When fit matters more: The effect of regulatory fit on adaptation to change

Regulatory fit theory predicts that motivation and performance are enhanced when individuals pursue goals framed in a way that fits their regulatory orientation (promotion vs. prevention focus). Our aim was to test the predictions of the theory when individuals deal with change. We expected and found in three studies that regulatory fit is beneficial only when a prevention focus is involved. In Study 1, an experiment among students, prevention- but not promotion-focused participants performed better in a changed task when it was framed in fit with their regulatory orientation. In Study 2, a survey among employees experiencing organizational changes, only the fit between individual prevention (and not promotion) focus and prevention framing of the changes by the manager was associated with higher employee adaptation to changes. In Study 3, a weekly survey among employees undergoing organizational change, again only prevention regulatory fit was associated with lower employee exhaustion and higher employee work engagement. Theoretical and practical implications of applying regulatory focus theory to organizational change 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.     

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.     

Team structure and regulatory focus: the impact of regulatory fit on team dynamic

We report a within-teams experiment testing the effects of fit between team structure and regulatory task demands on task performance and satisfaction through average team member positive affect and helping behaviors. We used a completely crossed repeated-observations design in which 21 teams enacted 2 tasks with different regulatory focus characteristics (prevention and promotion) in 2 organizational structures (functional and divisional), resulting in 84 observations. Results suggested that salient regulatory demands inherent in the task interacted with structure to determine objective and subjective team-level outcomes, such that functional structures were best suited to (i.e., had best fit with) tasks with a prevention regulatory focus and divisional structures were best suited to tasks with a promotion regulatory focus. This contingency finding integrates regulatory focus and structural contingency theories, and extends them to the team level with implications for models of performance, satisfaction, and team dynamics.     

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。     

调节定向对新员工期望的影响

新员工在进入企业工作前,会基于已有信息对即将从事的工作产生一定的预期,即新员工期望。期望对行为的影响很大程度上是通过目标设定或自我调节起作用的,因此本研究尝试分析调节定向对新员工期望的影响。通过对480名新员工的问卷调查发现,调节定向对期望的重要性、可能性和确定性都存在影响,这些影响受期望内容的调节:对于与发展和创新相关的期望,促进定向占主导的新员工对其重要性的判断程度高于预防定向占主导的新员工,且当期望的确定性高时,前者对期望可能性的判断程度高于后者;而对于与安全和责任相关的期望却相反,预防定向占主导的新员工对其重要性的判断程度高于促进定向占主导的新员工,且当期望的确定性高时,前者对期望可能性的判断程度高于后者。     

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。     

Implicit regulatory focus associated with asymmetrical frontal cortical activity

Regulatory focus theory identifies two separate motivational systems, promotion and prevention, that fulfill different regulatory needs and are differentially related to approach and avoidance. In the psychophysiological literature, approach- and avoidance-related emotions and motivational orientations have been linked to asymmetries in frontal cortical activity. In an effort to synthesize these literatures, we examined the relationship between an implicit assessment of chronic regulatory focus and an electroencephalographic (EEG) index of resting frontal cortical asymmetry. Results supported the hypothesis that promotion regulatory focus would be associated with greater left frontal activity, and prevention regulatory focus would be associated with greater right frontal activity. Discussion highlights how this synthesis may benefit theorizing of the relationship between regulatory focus, motivation, and emotion, and of the function of asymmetrical frontal cortical activity.     

The Effects of Regulatory Focus on Braking Speed1

According to regulatory focus theory ( Higgins, 1997 ), promotion focus is concerned with accomplishments and aspirations leading to strategic eagerness; whereas prevention focus is concerned with safety and responsibilities leading to strategic vigilance. In this study, we investigate how regulatory focus theory can predict braking behavior in driving. In Study 1, participants' assessed regulatory focus strength as measured by chronic personality differences in regulatory focus predicted braking speed, in that chronic prevention‐oriented participants initiated braking earlier, as compared to promotion‐oriented people. In Study 2, we experimentally induced regulatory focus and showed that induced prevention focus enhanced braking speed (i.e., faster), as compared to induced promotion focus.     

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.     

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.     

Regulatory focus and attitudes to migrants

In two studies we examined the role of two regulatory foci (i.e., prevention and promotion) in predicting Australian's attitudes to different types of migrants. According to regulatory focus theory, promotion-focused self-regulation is concerned with nurturance and accomplishment needs and involves the pursuit of wishes and aspirations. As such, it results in sensitivity to positive outcomes and to relative pleasure from gains. On the other hand, prevention-focused self-regulation is concerned with security needs and is directed at meeting duties and obligations. As such, it results in sensitivity to negative outcome and relative pain from losses. In Study 1, as predicted, the extent of promotion focus (i.e., a concern with accomplishment and the pursuit of ideals) predicted more positive attitudes to culturally similar and economically beneficial migrants, whereas the extent of prevention focus (i.e., concern with security and meeting obligations) predicted more negative attitudes to migrants who are culturally dissimilar. In Study 2 we replicated and extended these findings, showing that the extent of promotion focus and a lack of concern with threats predicted positive attitudes to both culturally similar and economically beneficial migrants, which, in the case of the latter group, was mediated by a focus on the benefits these migrants provide. In the case of culturally dissimilar migrants, the extent of promotion focus and a concern with gains predicted more positive attitudes. However, for economically less beneficial migrants, neither the extent of promotion nor prevention focus was a predictor. Only lower concerns with threat predicted more positive attitudes to this migrant group. The results are discussed with respect to other determinants of attitudes to migrants and the implications for migration and asylum-seeker policy.     

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.     

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.     

调节焦点理论:组织管理中的应用

根据调节焦点理论,人们在实现目标的过程中存在两种调节焦点:促进焦点驱动人们关注理想,防御焦点驱动人们避免失误。虽然调节焦点理论源自社会心理学,但近年来却越来越多地被用于解释组织现象,对管理研究产生了重要影响。在回顾调节焦点内涵的基础上,归纳了常见的操作化方法,梳理了调节焦点理论在组织管理研究中的应用,并提出未来研究的发展方向。     

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.     

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).     

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 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.     

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).