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.     

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.     

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.     

调节定向对新员工期望的影响

新员工在进入企业工作前,会基于已有信息对即将从事的工作产生一定的预期,即新员工期望。期望对行为的影响很大程度上是通过目标设定或自我调节起作用的,因此本研究尝试分析调节定向对新员工期望的影响。通过对480名新员工的问卷调查发现,调节定向对期望的重要性、可能性和确定性都存在影响,这些影响受期望内容的调节:对于与发展和创新相关的期望,促进定向占主导的新员工对其重要性的判断程度高于预防定向占主导的新员工,且当期望的确定性高时,前者对期望可能性的判断程度高于后者;而对于与安全和责任相关的期望却相反,预防定向占主导的新员工对其重要性的判断程度高于促进定向占主导的新员工,且当期望的确定性高时,前者对期望可能性的判断程度高于后者。     

If we have the will,there will be a way: regulatory focus as a group identity

Based on social identity theory and regulatory focus theory, we predicted that promotion and prevention strategies can be part of the identity of a group (i.e., collective regulatory focus) which in turn influences the behavior and experienced emotions of individual group members. We conducted two experiments to test this prediction. After assessing participants' personal regulatory focus preference, collective regulatory focus was induced by showing participants group mottos, allegedly chosen by other members of their group, that either voiced a promotion or a prevention strategy preference. Both experiments yielded evidence for our prediction in that the collective regulatory focus shifted the behavior of individual group members on a signal detection task towards promotion‐ (liberal bias) or prevention‐ (conservative bias) consistent behavior and influenced the emotions they experienced. Experiment 2 further substantiated our group identity rationale by showing that these effects were especially strong for high identifiers. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Regulatory focus and the family–work interface: The role of regulatory fit between cohabiting partners

The aim of the present study was to examine the impact of regulatory focus in goal pursuit and regulatory fit between marital partners on family conditions and the family–work interface. We hypothesized that when both partners are high on promotion focus (fit) they experience higher developmental possibilities at home and have an increased likelihood of family-to-work facilitation (FWF). In addition, we hypothesized that when both partners are prevention focused (fit) they experience less home demands and less family-to-work conflict (FWC). In total, 131 working couples participated in the study. Each partner provided information about his/her own regulatory focus, perceptions of home demands and home developmental possibilities, and experienced FWF and FWC. Results of moderated structural equation modelling analyses largely supported our hypotheses since the interaction between partners’ promotion focus predicted the levels of home developmental possibilities and FWF, whereas the interaction between partners’ prevention focus predicted home demands in the expected direction. In conclusion, the fit between partners’ self regulatory styles can influence family life and, consequently, the impact of family on work.     

权力感对个体的影响:调节定向的视角

采用4个研究探究了权力感对调节定向的影响。研究1通过测量被试的特质性权力感和特质性调节定向初步探索权力感水平与调节定向的关系。研究2和研究3分别通过外显角色扮演和故事回忆法来探究状态性权力感对调节定向目标表征和策略选择的影响。研究4采用身体姿势法启动权力感,进一步探究在内隐层面权力感对调节定向的影响。结果发现,高权力感个体更倾向于促进定向;而低权力感个体更倾向于预防定向,并且排除了其中可能的无关变量(情绪)的影响。本研究有助于更好地理解和整合现有的权力感研究结果,并能预测更多未知的权力感效应。     

Regulatory Focus and the Probability Estimates of Conjunctive and Disjunctive Events

Prior research has shown that people overestimate the likelihood of conjunctive events and underestimate the likelihood of disjunctive events. We evaluated whether people's regulatory focus success was related to the magnitude of these judgmental biases. Regulatory focus theory posits that people are guided by two distinct motivational systems—promotion focus and prevention focus. When people are promotion focused they attempt to bring their actual selves into alignment with their ideal selves (standards reflecting wishes and aspirations). When people are prevention focused they attempt to bring their actual selves into alignment with their ought selves (standards reflecting duties and obligations). As predicted, promotion success (i.e., congruence between actual and ideal selves) was positively related to the accuracy of disjunctive probability estimates, whereas prevention success (i.e., congruence between actual and ought selves) was not. Also as predicted, greater prevention success led to more accurate conjunctive probability estimates, whereas greater promotion success did not.     

