Motivations for promotion and prevention and the role of trust and commitment in interpersonal forgiveness

Granting forgiveness demands self-regulation. Distinct modes of self-regulation might therefore produce distinct routes to forgiveness. Self-regulation focused on advancement (or promotion) could motivate forgiveness through the perceived benefits to be attained by repairing a relationship, i.e., one’s trust that a partner will provide such benefits rather than further betrayal. In contrast, self-regulation focused on security (or prevention) could motivate forgiveness through the perceived costs of further relationship deterioration, i.e., one’s commitment to maintain a relationship upon which one depends and protect against the loss of this relationship. These hypotheses were supported across two studies that: (a) measured and manipulated promotion-focused versus prevention-focused self-regulation, (b) included real and imagined offenses in casual and close relationships, and (c) assessed forgiveness immediately following an offense and after a two-week delay. Trust in a relationship partner more strongly predicted forgiveness among promotion-focused individuals, whereas commitment to this partner more strongly predicted forgiveness among prevention-focused individuals.     

My way: How strategic preferences vary by negotiator role and regulatory focus

Negotiators may use vigilant, loss-minimizing strategies or eager, gain-maximizing strategies. The present study provides evidence that preferences for these different strategies depend on negotiator role and personal orientation. In a price negotiation, buyers and prevention-focused individuals prefer vigilant strategies, whereas sellers and promotion-focused individuals prefer eager strategies. When there is a match between the strategy and the role (role–strategy fit) or between the strategy and the individual's regulatory focus orientation (focus–strategy fit), the negotiator experiences more fit and plans to be more demanding in the negotiation. By manipulating strategy in a real, binding negotiation, we reveal its importance in determining negotiators' subjective experiences and planned demand. Our results show that shared strategic preferences between different motivational orientations—negotiator role and personal regulatory focus—can create self-regulatory compatibility.     

Regulatory focus and investment decisions in small groups

Regulatory Focus Theory was applied to small interactive groups. Based on previous research, it was expected that groups with a promotion focus would discuss gain-relevant information, whereas groups with a prevention focus would be concerned with potential losses. Furthermore, promotion groups were expected to make riskier decisions than prevention groups. Regulatory focus was manipulated by rewarding good or penalizing poor group performance on a preliminary task. Subsequently, three-person groups discussed several investment funds and made a consensual investment decision. Results supported the hypotheses and suggested that regulatory focus requires time to exert its influence in groups.     

Regulatory focus as a predictor of attitudes toward partitioned and combined pricing

Partitioned pricing is a widely used pricing strategy, but little is known about the buyer characteristics that influence its effectiveness. The current research contributes to the pricing literature by investigating the impact of regulatory focus on the perceived attractiveness of partitioned and combined pricing. In four studies, we hypothesized and found support for the idea that promotion focused individuals perceive partitioned prices to be more attractive than combined prices, while prevention focused individuals do not differentiate between the two pricing types. Our results also show that regulatory focus influences consumers' information processing style, which in turn leads to important differences in attitudes towards partitioned and combined pricing. Specifically, promotion focused consumers are more likely to engage in global processing and global processing is linked to preferences for partitioned (versus combined) prices.     

How regulatory focus impacts the process-by-outcome interaction for perceived fairness and emotions

Judgments of fairness take into account at least two pieces of information—the outcome received and the process by which the outcome was assigned. Generally speaking, low levels of fairness are apt to be reported when the outcome is unfavorable and the allocation process is deemed inappropriate. In this study, we investigate how regulatory focus theory can further our understanding of the process by outcome interaction. Specifically, when individuals are working to add to their earnings (a promotion focus) the typical effect is observed. However, when individuals are focused on maintaining something that is their own (a prevention focus) the most negative emotion occurs when individuals are allocated an unfavorable outcome through a process that contains procedural safeguards.     

Regulatory focus and executive function after interracial interactions

Recent research finds that interracial interactions can negatively impact executive function. The present study examined whether regulatory focus may moderate this effect. Specifically, prior to an interracial interaction, 45 White female students were told either to try to have a positive interracial exchange (promotion focus), avoid prejudice (prevention focus), or given no instruction (control). After the interaction, participants completed the Stroop color-naming task, which assessed executive attentional task performance. Results revealed that participants in the prevention and the no instruction, control conditions performed worse on the Stroop than participants in the promotion condition. The findings suggest that promoting positive contact through active engagement rather than prejudice avoidance attenuates the previously documented negative effects of interracial contact on cognitive functioning.     

