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.     

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.     

On the automatic evaluation of end-states

The author's research examined automatically activated attitudes toward desired end-states. Across 4 studies, participants' automatic attitudes toward goals (i.e., thinness, egalitarianism) significantly predicted their goal pursuit, including behaviors, intentions, and judgments. Such attitudes predicted behavior and judgments that are difficult to monitor and control (i.e., restrained eating, subtle prejudice), but not judgments that are easy to monitor and control (i.e., blatant prejudice). Automatic attitudes toward goals also possessed unique predictive validity compared with explicit measures of motivation and with automatic attitudes toward more physical, "graspable" objects. The findings are discussed with regard to the predictive validity of automatic attitudes, the use of automatic attitudes toward goals as an implicit measure of motivation, and the role of automatic evaluative processes in goal-pursuit and self-regulation.     

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。     

自我调节失败与抑郁和焦虑症状的关系：纵向追踪研究

对200名不同调节定向的大学生进行为期6个月的追踪调查以探索长期自我调节失败与抑郁和焦虑症状及两者共存的关系。结果发现：(1)促进定向组在抑郁、焦虑以及自我调节失败得分上低于预防定向组;(2)控制基线期抑郁和焦虑症状,促进和预防定向系统的自我调节失败均可正向预测3个月后抑郁–焦虑症状共存;(3)抑郁症状的维持和发展与促进目标失败有关,焦虑症状的维持和发展与预防目标失败有关;(4)基线期抑郁不仅通过促进目标失败程度来维持和发展,还通过促进和预防目标失败程度来正向预测继发的焦虑;基线期焦虑不仅通过预防目标失败程度来维持和发展,还能正向预测继发的抑郁。     

Regulatory focus moderates the influence of age-related stereotypic expectancies on older adults’ test performance and threat-based concerns

This study examined how the influence of age-related stereotypic expectations on older adults’ test performance and threat-based concerns is moderated by self-regulatory processes. Before working on test items taken from materials used in drivers’ license examinations, 61 older adults were randomly assigned to a positive or negative stereotypic expectancy condition, and to a promotion or prevention focus condition, respectively. Participants exposed to negative stereotypic expectations performed worse and were more concerned than those exposed to positive stereotypic expectations under prevention but not promotion focus conditions. These findings suggest that the activation of prevention-focused self-regulation renders older adults particularly susceptible to detrimental effects of negative stereotypes.     

Habitual self-regulatory orientation and ease-of-retrieval: Regulatory focus qualifies the impact of subjective experiences in judgment

Eager strategies of self-regulation, known as promotion orientation, and cautious or vigilant strategies of self-regulation, known as prevention orientation, have been found to be associated with distinct patterns of goal attainment and information exploration. Building on these findings, we hypothesize that self-regulation in a promotion versus prevention focus triggers specific patterns of information use in judgment. Specifically, we predict that reliance on ease-of-retrieval??the feeling of ease or difficulty associated with accessing information??is particularly pronounced with a predominant promotion- compared to prevention-orientation. Two experiments that manipulate ease-of-retrieval and assess habitual differences in regulatory focus orientation support this prediction. The current contribution thus extends previous research by documenting that habitual tendencies of promotion-oriented as compared to prevention-oriented self-regulation are associated with reliance on distinct information sources in judgment.     

The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: the role of interdependence in regulatory focus

Regulatory focus theory distinguishes between self-regulatory processes that focus on promotion and prevention strategies for goal pursuit. Five studies provide support for the hypothesis that these strategies differ for individuals with distinct self-construals. Specifically, individuals with a dominant independent self-construal were predicted to place more emphasis on promotion-focused information, and those with a dominant interdependent self-construal on prevention-focused information. Support for this hypothesis was obtained for participants who scored high versus low on the Self-Construal Scale, participants who were presented with an independent versus interdependent situation, and participants from a Western versus Eastern culture. The influence of interdependence on regulatory focus was observed in both importance ratings of information and affective responses consistent with promotion or prevention focus.     

调节焦点理论:组织管理中的应用

根据调节焦点理论,人们在实现目标的过程中存在两种调节焦点:促进焦点驱动人们关注理想,防御焦点驱动人们避免失误。虽然调节焦点理论源自社会心理学,但近年来却越来越多地被用于解释组织现象,对管理研究产生了重要影响。在回顾调节焦点内涵的基础上,归纳了常见的操作化方法,梳理了调节焦点理论在组织管理研究中的应用,并提出未来研究的发展方向。     

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.     

