Regulatory focus theory

Overview

Individuals can adopt two distinct strategies or orientations when they pursue goals (Higgins, 1997, 1998, 1999a). They can pursue aspirations in the future, striving to maximize gains, called a promotion focus. Alternatively, they can strive to fulfill their immediate duties and obligations, attempting to minimize shortfalls, called a prevention focus. These two orientations significantly affect the behavior, emotions, cognitions, and preferences of individuals.

When individuals adopt a promotion--rather than prevention--focus, some drawbacks can ensue. Individuals can become more sensitive to distractions (e.g., Freitas, Liberman, & Higgins, 2002). They are also less inclined to change their behavior in response to criticism (Forster, Grant, Idson, & Higgins, 2001). In contrast, a promotion focus, which can be activated merely by reflecting upon future hopes and aspirations for example, can afford many benefits. A promotion focus tends to improve the capacity of individuals to negotiate effectively, for example (Galinsky, Leonardelli, Okhuysen, & Mussweiler, 2005). They also solve problems more creatively (Friedman & Forster, 2001).

Evolution of regulatory focus theory

Self discrepancy theory

The concept of regulatory focus originated from self discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987, 1989, 1999; for further information, see Self discrepancy theory). According to this theory, throughout the lifespan, individuals learn the duties and obligations they must fulfill to prevent immediate adverse events, such as punishments (Higgins, 1987). Over time, these duties and obligations consolidate to form an abstracted set of principles, designated as an ought self guide (Higgins, 1987). When individuals feel they might not have fulfilled these duties and obligations, they anticipate an adverse event, experienced as agitation and anxiety (Strauman, 1989).

Furthermore, throughout their life, individuals also learn the achievements and aspirations they must realize to secure rewards, such as love and approval. These achievements and aspirations also coalesce to form an abstracted set of principles, referred to as the ideal self guide (Higgins, 1987). When individuals feel they might not be able to achieve these aspirations, they anticipate the withdrawal of these rewards--a gradual rather than abrupt sense of loss--manifested as dejection, disappointment, and depression (Strauman, 1989). Several studies have corroborated the key propositions that underpin self discrepancy theory (for reviews, see Boldero & Francis, 1999 Boldero, Moretti, Bell, & Francis, 2005; Higgins, 1999b; Scott & O'Hara, 1993).

For example, Higgins, Shah, and Friedman (1997), accumulated evidence that vindicates self discrepancy theory. Participants were instructed to list traits they would like to exhibit, or feel they should exhibit--referred to as ideal and ought characteristics. In addition, participants specified the extent to which they exhibited each of these characteristics, called an actual self. Finally, the extent to which they experienced various emotions was assessed. Consistent with self discrepancy theory, participants who felt they had not fulfilled their ideals, called an actual-ideal discrepancy, reported an elevated incidence of dejection. In contrast, participants who felt they had not satisfied their oughts, referred to as an actual-ought discrepancy, reported an elevated incidence of agitation.

Regulatory foci

Whether individuals strive to fulfill their duties or aspirations, designated as regulatory focus, depends on both their disposition as well as the immediate context. For instance, some authority figures, such as parents or teachers, tend to apply punitive actions rather than withdrawal rewards to moderate the behavior of children. These children will evolve to become motivated to satisfy their ought self guide, called a prevention focus (Higgins, 1997, 1998). When authority figures withdrawal rewards instead, children will become driven to realize their ideal self guide, referred to as a promotion focus (Higgins, 1997, 1998). Nevertheless, reward structures and other properties of the context can impinge on the regulatory focus of individuals (e.g., Forster, Higgins, & Idson, 1998 Freitas, Liberman, & Higgins, 2002).

In short, individuals who adopt a promotion focus, as defined by Higgins (1997, 1998), experience needs that relate to nurturance, accomplishment, and progress. Hence, they form the goal to pursue ideals and aspiratiaons, striving to maximize future gains. In contrast, individuals who adopt a prevention focus experience needs that relate to safety, security, and protection. They form the goal to satisfy duties, obligations, and responsibilities, attempting to minimize imminent losses.

The concept of regulatory fit

Regulatory focus shapes the preferences of individuals. As Freitas, and Higgins (2002) demonstrated, when individuals adopt a promotion focus, they prefer creative, exploratory activities in which they can achieve some form of gain--but shun tasks in which they need to identify and address shortfalls. When individuals adopt a prevention focus, however, they prefer to redress shortfalls than facilitate gains.

These observations can be ascribed to the principal of regulatory fit (Higgins, 2000, 2005, 2006). Specifically, individuals can adopt one of two means to fulfill promotion or prevention goals: eagerness or vigilance. Eagerness refers to the inclination to enact behaviors that maximize hits, as defined by signal detection theory, rather than minimize false alarms (see Crowe & Higgins, 1997). Vigilance refers to the inclination to minimize false alarms (Crowe & Higgins, 1997).

Whenever individuals adopt a promotion focus, they experience a sense of congruence, referred to regulatory fit, whenever they demonstrate eagerness (e.g., Cesario, Grant, & Hiuggins, 2004 Freitas & Higgins, 2002 Vaughn, Malik, Schwartz, Petrova, & Trudeau, 2006). In contrast, when individuals adopt a prevention focus, they experience this sense of fit whenever they demonstrate vigilance (e.g., Cesario, Grant, & Hiuggins, 2004 Freitas & Higgins, 2002 Vaughn, Malik, Schwartz, Petrova, & Trudeau, 2006). This affective experience promotes persistence and satisfaction (Higgins, Idson, Freitas, Spiegel, & Molden, 2003). Thus, individuals who experience a promotion focus will prefer tasks or contexts that entail or encourage an emphasis on maximizing gains, rather than minimizing losses. Individuals who experience a prevention focus will prefer tasks or contexts that entail or encourage the diminution of losses.

Mechanisms that underpin the benefits of regulatory fit

Several studies have examined the mechanisms that underpin the benefits of regulatory fit. For example, regulatory fit might facilitate the processing of information. Individuals tend to assume that information that is processed rapidly and fluently must be valuable (Lee & Aaker, 2004). Thus, when individuals experience a sense of regulatory fit, they assume the stimuli they are examining must be valuable, which can promote motivation.

To illustrate, in one study, conducted by Holler, Hoelzl, Kirchler, Leder, and Mannetti (2008), participants received messages that promulgated the importance of tax compliance. Participants who adopted a promotion focus were more likely to process the message rapidly--and more likely to support this message--if the benefits or gains associated with compliance were emphasized. In contrast, participants who adopted a prevention focus were more likely to process the message rapidly if the losses or costs associated with breaches of the tax regulations were emphasized.

Mechanisms that underpin the benefits of regulatory fit

Usually, regulatory fit is regarded as a desirable and productive state. When individuals experience this sense of fit, they often feel more engaged in their tasks, for example.

Nevertheless, regulatory fit can also elicit some undesirable consequences. That is, the converse of fit, called non-fit (Vaughn, O'Rourke, Schwartz, Malik, Petkova, & Trudeau, 2006), may be beneficial in some circumstances. For example, when individuals experience non-fit, they might deliberate over an issue more exhaustively and thus curb some misleading biases.

This possibility was corroborated by Vaughn, O'Rourke, Schwartz, Malik, Petkova, & Trudeau (2006). In their study, a state of either fit or non-fit was evoked. In particular, the regulatory focus of individuals was first manipulated: They reflected upon their hopes and aspirations or their duties and obligations. Next, when reflecting upon how to fulfill these hopes and aspirations, participants received instructions to demonstrate either eagerness or vigilance. A promotion focus, coupled with vigilance, or a prevention focus, coupled with eagerness, presumably elicited a sense of non-fit.

Finally, participants rated the degree to which a series of celebrities are attractive. Half of these participants were instructed to rate these individuals as accurately as possible.

Typically, after individuals rated a very attractive person, the next person seemed unattractive in comparison. Ratings were thus biased; that is, evaluations of individuals were dependent upon whether the previous person was attractive. If asked to rate accurately, however, individuals sometimes overrode this bias. That is, they recognized the possibility of this bias and adjusted their ratings accordingly (Vaughn, O'Rourke, Schwartz, Malik, Petkova, & Trudeau, 2006).