To err is human: How regulatory focus and action orientation predict performance following errors

In the current study, we hypothesize that post-error performance is influenced by individual differences in action orientation and situationally induced regulatory focus. Two experiments employing a time-pressured flanker-like task, measured participants’ dispositional action orientation and manipulated regulatory focus. As expected, accuracy of the responses following errors was reduced for all participants except for action-oriented participants in a promotion focus. The latter participants are assumed to down-regulate error-related negative affect, thereby saving resources for subsequent performance. A promotion focus is assumed to facilitate the optimal use of these resources.     

With a little help from my friends: Understanding how social networks influence the pursuit of the ideal self

The present investigation examined how people utilize their social networks when pursuing the ideal self. Participants who spent time with social partners who possessed their desired ideal self characteristic experienced movement toward their ideal self when the partner provided behavioral affirmation (eliciting behaviors consistent with the ideal self), but experienced movement away from their ideal self when the partner provided perceptual affirmation (perceiving them as if they already possessed the desired characteristic). High self-esteem participants were especially likely to seek out social partners of the latter type, who saw them as their ideal selves, but did not offer behavioral assistance. This research highlights the importance of social networks for understanding the conditions in which social partners promote vs. hinder ideal self progress.     

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).     

Approaching the true self: Promotion focus predicts the experience of authenticity

Research on subjective authenticity identifies several psychological antecedents that seem naturally tied to subjectively authentic experiences. Four studies (N = 525) tested the hypothesis that promotion focus (compared to prevention focus) represents another shared antecedent of subjective authenticity. Studies 1 and 2 examined correlations between regulatory focus and subjective authenticity in the context of goal-pursuit and interpersonal interactions. Studies 3 and 4 were within-subjects experiments designed to manipulate regulatory focus and examine the effects of promotion and prevention focus on subjective authenticity. Across all studies, we found that promotion focus (relative to prevention focus) was a robust predictor of subjective authenticity. Implications and future directions are discussed.     

Regulatory focus theory: Disentangling goals and strategies

The purpose of this research was to develop and test the Regulatory Goals and Strategies Questionnaire (RGSQ) to promote conceptual and empirical clarity in the literature on regulatory focus theory (RFT). According to RFT, construing an end-state as a maximal goal (ideal, gain, and advancement) elicits the adoption of an eager promotion-focused strategy, whereas construing an end-state as a minimal goal (ought, non-loss, and security) elicits the adoption of a vigilant prevention-focused strategy. This means that promotion-focused eagerness and prevention-focused vigilance can be elicited by various goals and that eager and vigilant strategies are in fact separate from goals. However, extant measurement instruments have not treated them as such. The RGSQ was developed to distinguish various maximal and minimal goals and to separate these goals from promotion- and prevention-focused strategies of eagerness and vigilance. Across three studies that combine six samples (total N = 1848), we examined the factor structure and nomological network of the RGSQ (Study 1: four samples of students and adults) and its predictive validity in a task context (Study 2) and working sample (Study 3). Overall, we found support for the RGSQ's validity and demonstrated that the RGSQ operationalizes regulatory focus in accordance with the theory's core assumptions.     

Regulatory Focus and Political Decision Making: When People Favor Reform Over the Status Quo

Two studies examined the impact of self‐reported use of promotion‐related (i.e., eagerness) and prevention‐related (i.e., vigilance) strategies when making “risky” or “conservative” decisions about economic reform under good, average, or poor economic conditions. Consistent with regulatory focus theory ( Higgins, 1997, 1998, 2000 ), in both studies strategic vigilance was associated with making a conservative choice, whereas strategic eagerness was associated with making a risky choice. In addition, along with perceptions of economic conditions, chronic strength of prevention focus (Study 1) or situationally induced prevention focus (Study 2) was associated with using strategic vigilance, whereas chronic strength of promotion focus (Study 1) or situationally induced promotion focus (Study 2) was associated with using strategic eagerness. Finally, regulatory focus and economic perceptions indirectly predicted economic reform decisions through their impact on strategy use. Our studies are the first to demonstrate that vigilant or eager strategy use is associated with “conservative” or “risky” political decisions.     

