Framing effects of per‐person versus aggregate prices in group meals

This research draws on regulatory focus theory and applies it to the context of price framing in group meals. Specifically, it examines the possibility that a per‐person framing of price (an aggregate price) may activate a promotion focus (prevention focus) in consumers. The results of five experiments show that participants (a) generated more promotion‐relevant (vs. prevention‐relevant) thoughts, (b) were more inclined to consume the group meal when a persistent focus on promotion (vs. prevention) was exhibited, (c) rated promotion‐focused (vs. prevention‐focused) messages more favorably, and (d) reported a higher intention to opt for an offer where the chance of obtaining a positive goal was enhanced, in response to a per‐person price rather than an aggregate price. Mediation analyses provide additional evidence for the notion that pursuit of promotion goals (prevention goals), which relate to obtaining value (avoiding loss) primed by a per‐person price (an aggregate price), had the effect of regulating one's choices. Managerial implications of the findings are discussed, followed by recommendations for future research.     

The Effect of Mental Simulation (Process‐ Versus Outcome‐Focus) on Extension Evaluation:A Bipolarized Fit Perception

The present research investigates perceived fit effects according to the focus that consumers place when evaluating brand extensions. Process‐focus encourages consumers to focus their thoughts on the process of reaching an outcome, thereby affecting extension evaluations on the basis of the process similarity between the original brand and its extensions. Conversely, outcome‐focus encourages consumers to focus their thoughts on the final outcome, thereby affecting extension evaluations on the basis of the final outcome similarity between the original brand and its extensions. With this conceptual framework, the present research demonstrated that for the process‐focus condition, the extension was evaluated more favorably when the similarity between the process of the original brand and the process of its extension was present (Study 1). By contrast, for the outcome‐focus condition, the extension was evaluated more favorably when the similarity between the final outcome of the original brand and the final outcome of its extension was present (Study 2).     

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.     

Impact of regulatory focus on ambiguity aversion

Although prior research has shown that some people prefer a risky to an ambiguous option, this study further proposes that people's regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention) might influence their ambiguity aversion. Three experiments have tested whether people with promotion focus showed less ambiguity aversion than those with prevention focus: The first experiment revealed that, compared with chronically promotion‐focused individuals, prevention‐focused subjects preferred a risky to an ambiguous option. In the second experiment, priming of the subjects' goal orientations led to similar results. Experiment 3 demonstrated that participants showed less ambiguity aversion for the expected performance of an investment product representative of promotion (e.g., a stock fund) rather than one representative of prevention (e.g., a bond fund). In other words, people showed less preference for a bond fund when the probability distribution of its expected performance was unknown than when it was known, whereas they showed less preference difference between known and unknown probability distributions for the expected performance of a stock fund. This study has integrated research pertaining to regulatory focus and ambiguity aversion, and the results have confirmed that the impact of regulatory focus on ambiguity aversion is robust across different methods and decision tasks. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The impact of regulatory focus on affective responses to social discrimination

The impact of individuals' regulatory focus and the domain of outcomes (non‐gains vs. losses) on the target's affective responses to social discrimination were tested. Based on regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997 ), it was predicted that a prevention focus would lead to more anger and agitation after social discrimination, because experiencing social discrimination is similar to experiencing failure. This pattern was predicted to be more pronounced when social discrimination was based on losses than when social discrimination was based on non‐gains (i.e., when the in‐group was evaluated more negatively vs. less positively compared to the out‐group). The results of three studies using chronic and situationally induced regulatory focus confirmed these predictions. No effect was found for the promotion focus. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

Mood and Brand Extension Judgments: Asymmetric Effects for Desirable Versus Undesirable Brands

Although prior research (e.g., Barone, Miniard, & Romeo, 2000) has examined positive mood's impact on extensions of evaluations offered by favorably‐evaluated core brands, unknown is whether mood might also influence extension evaluations associated with an unfavorably‐evaluated brand. This research provides evidence of an asymmetrical effect of mood for extensions offered by desirable versus undesirable brands. When a favorably‐evaluated core brand was involved, positive mood facilitated extension evaluations to a greater extent for moderate extensions than for near and far extensions. In contrast, mood failed to enhance the evaluations of any type of extension introduced by an undesirable core brand.     

“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.     

The Shield of Defense or the Sword of Prosecution?How Self‐Regulatory Focus Relates to Responses to Crime

People can strive to attain goals in one of two ways: They can be tolerant of risk and focus on attaining successes, or they can be intolerant of risk and focus on avoiding pitfalls and failures. These differences, termed promotion focus and prevention focus, respectively, have been related to differences in how personal goals are understood, but not yet applied to policy issues. Two studies examine the implications of chronic (Study 1) and experimentally induced (Study 2) promotion vs. prevention goals for a law‐and‐order mind set. Participants high in promotion focus assigned more punishment to a criminal (Study 1). Compared to prevention‐focused participants, experimentally induced promotion focus increased the likelihood of arresting a suspect and justifying this choice (Study 2).     