Nevertheless, only individuals who experienced a state of non-fit, rather than fit, adjusted these ratings. Individuals who experienced a state of fit, therefore, demonstrated biased ratings. These individuals, presumably, felt their preliminary evaluations were appropriate and did not feel motivated to change these ratings.

Manipulations of eagerness and vigilance: Overview

Many procedures have been applied to manipulate eagerness and vigilance, ultimately to assess the concept of regulatory fit. For example, to cultivate a sense of eagerness, participants can be asked to either imagine the activities they will undertake in the future to fulfill some goal (e.g., Spiegel, Grant-Pillow, & Higgins, 2003 see also Forster, Higgins, & Idson, 1998). In contrast, to foster vigilance, participants can be instructed to either imagine the problems they will need to counter in the future to realize this goal (Spiegel, Grant-Pillow, & Higgins, 2003). These manipulations, and other rewards structures, have been applied to demonstrate the regulatory fit can enhance motivation and performance on a range of tasks, including anagrams (Forster, Higgins, & Idson, 1998), mathematics problems (Freitas, Liberman, & Higgins, 2002), and every day tasks such as writing letters (Spiegel, Grant-Pillow, & Higgins, 2003).

Other cues affect whether an eager or vigilant means to pursue goals prevails. Cesario and Higgins (2008) showed that nonverbal cues can represent either an eager or a vigilant means. For example, individuals who speak and move rapidly, with their arms apart and leaning forwards, epitomize an eager strategy. Indeed, these individuals are more compelling to anyone who adopts a promotion rather than prevention focus, consistent with the principles of regulatory fit.

In contrast, individuals who speak and move more slowly, with their arms closer together, leaning slightly backwards, epitomize a vigilant strategy. These individuals are more persuasive to anyone who adopts a prevention rather than promotion focus (Cesario & Higgins, 2008).

Manipulations of eagerness and vigilance: Red

Gerend and Sias (2009) showed the color red can promote a vigilance mindset and thus evoke a sense of fit when a prevention focus is adopted. In this study, for example, participants read about the benefits of HPV vaccination--a promotion or gain focus--or the drawbacks of no vaccination--a prevention or loss focus. The loss focus was more likely to evoke intentions to vaccinate, but only if the message was presented in red rather than grey. Presumably, the prevention focus and vigilance associated with the red evoked a sense of fit.

Nevertheless, red is also associated with other characteristics or orientations that are not related to vigilance. From an evolutionary perspective, red is frequently associated with dominance and aggression, for example (e.g., Cuthill, Hunt, Cleary, & Clark, 1997; Setchell & Wickings, 2005).

Indeed, Hill and Barton (2005) showed that competitors with red attire tend to prevail in combat sports; they argued the red enhances the aggression of these individuals (Barton & Hill, 2005). Rowe, Harris, and Roberts (2005) argued, however, that differences in visibility could explain these results. Hagemann, Strauss, and Leibing (2008), in contrast, challenged both of these propositions. They undertook a study in which judges watched tae kwon do tournaments. All judges watched the same bouts, but the colors were adjusted. In one version, the protective gear of the first and second combatants was red and blue respectively. In another version, these colors were reversed. Judges rated the combatant who wore read more favorably. In other words, biases in the judges could explain the results.

Manipulations of decision strategy

Other factors can also evoke fit. Decision fit, characterized by Wan, Hong, and Sternthal (2009), represents another form of regulatory fit. Specifically, when individuals need to reach decisions, they can apply strategies or approaches that ensure their choices are correct and precise. In other words, they can strive to optimize the accuracy of their decisions, integrating a comprehensive array of data or information. Alternatively, individuals can apply strategies or approaches that expedite these decisions. That is, they can reach these decisions rapidly, often to the detriment of accuracy or precision.

When individuals adopt a prevention focus, they attach more value to the alternatives they choose if they apply strategies that optimize accuracy rather than efficiency. That is, when a prevention focus evoked, individuals strive to fulfill obligations, attempting to minimize shortfalls (Crowe & Higgins, 1997)--a goal that is more likely to be fulfilled if all the alternative courses of action are evaluated comprehensively rather than expeditiously. Attempts to optimize accuracy, therefore, satisfy the needs of individuals who espouse a prevention focus (Wan, Hong, & Sternthal, 2009), eliciting a sense of fit.

Conversely, when individuals experience a promotion focus, they attach more value to the alternatives they choose if they apply strategies that optimize efficiency instead. When a promotion focus is activated, individuals attempt to pursue future aspirations, striving to maximize progress (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). This goal is more likely to be fulfilled if alternatives are evaluated expeditiously, primarily to ensure that no opportunities are overlooked. Approaches that optimize efficiency, hence, satisfy the needs of individuals who espouse a promotion focus (Wan, Hong, & Sternthal, 2009). Indeed, when individuals adopt a promotion focus, they tend to complete tasks expeditiously rather than thoroughly (e.g., Forster, Higgins, & Bianco, 2003).

Wan, Hong, and Sternthal (2009) reported a series of studies that corroborate these propositions. In one study, for example, participants needed to choose between five brands of cell phones. Some participants were encouraged to compare all the brands on every key attribute--battery talk time, battery standby time, warranty, and camera capability--intended to optimize accuracy. Other participants were invited to orient their attention to the most important attribute and choose the brand that prevails on this feature, which expedites progress but sacrifices accuracy. After choosing a brand, participants rated the confidence of their decision.

If a prevention focus had been evoked, participants were more confident in their decision if they had considered all the information comprehensively. If a promotion focus had been elicited, participants were more confident in their decision if they had reflected upon a subset of information only (Wan, Hong, & Sternthal, 2009).

In a subsequent study, information about each brand was presented either simultaneously--to enable comprehensive comparisons--or sequentially--to preclude these comparisons. Again, when a prevention focus was evoked, the chosen alternative was perceived as more valuable if all the brands were presented simultaneously. When a promotion focus was induced, this alternative was perceived as more valuable if the brands were presented sequentially (Wan, Hong, & Sternthal, 2009). Evaluations of the alternatives that were not chosen were unaffected by decision fit (Wan, Hong, & Sternthal, 2009).

Consequences of regulatory focus

Sensitivity to feedback

When individuals experience a promotion focus, they become more sensitive to praise rather than criticism, as shown by Forster, Grant, Idson, and Higgins (2001). Praise, but not criticism, will tend to amplify effort and ultimately improve performance. That is, a promotion focus increases the sensitivity of individuals towards potential gain, but does not augment sensitivity to possible shortfalls. In contrast, when individuals experience a prevention focus they become more sensitive to criticism. After they receive a criticism, they strive even more vigorously to minimize shortfalls in the immediate future.

Similarly, in a study conducted by Idson and Higgins (2000), participants received a series of anagrams to complete. Midway through this set, participants received contrived feedback. For participants who adopted a promotion focus, performance often improved after they received favorable feedback. For participants who adopted a prevention focus, performance was more likely to improve after they received unfavorable feedback. Accordingly, when individuals adopt a promotion focus, they experience a sense of fit, which can increase persistence, when they receive information about gains rather than losses.

Individuals who adopt a promotion focus perform less effectively on tasks if they are expected to triumph (Keller & Bless, 2008). When expectations are elevated, individuals become concerned they might not fulfill these lofty expectations--they might not surpass this high standard. The main objective of individuals who adopt a promotion focus is to fulfill some lofty standard. Hence, high expectations create distress, undermining their performance. Individuals who adopt a prevention focus, in contrast, perform less effectively on tasks if they are expected to fail (Keller & Bless, 2008). When expectations are low, individuals become concerned they might not fulfill the minimum standard that is considered acceptable. The main objective of individuals who adopt a prevention focus is to satisfy minimum standards. Hence, low expectations create anxiety in these individuals, undermining their performance.

Motivation

The concept of regulatory fit has been applied to demonstrate how the factors that promote motivation vary across personality traits. For example, Vaughn, Baumann, and Klemann (2008), showed that individuals who report an openness to experience, characterized as a desire for novel, diverse, intense, and complex experiences, felt more motivated when they were encouraged to pursue their hopes and aspirations. In contrast, individuals who are closed rather than open, characterized as a desire for familiar tasks and routines, felt more motivated when they were encouraged to satisfy their duties and aspirations.

