The effects of managerial regulatory fit priming on reactions to explanations

We investigated the interactive effects of regulatory focus priming and message framing on the perceived fairness of unfavorable events. We hypothesized that individuals’ perceptions of fairness are higher when they receive a regulatory focus prime (promotion versus prevention) that is congruent with the framing of an explanation (gain versus loss), as opposed to one that is incongruent. We also hypothesized that these effects are mediated by counterfactual thinking. Three studies revealed that primed regulatory fit (promotion/gain or prevention/loss) led to higher levels of justice perceptions than regulatory misfit (promotion/loss or prevention/gain). Additionally, “could” and “should” counterfactuals partially mediated the relationship between regulatory fit and interactional justice (Study 3).     

How regulatory focus influences consumer behavior

According to Higgins ( 1997 ) the theory of regulatory focus says that in terms of both information processing and motivation it makes a difference whether people have a promotion or prevention focus. In this paper, this theory will be applied to the area of consumer psychology. In three experiments we show that consumer's regulatory focus either measured or induced in a given situation influences product evaluations. Study 1 shows that consumers are interested in different product features depending on their focus; whereas in the prevention focus they are more interested in safety‐oriented aspects, in the promotion focus they concentrate more on comfort‐oriented qualities. In Study 2, a typical prevention product and a typical promotion product are compared with one another and data shows that focus compatible products are evaluated more positively. In Study 3 we demonstrate that advertisments that correspond to the focus of the consumer lead to more positive evaluations of the product than advertisments that are incompatible with the focus of the consumer. Theoretical and practical implications will be discussed. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

Social change as an important goal or likely outcome: how regulatory focus affects commitment to collective action

The results of three experiments showed that regulatory focus influences the way in which the importance and likelihood of social change affect individuals' commitment to collective action. In Studies 1 (N= 82) and 2 (N= 153), the strength of participants' chronic regulatory focus was measured. In Study 3 (N= 52), promotion or prevention focus was experimentally induced. The results showed that for individuals under promotion focus, commitment to collective action depended on the perceived likelihood that through this action important social change would be achieved. Individuals under prevention focus were willing to commit to collective action when they attached high importance to its goal, regardless of the extent to which they believed that attainment of this goal was likely. Implications of these results for work on regulatory focus and collective action are discussed.     

Regulatory focus and illusions of control

Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997, 1998) suggests that individuals in a promotion focus emphasize a congruence between an action and an intended outcome, which may foster illusions of control (IOC) even in the absence of an objective relationship between action and outcome. Individuals in a prevention focus should demonstrate a reverse bias that buffers against the development of IOC. Three studies were conducted to test this hypothesis, which either measured chronic individual differences in regulatory focus (Study 1) or manipulated regulatory focus (Studies 2 and 3). All studies found evidence that promotion-focused individuals report higher IOC concerning an uncontrollable outcome than prevention-focused individuals. In addition, Study 3 showed that IOC developed in a promotion focus buffer against the emotional consequences of failure. The results suggest that IOC evolve in a way that increases regulatory fit (Higgins, 2000).     

Managing others like you were managed: how prevention focus motivates copying interpersonal norms

In 5 studies, we investigated the relation between regulatory focus and the tendency to copy a role model's managing behavior after one experiences this behavior as its recipient and later takes on the same managing role. Because enacting role-related behaviors fulfills interpersonal norms that fit prevention concerns, we predicted a stronger tendency to copy among individuals with a stronger prevention focus on duties and obligations ("oughts") but not among those with a stronger promotion focus on aspirations and advancements (ideals). We also predicted that individuals with a stronger prevention focus would tend to copy a managing behavior regardless of their earlier hedonic experience with this behavior as its recipient. These predictions were first supported in 2 experimental studies, where a stronger prevention focus was measured as a chronic disposition (Study 1) and experimentally induced as a temporary state (Study 2). Further, we tested the mechanism underlying the relation between stronger prevention and stronger copying and found that concerns about the normativeness, but not the effectiveness, of a managing behavior motivated copying for individuals with a strong prevention focus (Studies 3 and 4). We generalized these experimental results to the field by surveying a sample of superior-subordinate dyads in real world organizations (Study 5). Across all studies, we found that individuals with a stronger prevention focus tend to copy more a role model's managing behavior--independent of their hedonic satisfaction with the behavior as its recipient and their perception of its effectiveness.     

