Procrastination as self‐regulation failure of performance: effects of cognitive load,self‐awareness,and time limits on ‘working best under pressure’

Effects of cognitive load, objective self‐awareness and time limits on the self‐regulation of performance speed and accuracy were investigated between procrastinators and non‐procrastinators. In experiment 1 chronic procrastinators completed fewer items (slow speed) and made more errors (less accuracy) than non‐procrastinators under high but not low cognitive load conditions when the time span was limited and brief. In experiment 2 chronic procrastinators performed slower than non‐procrastinators under a 2 second, but not under no limit, 1 second, or 4 second time limit conditions. Chronic procrastinators compared to non‐procrastinators also performed more slowly and made more performance errors under objective self‐awareness conditions regardless of the length of time. These experiments indicate that chronic procrastinators regulate ineffectively their performance speed and accuracy when they ‘work under pressure’ (defined by high cognitive load, objective self‐awareness, and imposed time limitations). Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

How Stereotypes Stifle Performance Potential

In academic and organizational domains, performance measures are often used to assess achievement or aptitude. When certain groups of people systematically underperform on such measures, a common interpretation is that the groups differ in inherent ability. However, social psychological research over the past 15 years has documented a phenomenon called stereotype threat whereby subtle situational reminders of negative stereotypes can stifle the performance of those who are targeted by them. In this article, we review research aimed at understanding the sequence of cognitive and affective processes that underlie these situationally‐induced performance impairments. We review evidence that being the target of negative stereotypes cues self‐uncertainty and a physiological stress response, engages more explicit monitoring of one’s performance, and efforts to regulate unwanted negative thoughts and feelings. Alone or in concert, these extra‐task processes hijack cognitive resources needed for successful performance. Armed with the knowledge of these mediating mechanisms, we then review evidence from both field and laboratory based research demonstrating that gender and racial gaps in achievement can be alleviated if not eliminated through creative and often subtle interventions that diffuse the pernicious effects that stereotypes can have.     

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.     

Beliefs About Self and About Gender Groups: Interactive Effects on the Spatial Performance of Women

Projection of own characteristics onto an in-group, internalization of in-group characteristics into self-conceptions, and the implications of these two processes for one type of cognitive performance among women (spatial skill) were examined. Focus on gender or self and expected method of performance evaluation (male-female comparison or individual comparison [IC]) were varied before high- and low-self-esteem (SE) women completed a spatial performance test. The manipulations and the SE grouping factor interacted to influence spatial skill scores significantly. The results are interpreted as indicating situationally induced self- and group stereotype influences on manifest spatial skill.     

The effects of implicit anxiety on the performance of skin self‐examinations

This study examined the effects of implicit anxiety on the performance of skin self‐examinations. It was hypothesized that implicit anxiety would contribute to the prediction of skin self‐examinations beyond the contributions of variables suggested by social‐cognitive models of health behavior. In addition, it was hypothesized that implicit anxiety's impact on self‐examinations would not be influenced by deliberative cognition about efficacy. To test these hypotheses, 128 participants completed measures of explicit anxiety, self and task efficacy, and an implicit associations test designed to measure implicit anxiety. As expected, self‐examination behavior was better predicted when implicit anxiety was added to models containing explicit anxiety and efficacy. Furthermore, thoughts about efficacy did not moderate the effects of implicit anxiety on self‐examination behavior.     

Regulatory concerns and appraisal efficiency: the general impact of promotion and prevention

It was hypothesized that people's appraisals both of themselves and of other objects in the world are more efficient when the emotional dimension underlying their appraisals fits their regulatory concerns. Regulatory focus theory distinguishes 2 such fundamental concerns: promotion concerns with accomplishment that relate to cheerfulness- and dejection-related emotions, and prevention concerns with security that relate to quiescence- and agitation-related emotions. Five studies found that individuals with stronger promotion concerns were faster in appraising how cheerful or dejected the object made them feel, whereas individuals with stronger prevention concerns were faster in appraising how quiescent or agitated the object made them feel. These greater appraisal efficiencies were found for both chronic and situationally induced promotion and prevention concerns and were independent of both the valence and the extremity of the appraisals.     

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.     

Regulatory fit effects on stimulus identification

This article examines the effects of a fit between a person's global regulatory focus and the local task reward structure on perceptual processing and judgment. On each trial, participants were presented with one of two briefly presented stimuli and were asked to identify it. Participants were placed in a promotion focus (a situationally induced sensitivity to gains) or a prevention focus (a situationally induced sensitivity to losses) and were asked to maximize gains or minimize losses. An asymmetric payoff ratio biased the overall reward toward one identification response over the other. Two experiments tested the role of regulatory fit when internal familiarity and perceptual sensitivity were low or high. When familiarity and sensitivity were low, participants in a regulatory fit (promotion focus with gains or a prevention focus with losses) showed greater perceptual sensitivity but no response bias differences, relative to participants in a regulatory mismatch. When familiarity and sensitivity were high, participants in a regulatory fit showed a response bias toward the high-payoff stimulus but no differences in perceptual sensitivity. Speculations are offered on the neurobiological basis of this effect, as well as implications of this work for clinical disorders such as depression.     

The interaction of payoff structure and regulatory focus in classification

This report brings together research on motivation and learning by exploring how fit of regulatory focus affects people's ability to acquire new categories. Perceptual categories were learned by people with a promotion focus (a situationally determined sensitivity to gains) or a prevention focus (a sensitivity to losses). Classification performance was closest to optimal (as determined by models fit to individual subjects' data) when the regulatory focus matched the structure of the payoffs for the categories. Promotion-focus subjects performed best when the payoffs consisted of all gains. Prevention-focus subjects performed best when the payoffs consisted of all losses.     

Understanding the limits of self‐control: Positive affect moderates the impact of task switching on consecutive self‐control performance

Performing consecutive self‐control tasks typically leads to deterioration in self‐control performance. This effect can be explained within the strength model of self‐control or within a cognitive control perspective. Both theoretical frameworks differ in their predictions with regard to the impact of affect and task characteristics on self‐control deterioration within a two‐task paradigm. Whereas the strength model predicts decrements in self‐control performance whenever both tasks require a limited resource, under a cognitive control perspective, decrements should only occur when people switch to a different response conflict in the second task. Moreover, only the cognitive control model predicts an interaction between task switching and positive affect. In the present research, we investigated this interaction within a two‐task paradigm and found evidence that favored a cognitive control interpretation of the results. Positive affect only benefitted consecutive self‐control performance if response conflicts in the two tasks were different (resisting sweets followed by a Stroop task). If they were the same (two consecutive Stroop tasks), positive affect impaired self‐control performance. These effects were partially replicated in the second study that also examined negative affect, which did not affect self‐control performance. We conclude that drawing on cognitive control models could add substantially to research on self‐control. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.