These findings imply that open individuals tend to adopt an eager orientation and thus experience a sense of fit when they pursue promotion goals. Closed individuals adopt a vigilant orientation, experiencing fit when they pursue prevention goals.

Furthermore, as Higgins, Roney, Crowe, and Hymes (1994) showed, when the ideals and wishes of individuals are accessible, representing a promotion focus, they become more inclined to approach desirable outcomes. In contrast, when duties and responsibilities are accessible, representing a prevention focus, individuals become more inclined to avoid undesirable outcomes.

To illustrate, in one study, Higgins, Roney, Crowe, and Hymes (1994), participants were asked to specify the extent to which they perceive a series of traits as characteristics that are ideal, as characteristics they ought to possess, and as characteristics they current exhibit. Marked differences between characteristics that are ideal and characteristics they current exhibit indiciate the ideal self guide is likely to be activated. Marked differences between characteristics that ought to possess and characteristics they current exhibit indicate the ought self guide is likely to be activated.

When the ideal self guide was activated, participants indicated they were more inclined to engage in strategies that exemplify strong friendship than avoid strategies that typify inappropriate friendship. When the ought self guide was activated, the opposite pattern emerged. These findings indicate that a promotion focus corresponds to approaching desirable outcomes, where as a prevention focus corresponds to avoiding undesirable outcomes.

Engagement

When individuals need to complete a monotonous activity, they often vary the task slightly, to instill a sense of engagement and enjoyment. They might, for example, vary their handrighting or the order in which they complete the various phases.

As Smith, Wagaman, and Handley (2009) showed, individuals who adopt a promotion, rather than prevention, focus are more inclined to vary these tasks. In their study, participants were instructed to undertake a tedious activity, under the guise of experiencing the roles and responsibilities that some individuals need to fulfill everyday. In essence, the task merely involved copying strings of letters.

Next, participants were interrupted, with the pretext that another study needed to be completed more immediately. They completed a maze task, designed to induce either a promotion focus or a prevention focus. That is, to induce a promotion focus, the objective was to seek the cheese at the exit. To induce a prevention focus, the objective was to escape an owl at the entrance. This approach ensures the manipulation of regulatory focus transcends the awareness of individuals (cf., Friedman & Forster, 2001).

After this putative interruption, participants returned to the monotonous clerical task. Subsequently, to measure their intrinsic motivation, participants were asked to specify the extent to which they are willing to persist with this task later.

A close examination of their work revealed that some participants varied their approach while completing the monotonous task. They might have modified their handwriting several times during the exercise. They might have alternated between upper and lower case, and so forth. As hypothesized, when a promotion focus was primed, more variations were observed, and these variations increased intrinsic motivation. Overall, individuals who adopted a promotion focus perceived the monotonous task as more interesting.

A similar pattern of findings was observed when another technique was utilized to manipulate regulatory focus (Smith, Wagaman, & Handley, 2009). Specifically, in one experiment, to evoke a promotion focus, participants specified five of their hopes and aspirations. Next, they indicated the extent to which they would ideally likely to achieve these hopes and aspirations. To evoke a prevention focus, participants specified five of their duties and obligations as well as the degree to which they were concerned with achiving these responsibilities.

Presumably, when individuals adopt a prevention focus, their attention is directed towards their obligations and responsibilities. That is, they strive to minimize shortfalls. Any deviations in their behavior might amplify these shortfalls. These individuals, hence, should not vary their approach (Smith, Wagaman, & Handley, 2009). Consistent with this argument, when individuals who adopted a prevention focus modified the task, their enjoyment of this activity seemed to diminish.

Initiation of goals

When individuals adopt a prevention focus, they are less inclined to procrastinate or to delay the pursuits of their goals. Specifically, according to Freitas, Liberman, Salovey, and Higgins (2002), when individuals adopt a prevention focus, they perceive their goals as obligatory-as targets that must be satisfied rather than objectives that could be pursued. Because these goals are conceptualized as obligatory, individuals feel obliged to pursue these objectives immediately. They become less inclined to delay these pursuits.

In contrast, as Freitas, Liberman, Salovey, and Higgins (2002) argue, when individuals adopt a promotion focus, they do not perceive their goals as obligatory-as objectives they must fulfill. As a consequence, the sense of urgency diminishes, and the pursuit of their goals is sometimes delayed.

Freitas, Liberman, Salovey, and Higgins (2002) conducted a series of studies that substantiate these propositions. In one study, participants, who were university students, were instructed to imagine they wanted to apply to secure a fellowship. The application was due in three months. Participants were then asked whether they would prefer to begin the application today, in four weeks, in eight weeks, or one day before the due date.

Interestingly, if participants exhibited a prevention focus-as gauged by measures of reaction time-they were more likely to begin the application almost immediately. In contrast, if participants exhibited a promotion focus, they often delayed this endeavor (Freitas, Liberman, Salovey, & Higgins, 2002).

Similarly, when participants received instructions that emphasizes the minimization of problems instead of the maximization of benefits-which also evokes a prevention focus-participants were less inclined to defer this application. Furthermore, in another study, participants pursued several goals at the same time. Some of the goals were represented as an attempt to minimize losses, eliciting a prevention focus. Other goals were represented as an attempt to maximize gains, eliciting a promotion focus. Participants tended to prioritize the prevention goals (Freitas, Liberman, Salovey, & Higgins, 2002).

Confidence and attributions

Individuals who adopt a promotion, not prevention, focus are more likely to feel they can influence their performance on tasks that are really dictated by random forces, such as success on a roulette wheel (Langens, 2007). Because they direct their focus on potential gains, they are more inclined to remember incidents in which they attempt to control some outcome, such as the number of on a roulette wheel, and were indeed successful. They tend to overlook the many times their attempts were futile. In addition, because these individuals strive to uncover potential gains, rather than losses, they value this sense of control. Indeed, when they feel a sense of control, their mood remains elevated, even after they fail on some task.

A promotion focus, although instilling a sense of control, can nevertheless curb self serving attributions. When individuals adopt a prevention focus, they propose few explanations to explain their failures (Molden & Higgins, 2008), probably to reduce the likelihood of erroneous statements and implausible justifications (cf Crowe & Higgins, 1997). In contrast, when individuals adopt a promotion focus, they reflect upon a broader range of causes to explain their failures. Hence, they will not confine their explanations to blaming other individuals, inadequate instructions, or demanding conditions--but will become more willing to consider their own limitations in ability of effort as well (Molden & Higgins, 2008).

Furthermore, individuals who adopt a promotion, rather than prevention, focus also tend to negotiate more effectively (Galinsky, Leonardelli, Okhuysen, & Mussweiler, 2005). In this state, individuals tend to consider the outcome they would ideally like to achieve, not the outcome they must achieve. As a consequence of their elevated hopes, they are more likely to recognize the merits of their position and will pursue these aspirations more vigorously. Furthermore, because they focus on abstract, global concepts, their capacity to sacrifice a trivial issue to ensure a key gain might improve.

Self evaluations

Individuals who adopt a promotion focus strive to achieve progress. They like to perceive themselves as effective and competent. Hence, when they reflect upon themselves, their principal motive is self enhancement (Leonardelli, Lakin, & Arkin, 2007). Indeed, they recognize words that correspond to self esteem or enhancement, such as optimistic, more rapidly than words that corresponds to clarity, such as certain or sure (Leonardelli, Lakin, & Arkin, 2007). Likewise, after individuals fail to achieve their promotion goals--goals that relate to future progress and aspirations--self esteem but not self clarity declines (Leonardelli, Lakin, & Arkin, 2007).

Individuals who adopt a prevention focus, in contrast, strive to fulfil all obligations and expectations. Accordingly, they prefer clarity--because uncertainty increases the likelihood they might not satisfy some duty or expectation they might have overlooked. Thus, when they reflect upon themselves, their principal motive is self certainty (Leonardelli, Lakin, & Arkin, 2007). To demonstrate, they recognize words that correspond to self certainty, such as sure or doubtful, more rapidly than words that corresponds to self esteem, such as positive or bad (Leonardelli, Lakin, & Arkin, 2007). Similarly, after individuals fail to achieve their prevention goals--goals that relate to immediate duties--self clarity declines (Leonardelli, Lakin, & Arkin, 2007). That is, they endorse items such as "I feel less certain of who I am".

