The Effects of Regulatory Fit between Explanation Framing and Applicants’ Regulatory Foci on Applicant Reaction

Abstract

Drawing from regulatory fit theory and the literature on persuasion, the current study is the first to explore whether the fit between explanation framing and applicants’ regulatory foci could enhance applicant reaction. We hypothesized that a positively framed explanation fits with applicants’ promotion foci and that a negatively framed explanation fits with applicants’ prevention foci. Three studies were conducted in which participants with different regulatory foci rated their perceived procedural fairness and organizational attractiveness after reading differently framed recruitment advertisements, rejection letters, and job offer letters. The results supported our hypothesis by showing significant interactions between explanation framing and participants’ regulatory foci on procedural fairness and organizational attractiveness perception in the contexts of recruitment advertising and rejection letters. In these contexts, compared with receiving a negatively framed explanation, promotion-focused recipients reported higher levels of perceived fairness and organizational attractiveness after receiving a positively framed explanation, and promotion-focused recipients’ fairness and attractiveness perceptions were higher than prevention-focused recipients’, after receiving a positively framed explanation. Moreover, perceived procedural fairness mediated the relationship between regulatory fit and perceived organizational attractiveness. However, regulatory fit effects were not found in the context of job offer letters.     

Asymmetric Perception of Gains versus Non‐losses and Losses versus Non‐gains: The Causal Role of Regulatory Focus

Recent studies show that, while losses loom larger than equivalent non‐gains, gains loom larger than equivalent non‐losses. This finding has been interpreted within the framework of regulatory focus theory. In this study, we highlight the importance of considering the motivational focus independently of the framing and the valence of outcome, thus exploring the causal effect of regulatory focus on the asymmetric perception of gains versus non‐losses and losses versus non‐gains. In two studies, we examine the perceived effects of either actual or hypothetical changes in monetary wealth, while orthogonally manipulating framing, valence, and regulatory focus. We find a significant interaction between the three factors. The gain versus non‐loss asymmetry in perceived satisfaction is stronger in promotion focus, whereas the loss versus non‐gain asymmetry in perceived dissatisfaction is stronger in prevention focus. The results suggest that the effects of incentives framed in terms of (non)gains and (non)losses depend on their congruence with the individual's motivational state. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Locomotion, assessment, and regulatory fit: Value transfer from “how” to “what”

Regulatory fit is experienced when people pursue a goal in a manner that sustains their regulatory orientation. Previous research on promotion and prevention orientations has found that regulatory fit increases people’s perception that a decision they made was “right,” which in turn transfers value to the decision outcome, including being willing to pay more for a product than those who chose the same product without regulatory fit (Higgins, 2000; Higgins et al., in press). We predicted that the effect of regulatory fit on monetary value could be generalized to locomotion and assessment orientations. Participants were willing to pay over 40% more for the same book-light when it was chosen with a strategy that fit their regulatory orientation (assessment/“full evaluation”; locomotion/“progressive elimination”) than when it was chosen with a non-fit strategy.     

调节匹配对期望与绩效关系的影响

以往研究发现了调节定向、调节期望与绩效的关系。本研究基于调节匹配理论,以149名大学生为被试、通过与个体长期调节定向相一致或不一致的任务框架(收获/无收获vs无损失/损失)操作调节匹配性,进一步研究了调节匹配对期望与绩效关系的影响。结果显示,调节匹配会进一步加强以往研究中发现的调节定向对期望和绩效关系的调节模式,不匹配会起到削弱作用。当促进定向占主导的个体完成强调有无收获的任务时,高期望对绩效的促进作用显著高于完成强调有无损失的任务;而当预防定向占主导的个体完成强调有无损失的任务时,低期望对绩效的促进作用显著高于完成强调有无收益的任务。     

Sharing losses and sharing gains: Increased demand for fairness under adversity

There is ample experimental evidence showing that people have a strong preference for equity in wealth allocation and social interaction. Although the behavior of gain sharing and responses to (un)fairness in allocation of wealth has been extensively investigated in studies employing economic exchange games, few studies have focused on how people respond to an unfair division of loss between individuals. In this study we developed a new variant of the ultimatum game and examined the participants' reactions to (un)fairness in both gain and loss sharing. Results from three experiments showed that the rejection rates to unfair offers were generally higher in the loss than in the gain domain. Moreover, participants were inclined to associate loss with “unfair” and gain with “fair”, with stronger associations leading to higher rejection rates in the ultimatum game. Furthermore, in subjective rating, unfair offers were perceived as being more unfair in the loss than in the gain domain. These results demonstrate an increased demand for fairness under adversity and the importance of justice in liability sharing.     

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.     