Regulatory focus and temporal distance

Four studies identify and examine a temporal component to regulatory focus. Results support the assertion that promotion focus tends to predominate for temporally distant goals, whereas proximal goals are characterized by more balanced consideration of both promotion- and prevention-focused concerns. In Study 1, students rated the importance of promotion and prevention goals at two points in time: 2 weeks before and a few minutes before an examination. Promotion goal importance increased with temporal distance, whereas prevention goal importance remained constant over time. Study 2 replicated this pattern holding the actual time-span constant (3.5 weeks) and varying only the psychological sense of proximity/distance. In Study 3, subjects rated the regulatory focus of goals at varying points in time, both future and past. The temporal effect was replicated for both time periods. Study 4 provided evidence for the reverse effect, that of regulatory focus on the perceived temporal distance of future goals. Taken together, these findings suggest an integration across research domains that links regulatory focus to temporal perspective for both prospective and retrospective judgments.     

Regulatory Fit and Resisting Temptation during Goal Pursuit

Because avoiding obstacles to goal attainment is a favored means of prevention-focused self-regulation, the authors proposed that resisting tempting diversions from task completion would better fit a prevention focus than a promotion focus, thus affecting task enjoyment and performance. Whether deciphering encrypted messages (Study 1) or solving math problems (Study 2), when exposed to attractive distracting video clips, participants in a prevention focus reported greater task enjoyment than did participants in a promotion focus, whereas the reverse was true when the distracting clips were not presented. Indeed, prevention-focused participants enjoyed the tasks more when they had to resist temptation than when they did not. In Study 2, prevention-focused participants outperformed promotion-focused participants under distracting (but not nondistracting) conditions, and regression analyses suggested that task enjoyment mediated this effect. Different regulatory states thus appear to differentially equip people to deal with tempting diversions from goal attainment.     

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.     

Strength and safety in numbers: considering the social implications of regulatory focus

The present article examines how individual and situational differences in individuals' regulatory focus on nurturance and gain (promotion) and on security and safety (prevention) may have significant, and distinct, social and interpersonal implications. We first review recent research examining how significant others affect goal pursuit and how individual differences in regulatory focus may moderate the various behavioral, evaluative, and experiential manifestations of social identification. We then consider how regulatory focus moderates the way in which people "size up" their social world in terms of the efficiency in which they identify and appraise motivationally relevant aspects of their social environment. Finally, we explore how regulatory focus moderates people's deliberate and automatic reactions to the beliefs, expectations, behavior, and emotions of other individuals and social groups.     

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.     

Committed dis(s)idents: participation in radical collective action fosters disidentification with the broader in-group but enhances political identification

The present research examined the hypothesis that participation in radical, but not moderate, action results in disidentification from the broader in-group. Study 1 (N = 98) was a longitudinal study conducted in the context of student protests against tuition fees in Germany and confirmed that participation in radical collective action results in disidentification with the broader in-group (students) whereas participation in moderate collective action does not. Both types of action increased politicized identification. Study 2 (N = 175) manipulated the normativeness of different types of imagined collective actions in the same context and replicated this disidentification effect for radical actions, but only when this action mismatched the broader in-group's norms. This study also indicated that these effects were partially mediated by perceived lack of solidarity and perceived lack of commitment to the cause among the broader in-group. The implications of these findings for understanding radicalization within social movements are discussed.     

The system-stabilizing role of identity management strategies: Social creativity can undermine collective action for social change

Three studies were conducted to examine whether, in an event of negative distinctiveness, engaging in 1 of the 3 identity management strategies of social creativity can undermine group member's intentions to engage in collective action. Study 1a (N = 55) and Study 1b (N = 58) illustrated that selecting a new (complementary) comparison dimension undermined middle-class people's and women's intention to participate in collective action. Study 1c (N = 74) and Study 1d (N = 126) revealed that a downward comparison undermined collective action intentions among unemployed people and women. Study 1e (N = 69) and Study 1f (N = 110) showed that a positive redefinition of an externally imposed negative group attribute did not diminish collective action intentions among immigrants and women. Study 2 (N = 99) illustrated that an alternative operationalization of revaluation of the attribute, namely, downplaying the status-defining attribute, undermined collective action among students. Study 2 and Study 3 (N = 95) consistently illustrated that reduced levels of group-relative deprivation mediated the negative relation between the social creativity strategies and collective action intentions. Implications for social change are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).     

矛盾视角下调节焦点在领导力领域的应用

根据调节焦点理论, 个体在追求目标和选择行动策略的过程中存在两种调节焦点：促进型调节焦点的个体以利益最大化为目标, 倾向用“接近式”的方式达成目标; 防御型调节焦点的个体以损失最小化为目标, 倾向用“避免式”的方式达成目标。近年来, 调节焦点理论在领导力领域的研究中得到了广泛应用, 但关于两种调节焦点之间的关系及两者共同作用的研究却十分稀少。在回顾调节焦点在领导力领域研究的应用现状的基础上, 本文指出了矛盾视角的必要性和可行性, 并基于矛盾理论, 提出了未来研究的发展方向。