This finding implies, albeit tentatively, that any factors that enhance self certainty might evoke a promotion focus. To demonstrate, prevention goals often prevail over promotion goals. When one of these prevention goals--that is, to enhance self certainty--is fulfilled, promotion goals can prevail.

Several factors affect self certainty and thus could evoke a promotion focus. Clarkson, Tomala, DeSensi, and Wheeler (2009), for instance, showed that individuals feel more certain of themselves after their attitudes are reinforced. That is, self certainty depends on attitude certainty.

For example, to promote attitude certainty, participants were sometimes instructed to repeat their attitudes aloud on multiple occasions. Alternatively,they were informed that other members of their social collectives shared these attitudes. After these manipulations, individuals experienced an elevated level of self certainty. That is, individuals experienced less doubt about their abilities and were less motivated to receive personality feedback (Clarkson, Tomala, DeSensi, & Wheeler, 2009).

Cognition and creativity

A promotion focus, relative to a prevention focus, tends to increase sensitivity to distractions (Freitas, Liberman, & Higgins, 2002). In particular, when individuals adopt a promotion focus, they become more sensitive to opportunities that are challenging, novel, and exciting. Their sensitivity towards novelty and excitement increases the likelihood that other conversations and events in their surroundings will distract their concentration.

A promotion focus directs attention towards global, abstract concepts, whereas a prevention focus directs attention towards local, concrete details, as Forster and Higgins (2005) confirmed. This study showed that individuals who adopt a promotion focus can readily detect large letters that are composed of smaller letters. In contrast, individuals who adopt a prevention focus can readily detect small letters embedded within larger letters. That is, when individuals adopt a promotion focus, they reflect upon future states--states in which specific details cannot be anticipated. They, therefore, rely on abstract representations (Forster & Higgins, 2005). When individuals adopt a prevention focus, in contrast, they need to identify subtle shortfalls--problems that could provoke some punitive response. Hence, they must shift their attention to concrete, observable details, not abstract, unobservable concepts.

A promotion focus can also increase the breadth of explanations or arguments. To illustrate, when individuals adopt a promotion focus rather than prevention focus, they consider a broader array of categories when they sort objects into groups (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). In contrast, individuals who adopt a prevention focus consider fewer categories when they sort objects. That is, a prevention focus encourages a motivation to minimize errors and the consideration of fewer alternatives might fulfill this objective.

Furthermore, when individuals adopt a promotion focus rather than prevention focus, their emotions are more likely to shape their decisions. When individuals experience a positive mood, for example, they tend to evaluate someone else more favorably. This effect of mood, however, is especially pronounced in individuals who adopt a promotion, rather than prevention, focus (Pham & Avnet, 2008).

In other words, for some reason, a promotion focus increases sensitivity to affective cues. Perhaps, affective states are regarded as heuristics, and vigilance, which tends to correspond to a prevention focus, inhibits any reliance on these heuristics. Furthermore, vigilance, and thus a prevention focus, increases sensitivity to external rather than internal cues.

Decision making

As Novak and Hoffman (2009) showed, the cognitive style of individuals also depends on regulatory focus. Specifically, when individuals adopt a prevention focus, the rational rather than experiential system prevails (see also Cognitive versus experiential systems). That is, to reach decisions or judgments, individuals apply logical, rational, and systematic processes to symbolic representations of concepts. In contrast, when individuals adopt a promotion focus, the experiential system prevails. That is, individuals utilize their intuition, hunches, and emotions to reach decisions and judgments.

In the study conducted by Novak and Hoffman (2009), some participants were instructed to deliberate over their duties and obligations, which activates a prevention focus. Subsequently, after completing another activity, these participants were more inclined to endorse items such as "I tackled this issue systematically" and "I applied precise rules to deduce the answers".

In contrast, to activate a promotion focus, participants were asked to reflect upon their hopes and aspirations. These participants were later more likely to endorse items like "I relied on my sense of intuition" and "Ideas just popped into my head".

Presumably, when individuals adopt a prevention focus, their principal objective is to minimize shortfalls. They need unambiguous and precise information--information that is primarily derived from the cognitive system (see also Higgins, 1998; Pham & Avnet, 2004).

Persuasion

Individuals who adopt a promotion focus are more likely to be convinced by arguments that refer to abstract, global benefits (Gun, Higgins, de Montes, Estourget, & Valencia, 2005). That is, these individuals tend to focus their attention on abstract concepts rather than observable details (Forster & Higgins, 2005). In contrast, individuals who adopt a prevention focus are more inclined to be convinced by arguments that allude to concrete examples (Gun et al., 2005).

Furthermore, individuals who adopt a promotion focus are often persuaded by arguments that refer to potential gains, such as "This product energizes you"--called gain framing (Lee & Aaker, 2004). In contrast, individuals who adopt a prevention focus are usually persuaded by arguments that allude to the minimization of losses, such as "This product ensures your energy will not vanish"--called loss framing (Lee & Aaker, 2004). Specifically, Lee and Aaker (2004) showed that advertisements that promulgated to products that represent growth and improvement, thus instilling a promotion focus, were more effective if the potential gains were underscored. In contrast, advertisements that promoted products that represent safety and protection, thus activating a prevention focus, were more effective if the resolution of losses was highlighted.

Accordingly, when individuals experience a promotion focus, they also prefer products or services that expedite gain and progress they prefer proposals, products, or services that are perceived as luxurious, fashionable, and include extra features (Werth & Foerster, 2007). In contrast, when individuals experience a prevention focus, they prefer products or services that preclude shortfalls and losses--proposals, products, or services that enhance safety and durability (Werth & Foerster, 2007).

In addition, when individuals adopt a promotion focus, they are more convinced by arguments that emphasize the ease or convenience of these goods or services (Keller, 2006). That is, because they experience a sense of control, these individuals are more concerned with limitations in their own ability not the constraints that other individuals impose. Thus, ease or convenience is deemed to be a key determinant of utility.

In contrast, when individuals adopt a prevention focus, they are more convinced by arguments that emphasize the potential benefits of some product or service rather than ease (Keller, 2006). These individuals reflect more on the constraints that other individuals impose, not limitations in their own capabilities. Highlighting benefits indicates that society also regards the goods or services as important--and hence societal forces are less likely to impede the merits of this product.

Likewise, when individuals adopt a promotion focus, they are more convinced by arguments that highlight how some solution, product, or service exceeds the minimum standard (Jain, Agrawal, & Maheswaran, 2006). In contrast, and perhaps more intriguingly, when individuals adopt a prevention focus, they are more convinced by arguments that highlight how some solution, product, or service merely fulfils, rather than exceeds, some minimum standard (Jain et al., 2006). If informed that some solution, product, or service exceeds rather than merely meets some standard, these individuals might assume that some other shortcoming is likely. Individuals with a prevention focus primarily consider the potential shortfall, not the benefit, of exceeding some standard. Indeed, in contrast to individuals with a promotion focus, individuals with a prevention focus prefer products or services that are modest on all attributes--not excellent on some qualities but inferior on other facets (Zhang & Mittal, 2007).

Persuasion is possibly the consequence of improved cognitive processing. Keller and Bless (2006), for example, found that when a task was consistent with an individual's regulatory focus, they were better at processing the information, thus reducing the need for cognitive restructuring (Clore, 1994). When tasks are processed efficiently, individuals may be better at allocating the information into memory so that they can evaluate the information more effectively (Aaker & Lee, 2001).

Consistent with this notion, Aaker and Lee found that when presented with a weak, rather than compelling, argument, the persuasive effects of regulatory fit were undermined. Participants, thus, were able to become more discerning of the argument.

Other mechanisms could also underpin the role of regulatory fit in persuasion. Regulatory fit, for example, has been shown to promote transportation--a feeling that individuals are transported into another world when they listen to a story. If these feelings of regulatory fit were ascribed to another source, these benefits dissipated (Vaughn, Hesse, Petkova, & Trudeau, 2009).

