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.     

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 Focus and the Interpersonal Dynamics of Romantic Partners’ Personal Goal Discussions

Guided by regulatory focus theory, we examined how romantic partners’ chronic concerns with promotion (advancement) and prevention (security) shape the interpersonal dynamics of couples’ conversations about different types of personal goals. Members of 95 couples (N = 190) first completed chronic regulatory focus measures and then engaged in videotaped discussions of two types of goals that were differentially relevant to promotion and prevention concerns. Participants also completed measures of goal‐ and partner‐relevant perceptions. Independent observers rated the discussions for support‐related behaviors. Highly promotion‐focused people approached their partners more, perceived greater partner responsiveness, and received more support when discussing goals that were promotion‐relevant and that they perceived as less attainable. When partners’ responsiveness to promotion‐relevant goals was low, highly promotion‐focused people reported greater self‐efficacy regarding these goals. Highly prevention‐focused people perceived more responsiveness when partners were less distancing during discussions of their prevention‐relevant goals, and greater responsiveness perceptions reassured them that these goals are less disruptive to the relationship. These findings suggest that chronic concerns with promotion and prevention orient people to their relationship environment in ways that are consistent with these distinct motivational needs, especially when discussing goals that increase the salience of these needs.     

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.     

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。     

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.     

Threat ≠ prevention,challenge ≠ promotion: The impact of threat,challenge and regulatory focus on attention to negative stimuli

The purpose of the current experiment was to distinguish between the impact of strategic and affective forms of gain- and loss-related motivational states on the attention to negative stimuli. On the basis of the counter-regulation principle and regulatory focus theory, we predicted that individuals would attend more to negative than to neutral stimuli in a prevention focus and when experiencing challenge, but not in a promotion focus and under threat. In one experiment (N = 88) promotion, prevention, threat, or challenge states were activated through a memory task, and a subsequent dot probe task was administered. As predicted, those in the prevention focus and challenge conditions had an attentional bias towards negative words, but those in promotion and threat conditions did not. These findings provide support for the idea that strategic mindsets (e.g., regulatory focus) and hot emotional states (e.g., threat vs. challenge) differently affect the processing of affective stimuli.     

Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change

Two situations involving choice between stability and change were examined: task substitution, which deals with choosing between resuming an interrupted activity and doing a substitute activity, and endowment, which deals with choosing between a possessed object and an alternative object. Regulatory focus theory (E. T. Higgins, 1997, 1998) predicts that a promotion focus will be associated with openness to change, whereas a prevention focus will be associated with a preference for stability. Five studies confirmed this prediction with both situational induction of and chronic personality differences in regulatory focus. In Studies 1 and 2, individuals in a prevention focus were more inclined than individuals in a promotion focus to resume an interrupted task rather than do a substitute task. In Studies 3-5, individuals in a prevention focus, but not individuals in a promotion focus, exhibited a reluctance to exchange currently possessed objects (i.e., endowment) or previously possessed objects.     

Neural correlates of evaluation associated with promotion and prevention regulatory focus

Higgins (1997, 1998) proposed two self-regulatory or motivational systems—one sensitive to gains (promotion) and one sensitive to losses (prevention). To examine the interaction of motivation and cognition, participants made good/bad or abstract/concrete judgments about concepts during fMRI scanning. After scanning, participants rated the extent to which each stimulus was good and bad and completed a questionnaire that measured promotion/prevention orientation. For each participant, contrast maps were generated representing the association between neural processing and stimulus valence (good/bad), and these factors were then regressed against participants’ promotion and prevention focus scores. For the good/bad but not for the abstract/concrete task, promotion focus was associated with greater activity in the amygdala, anterior cingulate, and extrastriate cortex for positive stimuli, and prevention focus was associated with activity in the same regions for negative stimuli; these results are consistent with the hypothesis that the way in which evaluative information is processed is influenced by individual differences in self-regulatory focus.     

Anger and asymmetrical frontal cortical activity: Evidence for an anger–withdrawal relationship

Anger has been associated with relative left frontal cortical activity, reflecting its approach (vs. withdrawal) motivational tendency. However, there may be contexts in which anger is associated with withdrawal motivation and, hence, relative right frontal cortical activity. Based on past research, we hypothesised that for some individuals, interracial interactions may be one such context, as societal pressure to be politically correct dictates that anger should not be expressed. Thus, in the context of an interracial interaction, the experience of anger may coincide with a desire to withdraw from the situation. Cortical activity was measured while White participants anticipated an interracial interaction. Consistent with expectations, self-reported anger was associated with relative right frontal cortical activity. In general, the motivational correlates of anger may be partially determined by the specific attributes of the person and the social context in which anger occurs.     

