Regulatory foci and organizational commitment

We use regulatory focus theory to derive specific predictions regarding the differential relationships between regulatory focus and commitment. We estimated a structural equation model using a sample of 520 private and public sector employees and found in line with our hypotheses that (a) promotion focus related more strongly to affective commitment than prevention focus, (b) prevention focus related more strongly to continuance commitment than promotion focus, (c) promotion and prevention focus had equally strong effects on normative commitment. Implications of these findings for the three-component model of commitment, especially the ‘dual nature’ of normative commitment, as well as implications for human resources management and leadership 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.     

Exploring the effect of regulatory focus on ad attitudes: the moderating roles of message sidedness and argument quality

This research explores the interaction effects of message sidedness and argument quality of ads on how either promotion‐focused or prevention‐focused individuals engender their ad attitudes. Two hundred and forty undergraduates were randomly assigned to a 2 (regulatory focus: prevention‐focus/promotion‐focus) × 2 (message sidedness: one‐sided messages/two‐sided messages) × 2 (argument quality (AQ): weak/strong) between‐subjects design. Results indicate that promotion‐focused individuals tend to engender more favourable attitudes to weak AQ ads than strong AQ ads, whereas prevention‐focused individuals tend to engender more favourable attitudes to strong AQ ads than weak AQ ads. In addition, results indicate more favourable attitudes for one‐sided messages over two‐sided messages for promotion‐focused individuals, as well as more favourable attitudes for two‐sided messages over one‐sided messages for prevention‐focused individuals. Furthermore, one‐sided messages result in more favourable ad attitudes when linked with weak AQ for promotion‐focused individuals; in contrast, two‐sided messages elicit more favourable ad attitudes when linked with strong AQ for prevention‐focused individuals. Results suggest that message sidedness and argument quality are closely related to regulatory focus, which has a direct impact on ad attitudes. Practical implications, theoretical contributions, limitations and directions for future research are discussed.     

Interrelations among Regulation Focus,Authenticity and Emotional Responses to Frustration of Self-Related Experiences among University Students in Turkey

The aim of this study is to investigate the possible interrelation of regulatory focus, authenticity and negative emotional responses to the frustration that surrounds relational and independent self-aspects in Turkey, both of which are witnessing a rise among the educated-urbanized population. Previous findings show that both independent self-aspects and relational self-aspects may be experienced authentically, while authenticity of self appears to be associated more closely with promotion focus than prevention focus. We proposed a model in which authenticity mediates the relationship between promotion focus and emotional responses to independent and related self-frustration, while prevention focus directly predicts emotional responses to relational self-frustration, and promotion focus directly predicts emotional responses to independent self-frustration. The proposed model is tested on self-reported data collected from Turkish university students (N?=?317). The results reveal that promotion focus was a direct predictor of emotional responses to frustration of the independent self-aspect, while prevention focus predicted directly the emotional responses to frustration of the relational self-aspect. Authenticity was found to mediate the relationship between promotion focus and the emotional responses to frustration of the relational self-aspect. These results suggest that relational goals, such as safeguarding the interests of significant others, may be regulated not only with prevention strategies, but also with promotion strategies, through perceived authenticity.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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).     

The relationship between career growth and organizational commitment

This research examines the relationship between employees' career growth and organizational commitment. Career growth was conceptualized by four factors: career goal progress, professional ability development, promotion speed and remuneration growth, while organizational commitment was conceptualized using Meyer and Allen's (1997) three component model. Survey data, collected from 961 employees in 10 cities in the People's Republic of China, showed that the four dimensions of career growth were positively related to affective commitment, and that three of the facets were positively related to continuance and normative commitment. Only three of eighteen two-way interactions among the career growth factors affected organizational commitment, suggesting that the career growth factors influence commitment in an additive rather than a multiplicative manner.Results focus on how career growth can be used to manage organizational commitment.     