Specifically, in this study, regulatory fit or non-fit was induced. Next, participants read a passage or narrative. Finally, they completed the transportation scale, derived by Green and Brock (2000). This scale assesses the extent to which readers could readily and vividly imagine the events in this story as well as feel emotionally involved, a sense of suspense, oblivious to their surroundings.

Anger and aggression

Research indicates that regulatory focus might be related to aggressive tendencies or behaviors. Specifically, when a prevention focus is evoked, aggression might become more likely.

Keller, Hurst, and Uskul (2009) reported a series of studies that confirm this association between a prevention focus and aggression. In Study 1, for example, participants completed scales that assess chronic regulatory focus, cynical hostility, and aggression. Cynical hostility was gauged by items that represent the extent to which participants assume the motivations of other individuals are competitive and uncaring (Cook & Medley, 1954). A typical item is "Most people will use somewhat unfair means to fain profit or an advantage rather than to lose it". Aggression was gauged by a scale, developed by Buss and Perry (1992), that represents the degree to which individuals exhibit anger, express aggression verbally, and feel hostile or suspicious. A prevention focus was positively related to both cynicism and aggression. A promotion focus was unrelated to aggression.

Study 2 extended Study 1, but also examined potential mediators. The association between a prevention focus and aggression was partly mediated by reciprocity of norm beliefs (Keller,Hurst, & Uskul, 2009), gauged by items such as "If someone dislikes you, you should dislike them". Similarly, in Study 3, the association between a prevention focus and aggression was especially pronounced when some norm was violated (Keller,Hurst, & Uskul, 2009).

Presumably, when individuals adopt a prevention focus, they strive to fulfill normative standard. They attempt to satisfy the behaviors and tendencies that pervade the immediate social context. This sensitivity to normative standards might increase the likelihood that individuals reciprocate the actions of someone else (Eisenberger, Lynch, Aselage, & Rohdieck, 2004). Because of this inclination, these individuals will often reciprocate the undesirable behavior of someone else--which could manifest as aggression.

Neuroticism also mediated the relationship between a prevention focus and aggression. That is, neuroticism might represent the emotional underpinnings of a prevention focus (cf., Higgins, 1998). The anxiety and worry that corresponds to neuroticism sometimes translates into aggressive behavior (Bettencourt, Talley, Benjamin, & Valentine, 2006).

In addition to this sensitivity to norm violations and neuroticism, a prevention focus might also direct attention towards hostile cues. That is, a prevention focus increases the sensitivity of individuals to negative cues. Over time, they might become more inclined to perceive other individuals as hostile (Keller,Hurst, & Uskul, 2009).

Repetence and forgiveness

Similar to the literature on peruasion, researchers have shown that some apologies fit the regulatory focus of individuals and, therefore, are perceived as more convincing (Santelli, Struthers, & Eaton, 2009). That is, some apologies focus on gains and progress, such as "I will do whatever I can to regain your trust" or "I am hopeful our relationship can more forward". These apologies are effective when the other person adopts a promotion focus (Santelli, Struthers, & Eaton, 2009).

In contrast, some apologies focus on attempts to minimize loss or obligations, such as "I feel obligated to do whatever I can not to lose your trust" or "I feel it's my duty to improve our relationships". These apologies are effective when the other person adopts a prevention focus.

Regret and ruminations

Regulatory focus might also affect whether individuals form additive or subtractive counterfactuals, as defined by Markman, Lindberg, Kray, and Galinsky (2007). To illustrate, after some event, such as a failed venture, individuals often contemplate the outcomes that could have emerged had they acted differently. Sometimes, they consider additional acts they should have conducted, called an additive counterfactual. On other occasions, they consider acts they did conduct but should have avoided, called a subtractive counterfactual.

A promotion focus coincides with maximizing gains, more consistent with an additive counterfactual. A prevention focus coincides with minimizing losses, which is more consistent with a subtractive counterfactual, as discussed by Epstude & Roese (2008)

Antecedents to state regulatory focus

Gain versus loss focus

A variety of experimental protocols have been developed to manipulate regulatory focus, at least transiently (see also Florack & Scarabis, 2006). In essence, to activate a promotion or prevention focus, researchers can increase the salience of gains or losses. Alternatively, researchers can emphasize needs that relate to nurturance and achievement or safety and protection. Finally, researchers can prime either aspirations or duties.

To illustrate attempts to augment the salience of gains, thereby activating a promotion focus, in a study conducted by Higgins, Shah, and Friedman (1997), some individuals were informed they could earn $1 each time they exceeded some level of performance, with a maximum of $6. In contrast, other individuals were informed they would not lose $1 if they exceeded some level of performance, again potentially earning a maximum of $6 (see also Cropanzano, Paddock, Rupp, Baggerd, & Baldwin, 2008).

Aspirations versus duties

To activate a prevention focus, researchers sometimes ask individuals to reflect upon their duties and obligations. For example, Leonardelli, Lakin, and Arkin (2007) instructed participants to "Describe your current duties and obligations. Mention how meeting your obligations can help you avoid and prevent negative outcomes...in life".

To activate a promotion focus, researchers can ask individuals to reflect upon their hopes and aspirations. For example, Leonardelli, Lakin, and Arkin (2007) instructed participants to "Describe your current hopes and aspirations. Mention how achieving these hopes can help you to promote or achieve positive outcomes...in life". On average, in both conditions, participants dedicated about 3 minutes to these essays, and these durations did not differ between the two conditions. Likewise, to activate a prevention focus, Vaughn, Baumann, and Klemann (2008), instructed participants to "List five of their current duties and obligations (at college)". To activate a promotion focus, participants were asked to "List five of their current hopes and aspirations (at college)". The precise instructions vary marginally across studies. For example, in the study conducted by Molden and Higgins (2008), participants were instructed to reflect upon these hopes and aspirations--or duties and obligations--both now and in the past.

Word fragment completion primes

To manipulate the regulatory focus of individuals, in a study conducted by Wan, Hong, and Sternthal (2009), four words fragments, such as e-g-r, were presented. Their task was to complete these words. To induce a promotion focus, the answers were related to eagerness: eager, active, growth, and accomplish. To induce a prevention focus, the answers were associated with vigilance: secure, calm, vigilant, safe. For each fragment, one or two letter were missing.

Time

A variety of studies and arguments indicate that individuals are more likely to adopt a promotion focus when they reflect upon future, rather than more immediate, events. For example, according to Ariely and Zakay (2001), individuals become less cognizant of the benefits and merits of events that become closer, not more distant, in time.

Consistent with this proposition, in a study conducted by Eyal, Liberman, Trope, and Walther (2001), participants were asked to justify why they would or would not engage in various behaviors in the near or distant future. Typically, participants referred to the benefits of behaviors they might enact in the distant future, and referred to the drawbacks of behaviors they might avoid in the near future.

Multiple tasks

In some instances, individuals need to complete several tasks in a limited time. On some of these tasks, the prospects of gains is emphasized, and thus a promotion focus is activated. On the remaining tasks, the potential of losses might be underscored, activating a prevention focus. For example, employees might be informed that $100 will be added to their wage if they present some speech but $100 will be deducted from their wage if they do not write some report. In these instances, individuals allocate more time to the task that corresponds to a prevention focus (Schmidt & DeShon, 2007).

Manipulation checks

After regulatory focus is manipulated, some researchers attempt to check the utility of these procedures. Wan, Hong, and Sternthal (2009), for example, asked participants to answer two questions, as a manipulation check. They were asked "To what extent did you focus on avoiding the negative outcome when writing down the academic strategies?" and "To what extent did you focus on achieving the positive outcome when writing down the academic strategies?"--both on a 9 point scale. These two questions reflect a prevention and promotion focus respectively.

Antecedents to chronic regulatory focus

Parental style

Various experiences and traits influence the regulatory focus that individuals will tend to adopt--designated as chronic regulatory focus. For example, according to Higgins, Friedman, Harlow, Idson, Ayduk, and Taylor (2001), individuals who have experienced success with a promotion focus in the past, such as received rewards when they achieve some inspiring accomplishment, will tend to adopt this orientation. Likewise, individuals who have experienced success with a prevention focus--perhaps they were not punished because they had fulfilled some duty--will often adopt this orientation.