The utility of a multifoci approach to the study of organizational justice: A meta-analytic investigation into the consideration of normative rules,moral accountability,bandwidth-fidelity,and social exchange

Multifoci justice pulls from research on social exchange theory to argue that despite the proliferation of rule sets in the literature (often referred to as the “types” of justice), individuals seek to hold some party accountable for the violation/upholding of such rules, and it is these parties (e.g., supervisors, the organization as a whole) that are most likely to be the recipients of attitudes and behaviors (i.e., target similarity effects). To explore these issues, we meta-analytically (k = 647, N = 235,682) compared the predictive validities of source- vs. type-based justice perceptions and found that (a) multifoci justice perceptions more strongly predicted outcomes directed at matched sources than did type-based justice perceptions, (b) multifoci justice perceptions more strongly predicted target similar than dissimilar outcomes, and (c) the relationships between multifoci justice perceptions and target similar outcomes were mediated by source-specific social exchange.     

Unfair treatment and self-regulatory focus

Ample correlational evidence exists that perceived unfair treatment is negatively related to well-being, health, and goal striving but the underlying process is unclear. We hypothesized that effects are due in part to contextual priming of prevention focus and the negative consequences of chronic prevention-focused vigilance. Indeed, reasonable responses to unfair treatment—to avoid situations in which it occurs or if this is not possible, confront it head on—fit prevention self-regulatory focus response patterns. Results from three experiments support this notion. Priming stigmatized social category membership heightened students’ prevention (not promotion) focus (n = 117). Priming non-stigmatized social category membership (i.e., white) did not change prevention focus (n = 46). Priming prevention (not promotion) increased perceptions of unfair treatment (and aroused prevention-relevant fight or flight responses) in response to a negative ambiguous job situation among low and moderate income adults (n = 112).     

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.     

Regulatory fit from attribute‐based versus alternative‐based processing in decision making

This paper discusses the fit between attribute-based versus alternative-based processing and regulatory focus, and its impact on decision outcome valuation. Attribute-based processing was found to occur more frequently under prevention focus, whereas alternative-based processing occurred more frequently under promotion focus. The fit between prevention/promotion focus and attribute-based/alternative-based processing was found to enhance satisfaction with choices and the perceived monetary value of chosen options. Moreover, the effect of fit on outcome valuation was found to be mediated by ease of processing. Finally, the effects of fit on ease of processing and outcome valuation disappeared when consumers first practiced to process information based on either attributes or alternatives.     

Regulatory fit as a determinant of sport performance: How to succeed in a soccer penalty-shooting

ObjectivesAccording to regulatory focus theory, goal pursuit can be achieved by either keeping a promotion or a prevention focus [Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300; Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217–1230]. Moreover, it has been assumed that people experience fit when they pursue a goal in a manner that sustains their chronic orientation and that fit has a positive impact on performance. In two studies, we investigated the significance of regulatory focus and fit in the realm of sports performance, such as the success rate in a soccer penalty-shooting task.Methods and ResultsIn a pilot study, we assessed the chronic regulatory orientation of 211 athletes from different sports. Among others, we found more promotion focus with attackers than with defenders. In the main study, we assessed the chronic regulatory orientation of 20 soccer players who took part in a penalty-shooting task. For half of them, the task was described in terms of promotion, for the others in terms of prevention. We found a positive impact of regulatory fit on scoring performance.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate a great potential of regulatory focus theory for the understanding and enhancement of sport performance. The assessment of athletes' chronic regulatory orientation could be of importance for the selection of athletes, the adjustment of tactics and strategies, and coaches' framing of instructions.     

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.     

How regulatory focus–mode fit impacts variety-seeking

Variety-seeking research has examined antecedents in terms of contextual factors and individual differences. However, it does not consider the interaction of individual difference factors such as regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention) and regulatory mode (locomotion vs. assessment) to predict variety-seeking. Drawing on regulatory fit theory, this study introduces a new kind of regulatory fit based on the interaction between regulatory focus and mode (i.e., regulatory focus–mode fit), thereby extending previous work examining fit based on either regulatory focus or regulatory mode in isolation. Results from five studies, including field data from 10,547 music app consumers (text analysis), two preregistered studies, and two online experiments, show that regulatory focus–mode fit (vs. non-fit) decreases variety-seeking. Engagement and attitude certainty serially mediate regulatory focus–mode fit effects. Findings provide implications for consumer segmentation and message framing.     

“Who I Am Depends on How Fairly I'm Treated”: Effects of Justice on Self‐Identity and Regulatory Focus

Across 2 experiments, we examined motivational processes elicited by justice‐related experiences. Specifically, we examined the effects of justice on recipients' self‐identity and regulatory focus. As predicted, those who experienced unfairness had a strong individual identity and prevention focus owing to the threats of social rejection and economic exploitation communicated by unfairness. Conversely, individuals exposed to fairness had strong interdependent identities and promotion focus owing to the favorable economic and socioemotional information communicated by fairness. These effects were accentuated among participants who reported high sensitivity to injustice and internal loci of control. Our findings are important because they highlight causal associations between justice and key motivation constructs.     

