“Self‐promotion”: How regulatory focus affects the pursuit of self‐interest at the expense of the group

Self‐interested behavior may have positive consequences for individual group‐members, but also negatively affects the outcomes of the group when group‐level and individual‐level interests are misaligned. In two studies, we examined such self‐interested, group‐undermining behavior from the perspective of regulatory focus theory. We predicted that when individual and group interests are out of alignment, individuals under promotion focus would be more likely than individuals under prevention focus to pursue individual success at the expense of their group. Two studies provided support for this prediction. Promotion oriented individuals were more willing to act in their self‐interest (at the expense of their group) than individuals under prevention focus when self‐interested goals were not compatible with cooperation. No effect of regulatory focus on group loyalty was found when cooperation formed the only viable route to individual success. We discuss how these findings extend our understanding of the role of regulatory focus in social situations and of the practice of ensuring loyalty in contexts where individual and group goals are misaligned while cooperation is an important part of group success.     

Promoting us or preventing them: regulatory focus and manifestations of intergroup bias

Four studies examined whether situational and individual differences in individuals' regulatory focus influence how intergroup bias is expressed emotionally and behaviorally. Consistent with past findings on promotion focus, these studies found evidence that participants' promotion focus, whether measured or manipulated, was related to how extensively they demonstrated bias toward their ingroup in terms of cheerfulness- and dejection-related emotions and approach-related behaviors. Consistent with past findings on prevention focus, these studies also revealed that participants' prevention focus was related to how extensively they showed bias against an outgroup in terms of quiescence- and agitation-related emotions and avoidance-related behaviors. The implications for the self-regulatory functions of intergroup bias are discussed.     

Does shared group identification lead to group creativity? Group regulatory focus as a moderator

Regarding the effect of identification on creativity in groups, two theoretical views compete. One view emphasizing group‐welfare motives underlying identification proposes a positive identification–creativity relationship in groups because members sharing high group identification are motivated to engage in behaviors that they believe are optimal for their group, including those that depart from the group's status quo, thus resulting in enhanced group creativity. The other view highlighting affiliative motives underlying identification, in contrast, posits a negative identification–creativity relationship in groups because highly identified members are motivated to engage in behaviors that certify their belongingness in the group, that is, behaviors that conform to the existing group norms and status quo, which constrains the group's potential for creativity. This study aims to reconcile these competing perspectives by invoking regulatory focus theory. Drawing on the notion that group identification effects rely on the content of group identity that the identification is based on, the authors suggest that group regulatory focus, as a critical group identity content, moderates the identification–creativity relationship in groups; the relationship is positive when the group's regulatory focus is highly promotion‐oriented, whereas it is negative when the group's regulatory focus is highly prevention‐oriented. Analyzing data from 65 workgroups in a cosmetics company in Korea, the authors show evidence that the identification–creativity relationship is positive in groups with a high promotion focus. The prediction regarding the prevention–focus moderation effect is not supported. The implications of the findings for both theory and practice 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.     

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.     

Less negative=more positive? Social discrimination as avoidance or approach

A motivational approach to ingroup favoritism based on regulatory focus theory (RFT; Higgins, 1997) is introduced. RFT suggests that individual self-regulation is either more concerned with approaching positive events (promotion focus) or with avoiding negative events (prevention focus). It is suggested that if an individual self-categorizes as a group member, resource allocations to one’s group will be based on these mechanisms of self-regulation. Thus, a promotion focus should engender ingroup favoritism during the distribution of positive resources but not during the distribution of negative resources, whereas a prevention focus should engender ingroup favoritism for negative but not for positive resources. The results of two studies support this prediction based on momentary and chronic regulatory focus. The self-regulation approach to ingroup favoritism provides an explanation for social discrimination in the distribution of positive and negative resources.     

The benefits of collective responsibility: How ingroup reputation concern motivates prosociality in intergroup contexts

Collective responsibility processes have been investigated from the perspectives of the outgroup (e.g., collective blame) and the ingroup (e.g., collective guilt). This article extends theory and research on collective responsibility with a third perspective, namely that of the individual actor whose behavior triggers the attribution of collective blame. Four experiments (n = 78, 118, 208 and 77, respectively) tested the hypotheses that collective responsibility processes influence the individual actors' appraisals, emotions and behavior. The possibility of collective blame for their individual action prompted more prosocial behavior among participants (Experiment 1). Participants also experienced more ingroup reputation concern and in turn more negative emotions (Experiment 2–4) for a past wrongdoing if it could reflect negatively on the ingroup in the eyes of outgroups. The increased negative emotions then motivated participants to improve the ingroup's image (Experiment 4). The effects were moderated by perceived ingroup entitativity, in that activating collective blame increased ingroup reputation concern and negative emotions only for ingroups perceived as highly entitative (Experiment 3).     

“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.     