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.     

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.     

When fit matters more: The effect of regulatory fit on adaptation to change

Regulatory fit theory predicts that motivation and performance are enhanced when individuals pursue goals framed in a way that fits their regulatory orientation (promotion vs. prevention focus). Our aim was to test the predictions of the theory when individuals deal with change. We expected and found in three studies that regulatory fit is beneficial only when a prevention focus is involved. In Study 1, an experiment among students, prevention- but not promotion-focused participants performed better in a changed task when it was framed in fit with their regulatory orientation. In Study 2, a survey among employees experiencing organizational changes, only the fit between individual prevention (and not promotion) focus and prevention framing of the changes by the manager was associated with higher employee adaptation to changes. In Study 3, a weekly survey among employees undergoing organizational change, again only prevention regulatory fit was associated with lower employee exhaustion and higher employee work engagement. Theoretical and practical implications of applying regulatory focus theory to organizational change are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

Seeking security or growth: a regulatory focus perspective on motivations in romantic relationships

Using a multimethod approach, we examined how regulatory focus shapes people's perceptual, behavioral, and emotional responses in different situations in romantic relationships. We first examined how chronic regulatory focus affects romantic partners' support perceptions and problem-solving behaviors while they were engaged in a conflict resolution discussion (Study 1). Next, we experimentally manipulated regulatory focus and tested its effects on partner perceptions when individuals recalled a prior conflict resolution discussion (Study 2). We then examined how chronic regulatory focus influences individuals' emotional responses to hypothetical relationship events (Study 3) and identified specific partner behaviors to which people should respond with regulatory goal-congruent emotions (Study 4). Strongly prevention-focused people perceived their partners as more distancing and less supportive during conflict (Studies 1 and 2), approached conflict resolution by discussing the details related to the conflict (Study 1), and experienced a negative relationship outcome with more agitation (Study 3). Strongly promotion-focused people perceived their partners as more supportive and less distancing (Studies 1 and 2), displayed more creative conflict resolution behavior (Study 1), and experienced a negative relationship outcome with more sadness and a favorable outcome with more positive emotions (Study 3). In Study 4, recalling irresponsible and responsible partner behaviors was associated with experiencing more prevention-focused emotions, whereas recalling affectionate and neglectful partner behaviors was associated with more promotion-focused emotions. The findings show that regulatory focus and approach-avoidance motivations influence certain interpersonal processes in similar ways, but regulatory focus theory also generates novel predictions on which approach-avoidance models are silent.     

Regulatory focus systems and personal values

The present studies sought connections between two highly influential, but separate motivational systems: the regulatory foci and personal values. Study 1 (N = 173) showed that promotion focus was positively associated with Achievement and negatively with Tradition values, whereas prevention focus was positively associated with Conformity and Security values, and negatively with Self‐Direction and Stimulation values. Furthermore, interdependent self‐construal moderated trait prevention focus' associations with Power, Benevolence, Universalism, and Conformity values. Study 2 (N = 150) showed that a promotion‐framed message evoked more compliant behavior among those scoring high on Stimulation, Achievement, and Self‐Direction values, but that a prevention‐framed message evoked more compliance among those high in Conformity values. The results suggested that the regulatory foci are associated with certain values, and that these values may increase motivation in promotion‐ versus prevention‐relevant situations. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Openness to Experience and regulatory focus: Evidence of motivation from fit

Regulatory fit occurs when one’s strategies of goal pursuit sustain one’s interests in an activity, which can enhance motivation [e.g., Higgins, E. T. (2005). Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 209–213]. Because the strategic inclinations of people high (low) in Openness are similar to those of people in a promotion (prevention) focus, regulatory fit should be possible. We found that people higher in Openness were more motivated to pursue promotion-related goals (hopes/aspirations in Study 1 and a gain-framed goal in Study 2) and less motivated to pursue prevention-related goals (duties/obligations in Study 1 and a loss-framed goal in Study 2). We discuss how other traits might relate to motivation to pursue promotion- and prevention-related goals as well as other future research directions for regulatory focus and Openness.     

