E. Tory Higgins

Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory Focus as A Motivational Principle

Publisher Summary The hedonic principle that people approach pleasure and avoid pain has been the basic motivational principle throughout the history of psychology. This principle underlies motivational models across all levels of analysis in psychology from the biological to social. However, it is noted that the hedonic principle is very basic and is limited as an explanatory variable. Almost any area of motivation can be discussed in terms of the hedonic principle. This chapter describes two different ways in which the hedonic principle operates—namely, one with a promotion focus and other with a prevention focus. These different ways of regulating pleasure and pain, called “regulatory focus,” have a major impact on peoples feelings, thoughts, and actions that is independent of the hedonic principle per se. The chapter also presents some background information about another regulatory variable, called the “regulatory reference.” A self-regulatory system with a positive reference value essentially has a desired end state as the reference point.

Making a good decision: Value from fit.

The classic answer to what makes a decision good concerns outcomes. A good decision has high outcome benefits (it is worthwhile) and low outcome costs (it is worth it). I propose that, independent of outcomes or value from worth, people experience a regulatory fit when they use goal pursuit means that fit their regulatory orientation, and this regulatory fit increases the value of what they are doing. The following postulates of this value from fit proposal are examined: (a) People will be more inclined toward goal means that have higher regulatory fit, (b) peoples motivation during goal pursuit will be stronger when regulatory fit is higher, (c) peoples (prospective) feelings about a choice they might make will be more positive for a desirable choice and more negative for an undesirable choice when regulatory fit is higher, (d) peoples (retrospective) evaluations of past decisions or goal pursuits will be more positive when regulatory fit was higher, and (e) people will assign higher value to an object that was chosen with higher regulatory fit. Studies testing each of these postulates support the value-from-fit proposal. How value from fit can enhance or diminish the value of goal pursuits and the quality of life itself is discussed.

Emotional Responses to Goal Attainment: Strength of Regulatory Focus as Moderator

Goals with a promotion focus versus a prevention focus are distinguished. Chronic ideal goals (hopes and aspirations) have a promotion focus, whereas ought goals (duties and responsibilities) have a prevention focus. The hypothesis that emotional responses to goal attainment vary as a function of promotion versus prevention goal strength (conceptualized as goal accessibility) was tested in correlational studies relating chronic goal attainment (self-congruencies or self-discrepancies) to emotional frequency and intensity (Studies 1-3) and in an experimental study relating immediate goal attainment (i.e., success or failure) to emotional intensity (Study 4). All studies found that goal attainment yielded greater cheerfulness-dejection responses when promotion focus was stronger and greater quiescence-agitation responses when prevention focus was stronger.

Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change.

Two situations involving choice between stability and change were examined: task substitution, which deals with choosing between resuming an interrupted activity and doing a substitute activity, and endowment, which deals with choosing between a possessed object and an alternative object. Regulatory focus theory (E. T. Higgins, 1997, 1998) predicts that a promotion focus will be associated with openness to change, whereas a prevention focus will be associated with a preference for stability. Five studies confirmed this prediction with both situational induction of and chronic personality differences in regulatory focus. In Studies 1 and 2, individuals in a prevention focus were more inclined than individuals in a promotion focus to resume an interrupted task rather than do a substitute task. In Studies 3-5, individuals in a prevention focus, but not individuals in a promotion focus, exhibited a reluctance to exchange currently possessed objects (i.e., endowment) or previously possessed objects.

Transfer of value from fit.

People experience regulatory fit when they pursue a goal in a manner that sustains their regulatory orientation (E. T. Higgins, 2000). Five studies tested whether the value experienced from regulatory fit can transfer to a subsequent evaluation of an object. In Studies 1 and 2, participants gave the same coffee mug a higher price if they had chosen it with a strategy that fit their orientation (eager strategy/promotion; vigilant strategy/prevention) than a strategy that did not fit. Studies 3-5 investigated possible mechanisms underlying this effect. Value transfer was independent of positive mood, perceived effectiveness (instrumentality), and perceived efficiency (ease), and occurred for an object that w as independent of the fit process itself. The findings supported a value confusion account of transfer.

Value from Hedonic Experience and Engagement.

