The interaction of payoff structure and regulatory focus in classification

This report brings together research on motivation and learning by exploring how fit of regulatory focus affects people's ability to acquire new categories. Perceptual categories were learned by people with a promotion focus (a situationally determined sensitivity to gains) or a prevention focus (a sensitivity to losses). Classification performance was closest to optimal (as determined by models fit to individual subjects' data) when the regulatory focus matched the structure of the payoffs for the categories. Promotion-focus subjects performed best when the payoffs consisted of all gains. Prevention-focus subjects performed best when the payoffs consisted of all losses.     

A test of the regulatory fit hypothesis in perceptual classification learning

This article builds a bridge between research on regulatory focus in motivation and classification learning. It tests the hypothesis that a fit between the situational regulatory focus and the reward structure of the task leads to greater cognitive flexibility than does a mismatch between situational focus and the reward structure and that the fit between the regulatory-focus-induced processing characteristics and the nature of the environment influences performance. In Experiment 1, we used a classification task for which cognitive flexibility should be advantageous and examined both gains (Experiment 1A) and losses (Experiment 1B) reward structures. In Experiments 2 and 3, we used a classification task for which cognitive flexibility should be disadvantageous. In Experiment 2, we used a gains reward structure, and in Experiment 3, we used a losses reward structure. As was predicted, when cognitive flexibility was advantageous, the participants in a regulatory fit showed faster learning and more quickly shifted toward the optimal response strategy. Also as was predicted, when cognitive flexibility was disadvantageous, the participants in a regulatory mismatch showed faster learning and more quickly shifted toward the optimal response strategy. Implications for current theories of motivation and classification learning are discussed.     

Effects of musicality and motivational orientation on auditory category learning: A test of a regulatory-fit hypothesis

Two experiments investigated the effects of musicality and motivational orientation on auditory category learning. In both experiments, participants learned to classify tone stimuli that varied in frequency and duration according to an initially unknown disjunctive rule; feedback involved gaining points for correct responses (a gains reward structure) or losing points for incorrect responses (a losses reward structure). For Experiment 1, participants were told at the start that musicians typically outperform nonmusicians on the task, and then they were asked to identify themselves as either a “musician” or a “nonmusician.” For Experiment 2, participants were given either a promotion focus prime (a performance-based opportunity to gain entry into a raffle) or a prevention focus prime (a performance-based criterion that needed to be maintained to avoid losing an entry into a raffle) at the start of the experiment. Consistent with a regulatory-fit hypothesis, self-identified musicians and promotion-primed participants given a gains reward structure made more correct tone classifications and were more likely to discover the optimal disjunctive rule than were musicians and promotion-primed participants experiencing losses. Reward structure (gains vs. losses) had inconsistent effects on the performance of nonmusicians, and a weaker regulatory-fit effect was found for the prevention focus prime. Overall, the findings from this study demonstrate a regulatory-fit effect in the domain of auditory category learning and show that motivational orientation may contribute to musician performance advantages in auditory perception.     

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.     

What is pressure? Evidence for social pressure as a type of regulatory focus

Previous research (Markman, Maddox, & Worthy, 2006) suggests that pressure leads to choking when one is learning to classify items on the basis of an explicit rule, but it leads to excelling when one is learning to classify items on the basis of an implicit strategy. In this article, we relate social pressure to regulatory focus theory. We propose that the effects of pressure on performance arise because pressure induces a prevention focus that interacts with the more local reward structure of the task. To test this hypothesis, we repeated previous research, but using a losses reward structure, so that participants under pressure were in a regulatory fit. We also successfully replicated previous results by using a gains reward structure. In contrast with participants who attempted to maximize gains on each trial, participants who attempted to minimize losses choked on the implicit-learning task but excelled on the explicit-learning task. The results suggest a three-way interaction between pressure level, task type, and reward structure.     

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.     

Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride

A new task goal elicits a feeling of pride in individuals with a subjective history of success, and this achievment pride produces anticipatory goal reactions that energize and direct behavior to approach the task goal. By distinguishing between promotion pride and prevention pride, the present paper extends this classic model of achievement motivation. Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997 ) distinguishes between a promotion focus on hopes and accomplishments (gains) and a prevention focus on safety and responsibilities (non‐losses). We propose that a subjective history of success with promotion‐related eagerness (promotion pride) orients individuals toward using eagerness means to approach a new task goal, whereas a subjective history of success with prevention‐related vigilance (prevention pride) orients individuals toward using vigilance means to approach a new task goal. Studies 1–3 tested this proposal by examining the relations between a new measure of participants' subjective histories of promotion success and prevention success (the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ)) and their achievement strategies in different tasks. Study 4 examined the relation between participants' RFQ responses and their reported frequency of feeling eager or vigilant in past task engagements. Study 5 used an experimental priming technique to make participants temporarily experience either a subjective history of promotion success or a subjective history of prevention success. For both chronic and situationally induced achievement pride, these studies found that when approaching task goals individuals with promotion pride use eagerness means whereas individuals with prevention pride use vigilance means. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Effects of Parent‐Extension Similarity and Self Regulatory Focus on Evaluations of Brand Extensions

Research has shown that a similar extension of a brand is evaluated more favorably than a dissimilar one. In this research we demonstrate that self‐regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention focus) significantly moderates the effect. Four experiments demonstrated that similar extensions were evaluated more favorably than less similar extensions when participants were chronically or momentarily prevention focused, whereas such effect was eliminated and sometimes even reversed when participants were chronically or situationally promotion focused. This discrepancy was attributed to different weights attached to the perceived risk and to the perceived hedonic value of the extension by promotion‐focused vs. prevention‐focused individuals.     