Opposing Affective and Cognitive Effects of Prevention Focus on Counterproductive Work Behavior

Purpose

Regulatory focus is a crucial self-regulation variable that influences employee workplace behavior. However, research findings to date have been equivocal with respect to the relation of prevention focus with counterproductive work behavior (CWB). On the one hand, prevention focus sensitizes people to experience high activation negative emotions. Such emotions prompt aggressive behavior, suggesting a positive relation of prevention focus with CWB through this affective route. On the other hand, prevention focus also sensitizes people to fulfill obligations and abide by rules. Such obligations align employee behavior with organizational norms, suggesting a negative relation of prevention focus with CWB through this cognitive route. To better understand the nature of this prevention focus–CWB relationship, we examined these underlying affective and cognitive mechanisms simultaneously in two multi-wave studies.

Methodology and Findings

In study 1, data were collected from 151 full-time employees across two time points, and the results showed that prevention focus was positively related to both deviant behavior and withdrawal. In study 2, data were collected from 199 full-time employees across four time points, and we found that prevention focus has a significant negative indirect effect on withdrawal via felt obligation. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our findings for the regulatory focus and CWB literatures.

     

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.     

Surviving childhood cancer: quality of life and parental regulatory focus

Applying Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT), the authors predicted that among survivors of childhood cancer, quality of life (QOL) may be compromised by prevention-focused parenting characterized by an overly protective concern with possible mishaps and illness recurrence rather than promotion-focused parenting encouraging expectations of recovery and a normal life. Interviews with parents of 64 survivors (M age = 13.83 years) of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or central nervous system (CNS) tumors were coded for reports of promotion or prevention-oriented parenting and positive and negative expectancies. Overall, parents expressed more promotion than prevention focus, especially in relation to general rather than illness-related contexts. Greater use by parents of prevention focus in general contexts predicted lower QOL for survivors (as rated both by parents and survivors themselves) and less satisfactory parental well-being. These effects were independent of a main effect for type of cancer, with survivors of ALL having higher QOL.     

Territorial Cognitions and Social Climate in Urban Neighborhoods

The feeling of regulatory fit is thought to arise from the right kind of goal pursuit, but some studies imply that it may be evoked even by lesser involvement in the right kind of strategies. The present experiment explored the minimum of involvement necessary to evoke regulatory fit. Participants (N = 71) first completed a regulatory focus manipulation task and were then led to believe that they would receive either rich or accurate information concerning vegetable sterols, evoking beliefs that they used eager or vigilant information search strategies. In reality, all participants received the same information. Participants in promotion focus reported more positive attitudes in the rich information condition, whereas prevention-focused participants reported more positive attitudes in the accurate information condition. The results showed that regulatory fit can be evoked through mere thought, without actual goal pursuit and even without engagement in the goal pursuit strategies.     

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.     

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 focus and affective recall

In two studies, we tested the impact of regulatory focus on recalled affect for past academic outcomes. Because promotion focus concerns achieving gains, it should be related to greater recalled positive affect. In contrast, prevention focus concerns avoiding losses, and should be related to greater recalled negative affect. In Study 1, promotion focus led to greater recalled positive affect for positive events, while prevention focus led to greater recalled negative affect regardless of event valence. In Study 2, promotion focus increased recalled positive affect for both positive and negative events, whereas prevention focus increased recalled negative affect for both positive and negative events. These studies demonstrate that current motivation can alter memory for past affective experiences; the regulatory focus ascribed to a previous event changes the extent to which people remember their emotional experience. Implications are discussed.     

The cultural congruency effect: Culture, regulatory focus, and the effectiveness of gain- vs. loss-framed health messages

The present study contributes a cultural analysis to the literature on the persuasive effects of matching message frame to individuals’ motivational orientations. One experiment examines how members of cultural groups that are likely to differ in their regulatory focus respond to health messages focusing on either the benefits of flossing or the costs of not flossing. White British participants, who had a stronger promotion focus, were more persuaded by the gain-framed message, whereas East-Asian participants, who had a stronger prevention focus, were more persuaded by the loss-framed message. This cultural difference in persuasion was mediated by an interaction between individuals’ self-regulatory focus and type of health message. Thus health messages framed to be culturally congruent led participants to have more positive attitudes and stronger intentions to perform the health behaviors, and the interaction between self-regulatory focus and message frame emerged as the pathway through which the observed cultural difference occurs. Discussion focuses on the integration of individual difference, socio-cultural, and situational factors into models of health persuasion.     

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.