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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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).     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Predicting the intensity of losses vs. non-gains and non-losses vs. gains in judging fairness and value: A test of the loss aversion explanation

Three studies examined the predictions that in the context of evaluation of fairness and concessions in negotiations, losses would be perceived as more intensely negative than non-gains, and that non-losses would be perceived as more positive than gains. Extant studies tested only the first of these predictions. These predictions derive from the principle of loss aversion (LA), according to which losses are experienced more intensely than gains of similar objective magnitude. In this view, losses and non-losses are measured against the steep loss part of the value curve, whereas gains and non-gains are measured against the shallow part of the value curve. Our studies replicated extant studies in confirming the first prediction but failed to confirm the second prediction. Specifically, opposite to the prediction of LA, gains were perceived as more intensely positive than non-losses. It seems, therefore, that LA is not a sufficient explanation of why losses are perceived as more averse than gains. Feature positive and regulatory focus effects are discussed as additional potential contributors to the phenomenon.     

Regulatory Focus and Subjective Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Coping Styles and the Moderating Role of Gender

Abstract

Although previous research has suggested that regulatory focus may exert considerable impacts on individuals’ subjective well-being (SWB), little research has explored the mechanism for this relation and the potential gender difference. The current study investigated the potential mediating effects of coping styles on the relationship between regulatory focus and three aspects of SWB (indicated by life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect) among Chinese adolescents. Total of 2943 Chinese adolescents participated in this cross-sectional survey and completed self-reported questionnaires (M_age = 14.47, SD?=?1.59, 44.50% boys). Hypothesized pathways were tested by structural equation models. Results showed that regulatory foci were significantly associated with SWB. Promotion focus predicted SWB mainly through problem-focused coping, and the mediating effects of emotion-focused coping were also observed; Prevention focus predicted SWB mainly through emotion-focused coping, and the mediating effects of problem-focused coping were observed. Furthermore, relative to boys, the prediction of problem-focused coping on life satisfaction was stronger and the prediction of promotion focus on life satisfaction was weaker for girls. These findings provide a new approach to understand the mechanism for the relationship between regulatory foci and SWB, and indicate the gender differences of this process.     

It takes two to tango: An interdependence analysis of the spiraling of perceived trustworthiness and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships

We present three spiral reinforcement models that describe how mutual perceptions of trustworthiness and/or mutual cooperation may develop in dyadic interpersonal and intergroup relationships: a perceived trustworthiness spiral model, a cooperation spiral model, and a perceived trustworthiness-cooperation spiral model that posits a relatively more complex spiraling between trustworthiness perceptions and cooperation. Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (Kashy & Kenny, 2000) analyses of data from two joint venture business simulations provided support for the spiral models in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. While all three models received some support, the perceived trustworthiness-cooperation spiral received the most consistent support, suggesting that trust perceptions play a crucial mediating role in the development of cooperation in both interpersonal and intergroup interactions. Overall, it does “take two to tango”: the development of mutual trust and cooperation involves an intricate dance that spirals over time and is fundamentally affected by partners’ initial moves.     

Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past,present, and future

Temporal focus is the attention individuals devote to thinking about the past, present, and future, and the concept is important because it affects how people incorporate perceptions about past experiences, current situations, and future expectations into their attitudes, cognitions, and behavior. However, temporal focus has not been clearly defined nor situated in a nomological network of constructs. In addition, existing measures of temporal focus suffer from various shortcomings. In this paper, we advance the concept of temporal focus by critically examining its conceptualization, developing a new measure of temporal focus (Temporal Focus Scale; TFS), and evaluating the validity (i.e., construct, convergent, discriminant, nomological, and predictive validity) of the TFS across four studies. We conclude that understanding how individuals focus their attention toward the past, present, and future clarifies their responses to explicit and implicit temporal information, which suggests that a variety of research streams would benefit from incorporating the concept of temporal focus.     

Caught in the act: How extraverted and introverted friends communally cope with being recorded

This study explored how close friends who were similar or opposite on extraversion communally coped with being put on the spot to produce a recorded conversation. Participants were 50 pairs of same-sex college-age friends (54% female) who explicitly discussed the fact that their conversation was being recorded. The initial ‘on-stage’ episode emerged consistently earliest for extraverted dyads, and the majority of their episodes quickly diverted the on-stage moment. Dyads that included at least one introvert engaged in more extensive assortments of on-stage maneuvers, including research talk, soothing, and joking. In introvert–extravert dyads the extravert usually initiated and ended these episodes. Implications are discussed for understanding how personality is reciprocally implicated in managing shared everyday problems.     

How positive processes function in negative relationships: Dispositional gratitude moderates the association between affective need and frequency of dating violence victimization

Evidence indicates that dispositional gratitude may improve romantic relationships by reinforcing positive emotions between partners and by increasing awareness of affective needs, such as receiving emotional support, nurturance, and reassurance. However, little research has investigated the influence of gratitude on relationships characterized by violence. In the present study, participants (N = 421) completed a cross-sectional survey of experiences with dating violence, dispositional gratitude, and affective need. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. Among individuals with lower rates of dispositional gratitude, higher levels of affective need were associated with lower frequency of dating violence victimization. However, among individuals with higher rates of dispositional gratitude, there was no evidence to suggest an association between affective need and frequency of victimization. These preliminary findings compel further investigation of how positive processes impact the perceived qualities of negative romantic relationships.