The Influence of Color on Brand Extension: Mediation Role of Processing Style

Color carries distinct psychological meanings and thus it may induce a different cognitive processing style. Adopting this conceptual framework, the current research investigated the influence of color on brand extension evaluation. For color manipulation, participants were given the picture of a brand extension product (e.g., notebook) on a blue versus red background on a sheet of paper. Then participants evaluated the brand extension product. The finding revealed that participants in the blue-background condition evaluated the extension product more favorably than those in the red-background condition. This research further demonstrated that processing style mediated the effect of color on the evaluation of the brand extension product by using a visual matching task. In addition, this research showed the moderating effect of brand slogan on brand extension evaluation. Participants in the blue-background condition evaluated the extension product (i.e., digital camera) more favorably when they were exposed to the abstract brand slogan, whereas participants in the red-background condition evaluated the extension product more favorably when they were exposed to the concrete brand slogan.     

Consideration Set Overvaluation: When Impossibly Favorable Ratings of a Set of Brands Are Observed

Consumers often focus on the characteristics of one brand and consider insufficiently the characteristics of other brands. Singular evaluation processes often result in judgments of a focal brand that are more extreme than warranted. This research investigates the extent to which this extremity effect generalizes to a consideration set consisting of multiple brands. Three experiments show that a set of favorably regarded brands is perceived as more favorable than would be possible if the salience manipulation had no effect. In Experiment 1, participants overestimated the likelihood that the best brand in the market was included in the presented set. In Experiment 2, the average rank assigned to the brands in the presented set was inflated. Extreme judgments were observed regardless of whether the focal set of brands was offered by a specialty store with a high‐quality reputation or by a general merchandise store with a low‐quality reputation. In Experiment 3, extreme intentions to buy now from the focal store were reduced when a comparative (vs. singular) judgment task was performed, but only when the need for cognitive closure was low as opposed to high. The results suggest that singular evaluation processes lead to consideration set overvaluation regardless of which particular favorably regarded brands happen to be included in the set.     

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。     

How regulatory fit enhances motivational strength during goal pursuit

Higgins' (2000) theory of regulatory fit proposes that motivational strength will be enhanced when the manner in which people work toward a goal sustains (rather than disrupts) their regulatory orientation. This enhanced motivational strength in turn should improve efforts at goal attainment. In Experiment 1, predominantly promotion‐ and prevention‐focused participants were given the goal of writing a report on their leisure time, and were assigned either eagerness‐ or vigilance‐framed means to use. Promotion/eagerness and prevention/vigilance participants were about 50% more likely to turn in their reports than promotion/vigilance and prevention/eagerness participants. In Experiment 2, participants read either a promotion‐ or a prevention‐framed health message urging them to eat more fruits and vegetables, and were then asked to imagine either the benefits of compliance or the costs of non‐compliance. Promotion/benefits and prevention/costs participants subsequently ate about 20% more fruits and vegetables over the following week than promotion/costs and prevention/benefits participants. The implications of regulatory fit's enhancement of motivational strength are discussed. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Regulatory focus and preference reversal between hedonic and utilitarian consumption

This article explores the impact of consumers' regulatory goals on their relative focus on hedonic (versus utilitarian) benefits of products. Drawing from extant literature, we argue that promotion‐focused consumers will exhibit more favorable attitude towards a product when its hedonic benefits are highlighted in comparison to its utilitarian benefits. Prevention‐focused consumers on the other hand will exhibit more favorable attitude towards a product when its utilitarian benefits are highlighted in comparison to its hedonic benefits. We further argue that this effect is moderated by contextual factors, such as evaluation mode. In addition, we argue that the posited difference only holds when the hedonic and utilitarian products are evaluated individually. When the two products are evaluated jointly, both promotion and prevention‐focused individuals will exhibit more favorable attitude towards the hedonic product. Two studies were conducted to test the hypotheses and findings supported our predictions. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Regulatory Fit and Resisting Temptation during Goal Pursuit

Because avoiding obstacles to goal attainment is a favored means of prevention-focused self-regulation, the authors proposed that resisting tempting diversions from task completion would better fit a prevention focus than a promotion focus, thus affecting task enjoyment and performance. Whether deciphering encrypted messages (Study 1) or solving math problems (Study 2), when exposed to attractive distracting video clips, participants in a prevention focus reported greater task enjoyment than did participants in a promotion focus, whereas the reverse was true when the distracting clips were not presented. Indeed, prevention-focused participants enjoyed the tasks more when they had to resist temptation than when they did not. In Study 2, prevention-focused participants outperformed promotion-focused participants under distracting (but not nondistracting) conditions, and regression analyses suggested that task enjoyment mediated this effect. Different regulatory states thus appear to differentially equip people to deal with tempting diversions from goal attainment.     

Spaced Out in Cyberspace? Evaluations of Computer‐Based Information1

This study draws on cognitive elaboration theory to examine when and why people evaluate computer‐based information more favorably than information from a less automated source. Half of participants received information from a computer, while half received the identical information from a less automated source. Moreover, participants were induced to be more vs. less involved in the information‐acquisition process. As predicted, participants in the low‐involvement condition evaluated the information more favorably when it came from a computer than from a less automated source. This difference was eliminated in the high‐involvement condition. Further supporting our reasoning, the interaction effect between information source and level of involvement was more pronounced for participants low, rather than high, in need for cognition.     

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.     

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.