Recognizing that value involves experiencing pleasure or pain is critical to understanding the psychology of value. But hedonic experience is not enough. I propose that it is also necessary to recognize that strength of engagement can contribute to experienced value through its contribution to the experience of motivational force--an experience of the intensity of the force of attraction to or repulsion from the value target. The subjective pleasure/pain properties of a value target influence strength of engagement, but factors separate from the hedonic properties of the value target also influence engagement strength and thus contribute to the experience of attraction or repulsion. These additional sources of engagement strength include opposition to interfering forces, overcoming personal resistance, using the right or proper means of goal pursuit, and regulatory fit between the orientation and manner of goal pursuit. Implications of the contribution of engagement strength to value are discussed for judgment and decision making, persuasion, and emotional experiences.

Self-Discrepancy Theory: What Patterns of Self-Beliefs Cause People to Suffer?

Publisher Summary The basic premise of self-discrepancy theory is that it is the relations between and among different types of self-beliefs or self-state representations that produce emotional vulnerabilities rather than the particular content or nature of the actual self or of any other individual self-belief. To distinguish among different types of self-state representations, self-discrepancy theory proposes two psychological parameters: the domains of the self and the standpoints on the self. The chapter presents the reports of associations between particular types of discrepant self-beliefs and particular kinds of discomfort that are generally consistent with the predictions of self-discrepancy theory. However, the effect of the magnitude of different types of self-discrepancies on the intensity of different kinds of discomfort has been tested. For the vulnerability associated with a particular self-belief pattern to eventuate in an episode—that is, an occurrence of suffering—the self-belief pattern must be activated. The chapter explains the various factors that can increase the likelihood that a stored construct will be activated. One source of activation is the applicability of the construct to a stimulus event. According to self-discrepancy theory, the interrelations among attributes constituting an actual/ownself-guide discrepancy represent, as a whole, a negative psychological situation that functions as a construct. Thus, the negative psychological situation represented by such a discrepancy and the emotional-motivational state associated with it are more likely to be activated when the negative psychological situation is applicable to a stimulus event than when it is nonapplicable.

Value From Regulatory Fit

Where does value come from? I propose a new answer to this classic question. People experience regulatory fit when the manner of their engagement in an activity sustains their goal orientation or interests regarding that activity. When there is fit, people engage more strongly in what they are doing and “feel right” about it. Fit influences the strength of value experiences—how good or how bad one feels about something—independently of the pleasure and pain experiences that are associated with outcomes. It uniquely contributes to peoples experience of the value of things. Fit is shown to influence judgments and decision making, attitude and behavior change, and task performance.

Nature of priming effects on categorization.

Alternative models for explaining priming effects on categorization are described, and their predictions concerning the relative advantage of frequent versus recent priming as a function of interstimulus delay are contrasted. Subjects were asked to categorize an ambiguous stimulus description that could be characterized in either a positive or a negative manner. Prior to its presentation, subjects were unobtrusively exposed to both positive and negative primes related to the description. For half of the subjects, the positive primes appeared more frequently, but the negative prime appeared most recently; for the remaining subjects, the negative primes appeared more frequently, but the positive prime appeared most recently. Between the final prime and stimulus presentation, there was a delay of either 15 s or 120 s, Subjects tended to categorize the stimulus description in terms of the recently primed construct after the brief interstimulus delay, but they tended to categorize the description in terms of the frequently primed construct after the long interstimulus delay. These results are consistent with a proposed synapse model of priming effects. Other possible models that make different assumptions about the level of activation, the decay function, and their ability to account for the findings are discussed.

How Self-Regulation Creates Distinct Values: The Case of Promotion and Prevention Decision Making

I propose that different relations among basic components of self-regulation produce distinct types of decision value: (a) Outcome value is produced when the consequences of a decision are relevant to the regulatory orientation of the decision maker, (b) value from fit is produced when goal pursuit means suit the regulatory orientation of the decision maker, and (c) value from proper means is produced when goal pursuit means are in agreement with established rules and normative principles. I use the regulatory focus distinction between promotion focus concerns with aspirations and accomplishments and prevention focus concerns with safety and responsibilities (Higgins, 1997, 1998) to illustrate outcome value and value from fit. Justification of a decision is used to illustrate value from proper means. I propose that decision makers are unlikely to distinguish among their experiences of these 3 types of value, and thus value from fit and value from proper means can be transferred to outcome value. I present evidence of such value transfer and consider its implications for value to the customer. I also reconsider sunk costs and the endowment effect in light of there being value beyond outcome value.