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。     

The influence of motivational and mood states on visual attention: A quantification of systematic differences and casual changes in subjects' focus of attention

A great number of studies have shown that different motivational and mood states can influence human attentional processes in a variety of ways. Yet, none of these studies have reliably quantified the exact changes of the attentional focus in order to be able to compare attentional performances based on different motivational and mood influences and, beyond that, to evaluate their effectivity. In two studies, we explored subjects' differences in the breadth and distribution of attention as a function of motivational and mood manipulations. In Study 1, motivational orientation was classified in terms of regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention) and in Study 2, mood was classified in terms of valence (positive vs. negative). Study 1 found a 10% wider distribution of the visual attention in promotion-oriented subjects compared to prevention-oriented ones. The results in Study 2 reveal a widening of the subjects' visual attentional breadth when listening to happy music by 22% and a narrowing by 36% when listening to melancholic music. In total, the findings show that systematic differences and casual changes in the shape and scope of focused attention may be associated with different motivational and mood states.     

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.     

From prevention focus to adaptivity and creativity: the role of unfulfilled goals and work engagement

ABSTRACT

Whereas promotion focus is consistently linked to high adaptivity (i.e., adjustment to changes) and creativity (i.e., generation of useful and original ideas), prevention focus is commonly associated with low adaptivity and creativity. The present study uncovers the conditions under which prevention focus may also have positive effects on adaptivity and creativity. First, we hypothesize that trait-level promotion focus positively relates to day-level adaptivity as well as creativity. More importantly, we hypothesize that trait-level prevention focus positively relates to day-level adaptivity and creativity when day-level goal fulfilment is low (i.e., two-way interactions) and that these effects are stronger when day-level work engagement is high (i.e., three-way interactions). To test our hypotheses, we conducted a daily diary survey among 209 employees from different occupational sectors, over five working days. As expected, trait promotion focus was positively related to adaptivity and creativity. Furthermore, trait prevention focus positively related to both adaptivity and creativity when day-level goal fulfilment was low andday-level work engagement was high (3-way interactions). None of the two-way interaction effects of trait prevention focus and goal fulfilment was significant. Our findings suggest that prevention focus and unfulfilled goals jointly should not only be seen as threats, but also as opportunities for adaptation and creativity.     

When two wrongs can make a right: Regulatory nonfit, bias, and correction of judgments

We propose that when people consider whether their judgments are accurate enough, feelings of wrongness from regulatory nonfit (inconsistency between regulatory state and strategic means) can suggest that the answer is no and enhance correction of judgments relative to feelings of rightness from regulatory fit. Results from two experiments supported that hypothesis. When we activated an accuracy motive, participants who experienced regulatory nonfit provided judgments more consistent with correction for bias when they experienced regulatory nonfit than when they experienced regulatory fit (Experiment 1). Drawing participants’ attention to an earlier event as a source of rightness feelings eliminated the effect of regulatory fit on apparent correction of judgments (Experiment 2), suggesting attribution of regulatory fit/nonfit feelings to the accuracy of those judgments.     

On the bike and in the cubicle: The role of passion and regulatory focus in cycling and work satisfaction

ObjectivesTo examine the relationships between cycling passion and satisfaction with cycling and work. First we examine the how two types of passion for cycling (harmonious and obsessive) differentially affect cycling satisfaction. Second, we examine how a passion for cycling can have a spillover effect on work satisfaction. Third, we examine the mediating role of regulatory focus on the relationship between passion and satisfaction.DesignCross-sectional study of U.S. competitive cyclists using an online survey.MethodsSelf-reports of study variables were collected from 119 competitive cyclists, who were also employed in work roles beyond their cycling pursuits. Structural equation modeling techniques were used to examine the relationships between passion, regulatory focus, and satisfaction.ResultsResults from our sample indicate that while holding a harmonious passion for cycling positively relates to both cycling and work satisfaction, an obsessive passion results in diminished work satisfaction. Moreover, results from our mediation analysis indicate that regulatory focus partially mediates the relationships between harmonious passion and both cycling and work satisfaction.ConclusionsThese findings illustrate that not all forms of passion are beneficial to one's pursuits, demonstrate the potential spillover effect of pursuing one's passion for sport and its influence on work satisfaction, and suggest that regulatory focus helps explain the relationship between passion and satisfaction.     

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.     

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.