To clarify, some parents engage in a bolstering mode, in which offer appreciable rewards such as physical embrace or verbal praise, when their children fulfill some desirable goal, as defined by Higgins and Silberman (1998). This mode is assumed to instill a promotion focus in children--an orientation that might persist throughout adulthood. Consistent with this proposition, Keller (2008) showed that individuals who report a promotion focus are more likely to describe their parents as authoritative--in which they offer affection, praise, and understanding when appropriate. In contrast, some parents engage in a critical or punitive mode, punishing children who do not fulfill prescribed standards, and this mode is assumed to cultivate a prevention focus. Indeed, Keller (2008) showed that individuals who report a prevention focus are more inclined to perceive their parents as authoritarian--in which they were frequently critical and punitive.

Culture

The culture of an organization or society could also affect the regulatory focus of individuals. For example, Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel (2004) showed that customers are less likely to focus their attention on errors, thus manifesting a promotion focus, when the organization presents an exciting, youthful, and trendy brand. This finding implies the brand or culture of an organization could shape the regulatory focus of stakeholders.

Several findings indicate that an independent self construal, in which individuals are more cognizant of their unique goals and characteristics--more prevalent in Western cultures--could foster a promotion rather than prevention focus. In contrast, and interdependent self construal, in which individuals are more aware of the relationships with other people or groups--more prevalent in East Asian cultures--could foster a prevention focus instead (see Self construal theory).

In a study conducted by Hamilton and Biehal (2005), participants were encouraged either to focus on their own enjoyment, which corresponds to an independent self construal, or their relationships, which corresponds to an interdependent self construal. Individuals encouraged to adopt an interdependent self construal were more inclined to select alternatives that guarantee safety and security rather than uncertain growth and achievement. This preference aligns with the choices that a prevention focus tends to evoke.

Leadership

The leadership style of supervisors and managers can also shape the regulatory focus of employees. Some leaders, for example, demonstrate a style called initiating structure. These leaders are very directive, specifying their expectations of employees--goals, deadlines, policies, laws, regulations, and obligations-- with clarity. These leaders often stipulate the methods that employees should apply, the priorities these individuals should adopt, and the targets that should be reached (Fleishman, 1973, 1998).

According to Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, and Roberts (2008), this style should instill a prevention focus. Because these leaders emphasize expectations that need to be fulfilled, they imply that employees should comply with these standards and minimize shortfalls. Employees, therefore, focus on their more immediate and specific duties and responsibilities rather than hopes and aspirations, representing a prevention focus.

In contrast, some leaders exhibit a style called servant leadership (Greenleaf, 2002). The primary objective of these leaders is to encourage the growth and wellbeing of their employees. Their main interest is the welfare of both employees and the community more generally. In addition to understanding and accommodating the needs of employees, they inspire these individuals to serve the community as well.

Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, and Roberts (2008) maintain that servant leadership should evoke a promotion focus in employees. That is, the servant leader directs attention to goals and aspirations that transcend the immediate environment or urgent obligations. Instead, employees orient their attention to growth and progress in the future--in both themselves and the community more generally. A focus on future progress and abstract values epitomizes a promotion focus.

Consistent with these propositions, Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, and Roberts (2008) showed that initiating structure in leaders was related to a prevention focus in employees, whereas servant leadership was related to a promotion focus. That is, in their study, a sample of 250 employees completed instruments that assess the extent to which their supervisors initiated structure and demonstrated servant leadership. Employees also completed a work regulatory focus scale, developed for this study. Three weeks later, the in-role performance, deviant behavior, helping behavior, and creative behavior of these employees was gauged, using self report measures.

Initiating structure was positive related to in-role performance but inversely related to deviant behavior. These relationships were mediated by a prevention focus. Servant leadership was positively associated with helping and creative behavior--relationships that were mediated by a promotion focus.

Intergroup ideology

In some organizations or contexts, individuals are encouraged to embrace a color blind ideology. That is, they are persuaded to disregard the disparities between constituencies, instead focusing their attention to qualities they share. They strive to "look beyond skin color", "understand the person within", and recognize that "at the core, we really are all the same" (Vorauer, Gagnon, & Sasaki, 2009).

In other organizations or contexts, individuals are encouraged, instead, to embrace a multicultural perspective. They are invited to recognize that differences across collectives enable a diversity of perspectives, which contributes to the growth of society. These individuals recognize that "each ethnic group...can contribute in its own way" and "different cultural groups bring different perspectives to life".

Vorauer, Gagnon, and Sasak (2009) argued that a color blind, rather than multicultural, ideology could evoke a prevention focus--which ultimately might undermine interactions with other ethnicities. Specifically, when individuals adopt a color blind ideology, their principal aim might be to inhibit any hint of differential treatment. These individuals, thus, strive to minimize the problems--shame, guilt, resentment, and so forth--that differential treatment might evoke. Their motivation is to minimize a problem rather than to maximize a gain. When individuals adopt a multicultural ideology, they strive to maximize the gains that diversity could foster.

Consistent with this rationale, after participants read material that reinforced a color blind, rather than multicultural, ideology, they became more inclined to report a prevention focus (Vorauer, Gagnon, & Sasak, 2009). That is, they endorsed the item "I have been trying to prevent my exchange with the other participants from going badly".

Furthermore, as a consequence of this prevention focus, participants experienced more negative affect during interactions with members of another ethnicity. That is, the prevention focus can evoke caution and vigilance (Forster, Higgins, & Bianco, 2003) as well as deplete cognitive resources (Trawalter & Richeson, 2006), which might have stifled the conversation.

Nevertheless, the color blind ideology might not always promote a prevention focus or compromise interactions with other ethnicities. Members of minorities, for example, feel the color blind ideology could reduce the likelihood they are disadvantaged--and indeed curbed the negative affect of these individuals during interactions with majority ethnicities (Vorauer, Gagnon, & Sasak, 2009).

Antecedents of regulatory fit

In some studies, regulatory fit, rather then regulatory focus, is manipulated even prior to some other task. In a study conducted by Vaughn, Hesse, Petkova, and Trudeau (2009), participants reported two of their hopes and aspirations or duties and obligations--to activate a promotion or prevention focus respectively. Next, participants specified a few strategies they could apply to make sure everything goes right or to avoid anything that could go wrong in these attempts--to highlight eager or vigilant means. A promotion focus, coupled with eager means, or a prevention focus, coupled with vigilant means, was assumed to instill a sense of fit.

After participants engaged in this task, they read another passage. Regulatory fit increased the extent to which this passage was regarded as persuasive.

Some of the benefits of regulatory fit dissipate if individuals are informed that some other trivial event evoked these feelings (Cesario, Grant, & Higgins, 2004). In the study conducted by Vaughn, Hesse, Petkova, and Trudeau (2009), participants were informed that merely thinking about the right means to attain a goal can elicit these feelings of feeling right. This information diminished the effects of regulatory fit on the subsequent evaluation of some passage.

Measures of regulatory focus

Several procedures and measures have been developed to gauge regulatory focus. Some of these procedures assess the accessibility of aspirations or duties. If aspirations seem accessible, individuals are assumed to adopt a promotion focus. If duties are accessible, individuals are assumed to adopt a prevention focus. Other procedures involve self report (see Higgins, Friedman, Harlow, Idson, Ayduk, & Taylor, 2001; Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002; Ouschan, Boldero, Kashima, Wakimoto, and Kashima, 2007; for more information on these procedures and measures, see Measures of regulatory focus).

Biological underpinning of regulatory focus

Although research has demonstrated promotion and prevention systems occupy the same brain regions as the approach and avoidance systems (see page on approach and avoidance), more recent fMRI evidence suggests an alternative argument (Cunningham, Raye & Johnson, 2005). Both promotion and prevention systems are thought to occupy the same brain regions: the amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex, and right precentral gyrus (Cunningham, et al. 2005). Participants were presented with positive and negative words such as "babies" and "terrorism" and were required to indicate whether such words were "good" or "bad". When processing negative stimuli, these brain regions were activated when adopting a prevention focus. Similarly, when adopting a promotion focus, positive stimuli activated the same regions.