群际情绪理论及其研究

群际情绪理论认为, 群际情绪是当个体认同某一社会群体, 群体成为自我的一部分时, 个体对内群体和外群体的情绪体验。群际情绪借用社会认同方法, 采用集体自我的概念作为其理论的源点, 认知评价、情绪、行为倾向是群际理论的三件套; 群际水平的情绪不同于个体水平的情绪; 群际情绪取决于群体认同水平; 群际情绪弥散于整个群体; 群际情绪有助于激发和调节群内、群际态度和行为。新近的研究也为群际理论提供了一定的证据, 群际情绪理论为消解偏见和改善群际关系提供了一个崭新的框架。     

“We” are Different: Exploring the Diverse Effects of Friend and Family Accessibility on Consumers' Product Preferences

Prior research suggests that close friends and family members exert similar effects on consumer behavior because both represent strong social ties and are subject to communal norms. However, drawing on regulatory focus theory, we postulate that accessibility of friend and family can have divergent impacts on consumers' subsequent purchase decisions. Across four experiments, as well as a pilot study, we demonstrate that accessibility of friend (vs. family) is more likely to activate a promotion focus, which results in more favorable consumer responses toward products with promotion‐focused appeals, whereas accessibility of family (vs. friend) is more likely to activate a prevention focus, which leads to more positive consumer responses toward products with prevention‐focused appeals.     

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.     

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.     

Responding to negativity: How a risky tactic can serve a vigilant strategy

Regulatory focus theory distinguishes between two motivational systems—a promotion system concerned with nurturance and advancement and a prevention system concerned with security and safety [Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300]. In signal detection terms, a preference for eager strategies within the promotion system has been equated with a “risky” bias, whereas a preference for vigilant strategies within the prevention system has been equated with a “conservative” bias. However, we propose that when prevention-focused individuals face negative input, they should be willing to incur false alarms to ensure that negative stimuli are correctly identified. Across six studies, we found for negative stimuli a reversal of the traditional finding that prevention participants show a conservative bias in information processing. In these studies, prevention participants consistently exhibited a risky bias when the input was negative. We suggest that this new tactic—a risky bias in response to negativity—best serves the prevention strategy of vigilance.     

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.     

Regulatory fit in framing strategy of parental persuasive messages to young children

The present research examined regulatory fit in parental messages aimed at young children. Study 1 measured parents' chronic regulatory focus, asking them to select either positively or negatively framed messages for promotion‐ and prevention‐focused outcomes. The results showed that parents preferred positive frames for promotion‐focused messages and negative frames for prevention‐focused messages. Furthermore, parents with a chronic promotion focus favored a positively framed strategy more than parents with a prevention focus. Study 2 found that parents adopted different message strategies depending on whether they favored an active responsive or an active restrictive parenting style. Together, these findings demonstrate for the first time the applicability of regulatory focus/fit theory to explain parents' preferences for positively and negatively framed messages targeting children.     

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.     

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.     

Motivations underlying attitudes: regulatory focus and majority versus minority support

Drawing on regulatory focus theory, the present work examined the motivations underlying intergroup attitudes expressed under conditions of majority versus minority support. In two studies, participants expressed their attitudes towards equality and non‐discrimination of foreigners and were informed that the equality and non‐discrimination principle was supported by either a majority or a minority. Regulatory focus was assessed as the extent to which participants felt promotion‐related and prevention‐related emotions when acting either inconsistently or consistently with the egalitarian principle. Results provided evidence supporting the hypothesis that attitudes are related to prevention emotions when supported by a majority, but to promotion emotions when supported by a minority. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity.

This study tested whether cues associated with promotion and prevention regulatory foci influence creativity. The authors predicted that the "risky," explorative processing style elicited by promotion cues, relative to the risk-averse, perseverant processing style elicited by prevention cues, would facilitate creative thought. These predictions were supported by two experiments in which promotion cues bolstered both creative insight (Experiment 1) and creative generation (Experiment 2) relative to prevention cues. Experiments 3 and 4 provided evidence for the process account of these findings. suggesting that promotion cues, relative to prevention cues, produce a riskier response bias (Experiment 3) and bolster memory search for novel responses (Experiment 4). A final experiment provided evidence that individual differences in regulatory focus influence creative problem solving in a manner analogous to that of incidental promotion and prevention cues.     

A MULTILEVEL INTEGRATION OF PERSONALITY, CLIMATE, SELF-REGULATION, AND PERFORMANCE

The purpose of this multilevel study was to test whether regulatory focus mechanisms (promotion focus and prevention focus; Higgins, 1997 , American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300; Higgins, 2000 , American Psychologist, 55 , 1217–1230) can help explain how group safety climate and individual differences in Conscientiousness relate to individual productivity and safety performance. Results, based on a sample of 254 employees from 50 work groups, showed that safety climate and conscientiousness predicted promotion and prevention regulatory focus, which in turn mediated the relationships of safety climate and Conscientiousness with supervisor ratings of productivity and safety performance. Implications for theory and research on climate, motivation, and performance and avenues for future research are discussed.