Regulatory focus and adherence to self-care behaviors among adults with type 2 diabetes

The aims of this study were, first, to test the association between regulatory focus of adults with type 2 diabetes and their adherence to two types of self-care behaviors – lifestyle change (e.g. physical activity and diet) and medical care regimens (blood-glucose monitoring, foot care and medication usage). Second, to explore whether a fit between the message framing and patients’ regulatory focus would improve their intentions to adhere specifically when the type of behavior fits the patients’ regulatory focus as well. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 130 adults with type 2 diabetes who were hospitalized in an academic medical center. The patients completed a set of questionnaires that included their diabetes self-care activities, regulatory focus, self-esteem and demographic, socioeconomic and clinical data. In addition, participants were exposed to either a gain-framed or a loss-framed message, and were then asked to indicate their intention to improve adherence to self-care behaviors. A multivariable linear regression model revealed that promoters reported higher adherence to lifestyle change behaviors than preventers did (B = .60, p = .028). However, no effect of regulatory focus on adherence to medical care regimens was found (B = .46, p = .114). In addition, preventers reported higher intentions to adhere to medical care behaviors when the message framing was congruent with prevention focus (B = 1.16, p = .023). However, promoters did not report higher intentions to adhere to lifestyle behaviors when the message framing was congruent with promotion focus (B = ?.16, p = .765). These findings justify the need to develop tailor-made interventions that are adjusted to both patients’ regulatory focus and type of health behavior.     

Approaching the true self: Promotion focus predicts the experience of authenticity

Research on subjective authenticity identifies several psychological antecedents that seem naturally tied to subjectively authentic experiences. Four studies (N = 525) tested the hypothesis that promotion focus (compared to prevention focus) represents another shared antecedent of subjective authenticity. Studies 1 and 2 examined correlations between regulatory focus and subjective authenticity in the context of goal-pursuit and interpersonal interactions. Studies 3 and 4 were within-subjects experiments designed to manipulate regulatory focus and examine the effects of promotion and prevention focus on subjective authenticity. Across all studies, we found that promotion focus (relative to prevention focus) was a robust predictor of subjective authenticity. Implications and future directions are discussed.     

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.     

The role of prevention focus under stereotype threat: Initial cognitive mobilization is followed by depletion

Previous research has demonstrated that stereotype threat induces a prevention focus and impairs central executive functions. The present research examines how these 2 consequences of stereotype threat are related. The authors argue that the prevention focus is responsible for the effects of stereotype threat on executive functions and cognitive performance. However, because the prevention focus is adapted to deal with threatening situations, the authors propose that it also leads to some beneficial responses to stereotype threat. Specifically, because stereotype threat signals a high risk of failure, a prevention focus initiates immediate recruitment of cognitive control resources. The authors further argue that this response initially facilitates cognitive performance but that the additional cognitive demands associated with working under threat lead to cognitive depletion over time. Study 1 demonstrates that stereotype threat (vs. control) facilitates immediate cognitive control capacity during a stereotype-relevant task. Study 2 experimentally demonstrates the process by showing that stereotype threat (vs. control) facilitates cognitive control as a default, as well as when a prevention focus has been experimentally induced, but not when a promotion focus has been induced. Study 3 shows that stereotype threat facilitates initial math performance under a prevention focus, whereas no effect is found under a promotion focus. Consistent with previous research, however, stereotype threat impaired math performance over time under a prevention focus, but not under a promotion focus.