Cunningham and colleagues (2005) suggest that these brain regions evolved to identify motivationally relevant stimuli. Approach and avoidance systems, although related to promotion and prevention systems, are distinct phenomena.

Practical implications: Cultivating a promotion focus

In many instances, especially when creativity and exploration is championed, a promotion focus should be cultivated. A variety of strategies can be applied to cultivate a promotion focus.

Metaphors

To encourage a promotion focus, counselors, coaches, and supervisors can present a metaphor that Hayes, Strosahl, and Wilson (1999) refer to as Joe the Bum. Individuals are invited to imagine they have invited neighbors to a housewarming party. Everyone is welcome, and you even advertise your party at the local supermarket. Unfortunately, you discover that Joe the Bum, a man who lives behind the dumpster at the supermarket, reeking of unwashed clothes, appears. He embarrasses you, acting unbecoming and inappropriately.

You can pursue two options. First, you could ask him to leave, forgoing your initial principle that everyone is welcome. However, if you pursue this option, the party changes. You need to guard the door to ensure he does not return. Alternatively, you need to ensure he remains in the kitchen rather than interact with other guests. As a consequence, you cannot enjoy the party. Second, you could welcome him, permitting him to mingle, despite your concerns. Your opinion of him--your worries and embarrassment might remain--but you can nevertheless be willing to accept him and enjoy the party regardless. That is, you can continue to pursue your hopes and aspirations, even if you experience a few feelings, thoughts, or memories you do not like.

References

Aaker, J. , Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A. (2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 1-16.

Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). "I" seek pleasures and "we" avoid pains: The role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 33-49.

Ariely, D. & Zakay, D. (2001). A timely account of the role of duration in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 108, 187-207.

Barton, R. A., & Hill, R. A. (2005). Sporting contests: Seeing red? Putting sportswear in context (reply). Nature, 437, E10-E1.

Bettencourt, B. A., Talley, A., Benjamin, A. J., & Valentine, J. (2006). Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 751-777.

Bianco, A. T., Higgins, E. T., & Klem, A. (2003). How "un/importance" fit impacts performance: Relating implicit theories to instructions. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1091-1103.

Boldero, J., & Francis, J. (1999). Ideals, oughts, and self-regulation: Are there qualitatively distinct self-guides? Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 343-355.

Boldero, J. M., Moretti, M. M., Bell, R. C., & Francis, J. J. (2005). Self-discrepancies and negative affect: A primer on when to look for specificity, and how to find it. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57, 139-147.

Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 35-66.

Brown, C. M., & McConnell, A. R. (2009). Effort or escape: Self-concept structure determines self-regulatory behavior. Self and Identity, 8, 365-377.

Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459.

Camacho, C. J., Higgins, E. T., & Luger, L. (2003). Moral value transfer from regulatory fit: What feels right is right and what feels wrong is wrong. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 498-510.

Carver, C. S. (2004). Self-regulation of action and affect. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 13-39). New York: Guilford Press.

Carver, C. S., Blaney, P. H., & Scheier, M. F. (1979). Reassertion and giving up: The interactive role of self-directed attention and outcome expectancy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1859-1870.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality-social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 111-135.

Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19-35.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from feeling right". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 388-404.

Cesario, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Making message recipients feel right: How nonverbal cues can increase persuasion. Psychological Science, 19, 415-420.

Clore, G.C. (1994). Why emotions vary in intensity. In Ekman, P., & Davidson, R.J. (Eds.), The nature of emotions: Fundamental questions. (pp. 386-393). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cook, W. W., & Medley, D. M. (1954). Proposed hostility and pharisaic-virtue scales for the MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38, 414-418.

Cropanzano, R., Paddock, L., Rupp, D. E., Baggerd, J., & Baldwin, A. (2008). How regulatory focus impacts the process-by-outcome interaction for perceived fairness and emotions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 36-51.

Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 69, 117-132.

Cunningham, W. A., Raye, C. L., & Johnson, M. K. (2005). Neural correlates of evaluation associated with promotion and prevention regulatory focus. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioural Neuroscience, 5, 202-211.

Cuthill, I.C., Hunt, S., Cleary, C., & Clark, C. (1997). Colour bands, dominance, and body mass regulation in male zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 264, 1093-1099.

Dixon, T. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Escaping the self: The moderating effect of self complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 363-368.

Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. (1972). A theory of objective self-awareness. New York: Academic Press.

Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., Aselage, J., & Rohdieck, S. (2004). Who takes the most revenge? Individual differences in negative reciprocity norm endorsement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 787-799.

Epstude, K., & Roese, N.J. (2008). The functional theory of counterfactual thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 168-192.

Eyal, T., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Walther, E. (2001). The pros and cons of temporally near and distant action. Attitudes and Social Cognition, 85, 781-795.

Forster, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16, 631-636.

Fleishman, E. A. (1973). Twenty years of consideration and structure. In E. A. Fleishman & J. G. Hunt (Eds.), Current developments in the study of leadership (pp. 1-40). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Fleishman, E. A. (1998). Consideration and structure: Another look at their role in leadership research. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (pp. 51-60). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Florack, A., & Scarabis, M. (2006). How advertising claims affect brand preferences and category-brand associations: The role of regulatory fit. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 741-755.

Forster, J., Grant, H., Idson, C., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Success/failure feedback, expectancies, and approach/avoidance motivation: How regulatory focus moderates classic relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 253-260.

Forster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Bianco, A. T. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 148-164.

Forster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Idson, L. C. (1998). Approach and avoidance strength during goal attainment: Regulatory focus and the "goal looms larger" effect. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 75, 1115-1131.

Freitas, A. L., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Enjoying goal-directed action: The role of regularity fit. Psychological Science, 13, 1-6.

Freitas, A. L., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Regulatory fit and resisting temptation during goal pursuit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 291-298.

Freitas, A. L., Liberman, N., Salovey, P., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). When to begin? Regulatory focus and initiation goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 121-130.

Friedman, R. S., & Forster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001-1013.

Friedman, R. S. & Forster, J. (2005). Effects of motivational cues on perceptual asymmetry: Implications for creativity and analytical problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 263-275.

Galinsky, A. D., Leonardelli, G. J., Okhuysen, G. A., & Mussweiler, T. (2005). Regulatory focus at the bargaining table: Promoting distributive and integrative success. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1087-1098.

Gerend, M. A., & Sias, T. (2009). Message framing and color priming: How subtle threat cues affect persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 999-1002.

Green, M. C. (2004). Transportation into narrative worlds: The role of prior knowledge and perceived realism. Discourse Processes, 38, 247-266.

Green, M. C. (2006). Narratives and cancer communication. Journal of Communication, 56, S163-S183.

Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701-721.

Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2002). In the mind's eye: Transportation-imagery model of narrative persuasion. In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 315-341). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Green, M. C. Garst, J., & Brock, T. C. (2004). The power of fiction: Determinants and boundaries. In L. J. Shrum (Ed.), The psychology of entertainment media: Blurring the lines between entertainment and persuasion (pp. 161-176). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Greenleaf, R. (2002). Servant leadership. New York: Paulist Press. (Original work published 1977)

Gun, S., Higgins, T., de Montes, L. G., Estourget, Y., & Valencia, J. F. (2005). Linguistic signatures of regulatory focus : How abstraction fits promotion more than prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 36-45.

Hagemann, N., Strauss, B., & Leibing, J. (2008). When the referee sees red. Psychological Science, 8, 769-771.

Hamilton, R. W., & Biehal, G. J. (2005). Achieving your goals or protecting their future? The effects of self-view on goals and choices. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 277-283.

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New York: Guilford Press. Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340.

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340.

Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer? In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 93-136). New York: Academic Press.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.

Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1-46). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Higgins, E. T. (1999a). Promotion and prevention as a motivational duality: Implications for evaluative processes. In Y. Trope (Ed.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 503-525). New York: Guilford Press.

Higgins, E. T. (1999b). When do self-discrepancies have specific relations to emotions? The second-generation question of Tangney, Niedenthal, Covert, and Barlow (1998). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1313-1317.

Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217-1230.