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。     

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.     

Differential effects of regulatory fit on category learning

Motivation affects the degree to which people engage in tasks as well as the processes that they bring to bear. We explore the proposal that a fit between a person’s situationally induced self-regulatory focus and the reward structure of the task that they are pursuing supports greater flexibility in processing than does a mismatch between regulatory focus and reward structure. In two experiments, we prime regulatory focus and manipulate task reward structure. Our participants perform a rule-based learning task whose solution requires flexible strategy testing as well as an information-integration task for which flexible strategy use hinders learning. Across two experiments, we predict and obtain a three-way interaction between regulatory focus, reward structure, and task. Relative to a mismatch, a match leads to better rule-based task performance, but worse performance on the information-integration task. We relate these findings to other work on motivation and choking under pressure.     

决策过程中的调节匹配效应及其机制

以大学生为被试,运用实验法探讨了决策过程中调节定向与信息搜索模式之间的匹配效应及其机制。结果显示：(1) 促进定向组被试决策时更偏好基于属性的信息搜索模式,而预防定向组被试决策时更偏好基于选项的信息搜索模式;(2)当两种调节定向组被试分别使用各自所偏好的信息搜索模式制定决策时,达成了调节匹配,相比调节不匹配,这种匹配使被试对其所做选择给出了更积极的评价,即出现了调节匹配效应;(3)加工流畅性可以部分地解释这种调节匹配效应。     

End-of-semester syndrome: How situational regulatory fit affects test performance over an academic semester

Psychology researchers often avoid running participants from subject pools at the end of the semester because they are "unmotivated". We suggest that the end of the semester induces a situational prevention focus (i.e., sensitive to losses) unlike the beginning of the semester, which may induce a situational promotion focus (i.e., sensitive to gains). In two experiments, we presented participants with math problems at the beginning or end of an academic semester. End-of-semester participants performed better minimizing losses as compared to maximizing gains, while the opposite was true for beginning-of-semester participants.     

The moderating role of interviewer's regulatory focus in the effectiveness of impression management tactics: Regulatory fit as a source of subjective value

Based on the recently explored regulatory fit effect in social contexts, the present research is the first to investigate the interaction between interviewer's regulatory focus and interviewee's impression management (IM) tactics. We hypothesized that assertive and defensive IM tactics would fit with interviewer's promotion and prevention focus, respectively, and that interviewer's experience of this regulatory fit would lead to enhanced interview evaluation. We conducted four studies in which the participants were asked to rate an interviewee after reading a list of the interviewee's IM-related behaviours or watching a videotaped interview. Additionally, the participant's regulatory focus was operationalized as both an induced situational state and a measured chronic trait. The results supported our hypotheses by showing a significant interaction of the interviewer's regulatory focus and the IM tactics on interview evaluation: the promotion-assertive and the prevention-defensive ratings were more positive than the prevention-assertive and the promotion-defensive ratings. Moreover, mediation analysis revealed that the interaction exerts its effects on interview evaluation by providing interviewers with an intrapersonal regulatory fit experience.     

Renting to Owning: An Exploration of the Theory of Planned Behavior in the Homeownership Domain

Psychology researchers often avoid running participants from subject pools at the end of the semester because they are “unmotivated.” We suggest that the end of the semester induces a situational prevention focus (i.e., sensitive to losses) unlike the beginning of the semester, which may induce a situational promotion focus (i.e., sensitive to gains). In two experiments, we presented participants with math problems at the beginning or end of an academic semester. End-of-semester participants performed better minimizing losses as compared to maximizing gains, whereas the opposite was true for beginning-of-semester participants.     

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.     

If we have the will,there will be a way: regulatory focus as a group identity

Based on social identity theory and regulatory focus theory, we predicted that promotion and prevention strategies can be part of the identity of a group (i.e., collective regulatory focus) which in turn influences the behavior and experienced emotions of individual group members. We conducted two experiments to test this prediction. After assessing participants' personal regulatory focus preference, collective regulatory focus was induced by showing participants group mottos, allegedly chosen by other members of their group, that either voiced a promotion or a prevention strategy preference. Both experiments yielded evidence for our prediction in that the collective regulatory focus shifted the behavior of individual group members on a signal detection task towards promotion‐ (liberal bias) or prevention‐ (conservative bias) consistent behavior and influenced the emotions they experienced. Experiment 2 further substantiated our group identity rationale by showing that these effects were especially strong for high identifiers. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Asymmetric Perception of Gains versus Non‐losses and Losses versus Non‐gains: The Causal Role of Regulatory Focus

Recent studies show that, while losses loom larger than equivalent non‐gains, gains loom larger than equivalent non‐losses. This finding has been interpreted within the framework of regulatory focus theory. In this study, we highlight the importance of considering the motivational focus independently of the framing and the valence of outcome, thus exploring the causal effect of regulatory focus on the asymmetric perception of gains versus non‐losses and losses versus non‐gains. In two studies, we examine the perceived effects of either actual or hypothetical changes in monetary wealth, while orthogonally manipulating framing, valence, and regulatory focus. We find a significant interaction between the three factors. The gain versus non‐loss asymmetry in perceived satisfaction is stronger in promotion focus, whereas the loss versus non‐gain asymmetry in perceived dissatisfaction is stronger in prevention focus. The results suggest that the effects of incentives framed in terms of (non)gains and (non)losses depend on their congruence with the individual's motivational state. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.