People higher in self-control do not necessarily experience more happiness: Regulatory focus also affects subjective well-being

A number of studies have shown that self-control is a key variable influencing subjective well-being (SWB). The present research demonstrated the effects of regulatory focus on SWB. Study 1 surveyed college students and found that (1) promotion-dominant people reported more SWB than prevention-dominant people, even after controlling for the effect of TSC as a covariate, and (2) the direct effect of promotion focus on SWB was significant, but the direct effect of prevention focus on SWB was not significant in the model with TSC as a mediator. Study 2 manipulated situational regulatory foci and required participants to execute a self-control task. The results showed that the two groups did not differ in task performance, or self-control, however, the promotion-focused group reported more task pleasure. These results indicate that promotion focused people are happier than prevention focused people during goal pursuit, that people can chronically and situationally benefit from promotion focus, and moreover, that people higher in self-control do not necessarily experience more SWB.     

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。     

Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (Un)ethical behavior

In four laboratory studies, we find that regulatory focus induced by situational cues (such as the framing of an unrelated task) or primed influences people’s likelihood to cross ethical boundaries. A promotion focus leads individuals to be more likely to act unethically than a prevention focus (Studies 1, 2, and 3). These higher levels of dishonesty are explained by the influence of a person’s induced regulatory focus on his or her behavior toward risk. A promotion focus leads to risk-seeking behaviors, while a prevention focus leads to risk avoidance (Study 3). Through higher levels of dishonesty, promotion focus also results in higher levels of virtuous behavior (Studies 2 and 3), thus providing evidence for compensatory ethics. Our results also demonstrate that the framing of ethics (e.g., through an organization’s ethics code) influences individuals’ ethical behavior and does so differently depending on an individual’s induced regulatory focus (Study 4).     

Motivated or Demotivated to Be Creative: The Role of Self‐Regulatory Focus in Transformational and Transactional Leadership Processes

Numerous studies have recognised the importance of transformational leadership style for encouraging employees’ creativity. Self‐regulation studies have highlighted the influence of a promotion focus on employees’ creative behaviours. Yet both leadership and self‐regulation theories have paid less attention to the role transactional leadership style and situational prevention regulatory focus may play in affecting employees’ creativity. In this article we present a theoretical model which examines transformational and transactional leadership styles and both promotion and prevention situational self‐regulatory focus (SRF). The model suggests that while transformational leadership promotes creativity, at least partially by enhancing follower's situational promotion SRF, transactional leadership style (transactional active) is aligned with followers’ prevention situational SRF, which is associated with leaders’ hindering of followers’ creativity. Findings from two studies, an experimental study (N = 189) and a field study (N = 343 employees and 75 managers), support this model, showing that the relationship between different types of leadership and creativity are more complex than previously regarded. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

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.     

Gain or non‐loss: The message matching effect of regulatory focus on moral judgements of other‐orientation lies

Previous studies found that individuals with promotion focus are more likely to be persuaded by messages framed in terms of gain‐related words; individuals with prevention focus are more likely to be persuaded by messages framed in terms of loss‐related words. This is known as the message matching effect of regulatory focus. The present study extended this effect into the field of moral judgement of other‐orientation lies. Two experiments were conducted, revealing that (a) individuals with promotion focus judged gain‐framed other‐orientation lies to be more moral, while individuals with prevention focus judged non‐loss‐framed other‐orientation lies to be more moral; and (b) the subjective processing fluency had a partial mediating role in the message matching effect. Theoretical implications and future research directions were discussed.     

Regulatory Focus and Individual Sales Performance of Field Marketers: A Constructive Replication

abstract

We tested whether field marketers’ regulatory focus predicted their performance. Promotion focus spurs eagerness (acting on opportunity, to advance), whereas prevention focus spurs vigilance (not acting, to maintain security). When sales work involves approaching as many new buyers as possible for single transactions (and little else), promotion focus is well suited for sales performance, and prevention focus is counterproductive. Accordingly, prior research found that promotion focus positively, and prevention focus negatively, predicts performance in such a context. We attempt constructive replication of these findings using stronger methodology. Our study (N?=?156) showed that promotion focus positively, and prevention focus negatively, predicted performance. The study replicated previous findings and showed similar, though in most cases slightly smaller, effect sizes than the original study.     

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.