Persuading young car drivers to take part in a driving skills test: The influence of regulatory fit on informational-assessment value and persuasion

Two studies were conducted to examine the relative effectiveness of differently framed messages advising young car drivers to take part in a driving skills test. It was hypothesized that messages promoting such detection behaviour should be more persuasive when the message frame was compatible versus incompatible with the recipient’s level of perceived risk. It was also hypothesized that such effects would occur because the “feeling right” experience resulting from the compatibility effects based on regulatory fit could be transferred to the informational-assessment value of the proposed feedback. Consistently, moderate perceived driving skills (Experiment 1) and high perceived risk drivers (Experiment 2) found the driving skills test more valuable for assessment purposes after having read a loss versus gain framed message and consequently, were more interested in taking part in the test. Furthermore, low perceived risk drivers (Experiment 2) showed a reversed pattern of responses. Implications for message framing in the road safety area are discussed.     

Fair process revisited: Differential effects of interactional and procedural justice in the presence of social comparison information

The competing views of fairness theory ( [Folger and Cropanzano, 1998] and [Folger and Cropanzano, 2001]) and fairness heuristic theory (Van den Bos, Lind, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1997) were tested by studying the effects of interactional (IJ), procedural (PJ), and distributive justice (knowledge of others’ outcomes [OO]) upon evaluations of outcome fairness and customer satisfaction. The participants, 369 undergraduates, were randomly allocated to scenario-based experimental conditions. A 2 (IJ) × 2 (PJ) × 4 (OO) MANOVA and stepdown analyses provided evidence of “fair process” across all levels of distributive justice for outcome fairness (p<.001) and satisfaction (p<.001), but only in relation to the effects of interactional justice. No such effects were found for procedural justice. Implications for the development of justice theory are discussed.     

Effects of Goat Framing in Job Advertisements on Organizational Attractiveness1

Two experiments were conducted to investigate the effects of goal framing in job advertisements on organizational attractiveness. Job ads were created that emphasized the potential costs or losses of not applying (i.e., loss frame) or the potential gains or benefits of applying (i.e., gain frame). The first experiment (N= 70) found that participants were more attracted to the company in the gain‐framed ad than in the loss‐framed ad. The second experiment (N= 100) attempted to determine the reason for the greater attractiveness of the gain‐framed ad compared to the loss‐framed ad. Two possible explanations— valence‐based encoding and regulatory focus—were examined. Results suggest that both valence‐based encoding and regulatory focus mediated the relationship between framing and organizational attractiveness.     

Episodic Future Thinking Reduces Delay Discounting of Gains and Losses: The Role of Regulatory Focus1,2

We examined the moderating effect of regulatory foci on the efficacy of episodic future thinking in reducing delay discounting. We hypothesized that the impact of imagining positive future events (vs. recent positive events) on delay discounting of gains would be stronger for individuals with a high promotion focus than for those with a high prevention focus (Hypothesis 1). Conversely, the effects of imagining adverse future events (vs. recent negative events) on delay discounting of losses would be stronger for individuals with a high prevention focus than for those with a high promotion focus (Hypothesis 2). We conducted two experiments in which participants, randomly allocated to episodic future thinking (EFT) or episodic recent thinking (ERT) groups, completed a delayed discounting task of gain (Experiment 1) or loss (Experiment 2). Experiment 1 (N = 73) weakly supported Hypothesis 1; Experiment 2 (N = 99) did not support Hypothesis 2. Our findings suggest positive EFT is particularly effective for individuals with a high promotion focus compared to individuals with a high prevention focus, which further reveals how EFT attenuates delay discounting.     

Work, family and life-course fit: Does control over work time matter?

This study moves from “work-family” to a multi-dimensional “life-course fit” construct (employees’ cognitive assessments of resources, resource deficits, and resource demands), using a combined work-family, demands-control and ecology of the life course framing. It examined (1) impacts of job and home ecological systems on fit dimensions, and (2) whether control over work time predicted and mediated life-course fit outcomes. Using cluster analysis of survey data on a sample of 917 white-collar employees from Best Buy headquarters, we identified four job ecologies (corresponding to the job demands-job control model) and five home ecologies (theorizing an analogous home demands-home control model). Job and home ecologies predicted fit dimensions in an additive, not interactive, fashion. Employees’ work-time control predicted every life-course fit dimension and partially mediated effects of job ecologies, organizational tenure, and job category.