Decide like Lionel Messi! The impact of regulatory focus on divergent thinking in sports

According to Higgins, the regulatory focus theory states that in terms of motivational information processing, it makes a difference whether people have a promotion or prevention focus. A focus on aspirations is labeled as promotion focus, whereas a focus on responsibility is called prevention focus. In our study, the theory will be applied to the area of sport decision making. We showed that soccer players make different decisions in a sport‐specific divergent‐thinking task depending on their regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention). Promotion‐framed athletes were able to produce more original, flexible, and adequate solutions than prevention‐framed athletes. Theoretical and practical implications for sport psychology are discussed.     

期望与绩效的关系:调节定向的调节作用

经典动机理论认为高期望能提高绩效水平,本研究结合调节定向理论进一步回答这种效应"何时"存在或"如何"产生的问题。研究1通过测量期望水平、并用任务框架操作调节定向,检验了情景启动的调节定向对期望与行为间关系的影响;研究2采取更严格的被试内设计通过任务难度操作期望,考察了作为个体长期差异的调节定向的作用。结果表明:①调节定向调节成功期望与绩效之间的关系:对于促进定向,成功期望与绩效正相关;对于预防定向,期望与绩效相关不显著。②动机可以部分解释调节定向与期望的交互作用机制:高水平的成功期望会提高促进定向个体的动机强度,进而产生高的绩效结果;其对预防定向个体的动机强度的影响不显著。     

Regulatory fit at work: gravitational effects and associations with employee well-being

ABSTRACT

Using a task approach, this study examined the extent to which employee regulatory focus would “gravitate” employees towards promotion- versus prevention-oriented tasks within their jobs, and whether a subsequent regulatory fit/misfit would be associated with their well-being (i.e., mental health and job satisfaction). In a pre-study among 37 employees, we determined the regulatory focus of work tasks from the Netherlands Skill Survey, which are relevant to the general working population, resulting in a selection of 7 promotion and 11 prevention tasks. For our main study, we used the Dutch Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences (LISS) panel and collected data from 1,606 respondents. In 2011, we collected respondents’ regulatory focus and in 2012, we collected their work tasks and well-being. Promotion-oriented employees considered both promotion and prevention tasks to be highly relevant in their jobs, and this relevance was associated with their mental health. Prevention-oriented employees, however, did not respond to the relevance of promotion or prevention tasks and generally reported lower well-being, irrespective of the regulatory focus of their tasks. We tentatively conclude that promotion focus gravitates employees towards job with a richer task content, containing both promotion and prevention tasks.     

On the selective relation of frontal cortical asymmetry and anger-out versus anger-control

The model of anterior asymmetry and emotion proposes an asymmetric representation of approach and withdrawal systems in the left and right anterior brain regions. Within this framework, 3 different concepts have been related to anterior asymmetry: affective valence, motivational direction, and behavioral activation. The aim of the present study was an empirical investigation into the relation between anterior cortical activity and questionnaire measures related to the 3 dimensions positive versus negative affect, approach versus withdrawal motivation, and behavioral activation versus inhibition. Subjects with relative greater left than right frontal cortical activity showed higher anger-out scores and lower anger-control scores. These results support the hypothesis that motivational direction is related to frontal asymmetry (approach-left and withdrawal-right). Furthermore, subjects with greater bilateral (left and right) frontal cortical activity showed higher behavioral activation scores. This finding might suggest that behavioral activation is related to approach and withdrawal motivation.     

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.     

Conflict Resolution in Chinese Adolescents' Friendship: Links with Regulatory Focus and Friendship Satisfaction

It is generally acknowledged that people adopt different resolution strategies when facing conflicts with others. However, the mechanisms of conflict resolution are still unclear and under researched, in particular within the context of Chinese adolescents' same-sex friendship relations. Thus, the present study investigated the mediator role of conflict resolution strategies in the relationship between regulatory foci and friendship satisfaction for the first time. 653 Chinese adolescents completed the regulatory foci, conflict resolution style, and friendship satisfaction measures. The results of the structure equation modeling showed that while promotion focus was positively associated with problem-solving and compliance, prevention focus was positively associated with withdrawal and conflict engagement. In addition, problem-solving mediated the relationship between promotion focus and friendship satisfaction, and conflict engagement mediated the relationship between prevention focus and friendship satisfaction. These findings contribute to understanding Chinese adolescents' use of conflict resolution strategies as well as the relationship between regulatory foci and behavioral strategies in negative situations.     

小学生调节聚焦对生活满意度的影响:压力应对方式的中介作用

采用调节聚焦问卷、压力应对方式问卷和生活满意度问卷对北京市五所学校1174名小学生进行调查, 考察调节聚焦对小学生压力应对方式、生活满意度的影响, 并检验应对方式在调节聚焦和生活满意度之间的中介作用。结果发现:(1)促进定向对小学生生活满意度有显著正向预测作用, 预防定向对生活满意度有显著负向预测作用;(2)积极应对和促进定向更相关, 消极应对和预防定向更相关;(3)积极应对在促进定向和生活满意度之间起着完全中介的作用, 积极应对、消极应对均在预防定向和生活满意度之间起着部分中介的作用。     

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.     

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.     

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.