Higgins, E. T. (2001). Promotion and prevention experiences: Relating to nonemotional motivation states. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp. 186-211). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Higgins, E. T. (2005). Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 209-213.

Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review, 113, 439-460.

Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3-23.

Higgins, E. T., Idson, L. C., Freitas, A. L., Spiegel, S., & Molden, D. C. (2003). Transfer of value from fit. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 84, 1140-1153.

Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J. R., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance: Distinct selfregulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 276-286.

Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as a moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 515-525.

Higgins, E. T., & Silberman, I. (1998). Development of regulatory focus: Promotion and prevention as ways of living. In J. Heckhausen & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulation across the life span (pp. 78-113). New York: NY: Cambridge University Press.

Higgins, E. T., & Spiegel, S. (2004). Promotion and prevention strategies for self-regulation: A motivated cognition perspective. In R. F. Baumeister & C. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 171-187). New York: Guilford.

Hill, R. A., & Barton, R. A. (2005). Red enhances human performance in contests. Nature, 435, 293.

Holler, M., Hoelzl, E., Kirchler, E., Leder, S., & Mannetti, L. (2008). Framing of information on the use of public finances, regulatory fit of recipients and tax compliance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 597-611.

Horvath, M., Herleman, H., & McKie, R. L. (2006). Goal orientation, task difficulty, and task interest: A multilevel analysis. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 171-178.

Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). How current feedback and chronic effectiveness influence motivation: Everything to gain versus everything to lose. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 538-592.

Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 252-274.

Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Imagining how you'd feel: The role of motivational experiences from regulatory fit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 926-937.

Jain, S. P., Agrawal, N. & Maheswaran, D. (2006). When more may be less: The effects of regulatory focus on responses to different comparative frames. Journal of Consumer Research, 33.

Keller, P. A. (2006). Regulatory focus and efficacy of health messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 109-114.

Keller, J. (2008). On the development of regulatory focus: The role of parenting styles. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 354-364.

Keller, J. & Bless, H. (2006). Regulatory fit and cognitive performance: The interactive effect of chronic and situationally induced self-regulatory mechanisms on test performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 393-405.

Keller, J., & Bless, H. (2008). When positive and negative expectancies disrupt performance: Regulatory focus as a catalyst. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 187-212.

Keller, J., Hurst, M., & Uskul, A. (2009). Prevention-focused self-regulation and aggressiveness. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 800-820.

Lalwani, A. K., Shrum, L. J., & Chiu, C. (2009). Motivated response styles: The role of cultural values, regulatory focus, and self-consciousness in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 870-882.

Langens, T. A. (2007). Regulatory focus and illusion of control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 226-237.

Latimer, A. E., Rivers, S. E., Rench, T. A., Katulak, N. A., Hicks, A., Hodorowski, J. K., et al. (2008). A field experiment testing the utility of regulatory fit messages for promoting physical activity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 826-832.

Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 205-218.

Leonardelli, G. J., Lakin, J. L., & Arkin, R. M. (2007). A regulatory focus model of self-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 1002-1009.

Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, C. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1999). Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1135-1145.

Liberman, N., Molden, D. C., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Promotion and prevention focus on alternative hypotheses: Implications for attributional functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 5-18.

Markman, K. D., Lindberg, M. J., Kray, L. J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2007). Implications of counterfactual structure for creative generation and analytic problem solving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 312-324.

Molden, D. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Categorization under uncertainty: Resolving vagueness and ambiguity with eager versus vigilant strategies. Social Cognition, 22, 248-277.

Molden, D. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2008a). How preferences for eager versus vigilant judgment strategies affect self-serving conclusions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1219-1228.

Molden, D. C., Lee, A. Y., & Higgins, E. T. (2008b). Motivations for promotion and prevention. In J. Shah & W. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 169-187). New York: Guilford Press.

Moss, S. A. (2009). Cultivating the regulatory focus of followers to amplify their sensitivity to transformational leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15, 241-259.

Moss, S. A., Ritossa, D. & Ng, S. (2006). The effect of employee regulatory focus and extraversion on the prevalence and consequence of leadership behaviors: The role of emotional intelligence. Journal of Individual Differences, 27, 93-107.

Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1220-1233.

Novak, T. P., & Hoffman, D. L. (2009). The fit of thinking style and situation: New measures of situation-specific experiential and rational cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 56-72.

Ouschan, L., Boldero, J. M., Kashima, Y., Wakimoto, R., & Kashima, E. S. (2007). The regulatory focus strategies scale (RFSS): A measure of individuals differences in the endorsement of regulatory strategies. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 243-257.

Pennington, G. L., & Roese, N. J. (2003). Regulatory focus and temporal distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 563-576.

Pham, M. T., & Avnet, T. (2008). Contingent reliance on the affect heuristic as a function of regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 267-278.

Roney, C. J., Higgins, E. T., & Shah, J. Y. (1995). Goals and framing: How outcome focus influences motivation and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1151-1160.

Rowe, C., Harris, J. M., & Roberts, S.C. (2005). Sporting contests: Seeing red? Putting sportswear in context. Nature, 437, E10.

Santelli, A. G., Struthers, W. C., & Eaton, J. (2009). Fit to forgive: Exploring the interaction between regulatory focus, repetance, and forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 381-394.

Schmidt, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2007). What to do? The effects of discrepancies, incentives, and time on dynamic goal prioritization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 928-941.

Scott, L. O., & Hara, M. W. (1993). Self-discrepancies in clinically anxious and depressed university students. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 282-287.

Seibt, B., & Forster, J. (2004). Stereotype threat and performance: How self-stereotypes influence processing by inducing regulatory foci. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 38-56.

Setchell, J. M., & Wickings, E.J. (2005). Dominance, status signals and coloration in male mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx). Ethology, 111, 25-50.

Shah, J., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Expectancy- value effects: Regulatory focus as determinant of magnitude and direction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,447-458.

Shah, J., Higgins, E. T., & Friedman, R. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74, 285-293.

Smith, J. L., Wagaman, J., & Handley, I. M. (2009). Keeping it dull or making it fun: Task variation as a function of promotion versus prevention focus. Motivation & Emotion, 33, 150-160.

Spiegel, S. Grant-Pillow?, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2003). How regulatory fit enhances motivational strength during goal pursuit. European Journal of Social Psychology,34, 39-54.

Strauman, T. J. (1989). Self-discrepancies in clinical depression and social phobia: Cognitive structures that underlie emotional disorders? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 14-22.

Tangney, J. P., Niedenthal, P. M., Covert, M. V. & Barlow, D. H. (1998). Are shame and guilt related to distinct self-discrepancies? A test of Higgins (1987) Hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 256-268.

Trawalter, S., & Richeson, J. R. (2006). Regulatory focus and executive function after interracial interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 406-412.

Vaughn, L. A., Baumann, J., & Klemann, C. (2008). Openness to experience and regulatory focus: Evidence of motivation from fit. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 886-894.

Vaughn, L. A., Hesse, S. J., Petkova, Z., & Trudeau, L. (2009). "This story is right on": The impact of regulatory fit on narrative engagement and persuasion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 447-456.

Vaughn, L. A., Malik, J., Schwartz, S., Petkova, Z., & Trudeau, L. (2006). Regulatory fit as input for stop rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 601-611.

Vaughn, L. A., O'Rourke, T., Schwartz, S., Malik, J., Petkova, Z., & Trudeau, L. (2006). When two wrongs can make a right: Regulatory nonfit, bias, and correction of judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 654-661.

Vorauer, J. D., Gagnon, A., & Sasaki, S. J. (2009). Salient intergroup ideology and intergroup interaction. Psychological Science, 20, 838-845.

Wan, E. W., Hong, J., & Sternthal, B. (2009). The effect of regulatory orientation and decision strategy on brand judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 1026-1038.

Werth, L., & Foerster, J. (2007). How regulatory focus influences consumer behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 33-51.

Zhang, Y., & Mittal, V. (2007). The attractiveness of enriched and impoverished options: Culture, self-construal, and regulatory focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 588-598.

Created by Dr Simon Moss on 18/10/2008

Free Personality Tests : Relationships - Personality - Beliefs - Wellbeing - Attitudes - Behaviour - Cognitive Abilities