Lorraine Chen Idson

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.

Promotion and prevention focus on alternative hypotheses: Implications for attributional functions.

Five studies examined hypothesis generation and discounting in causal attribution from the perspective of regulatory focus theory (E. T. Higgins, 1997, 1998). According to this theory, a promotion focus is associated with generating more and simultaneously endorsing multiple hypotheses, whereas a prevention focus is associated with generating only a few hypotheses and selecting 1 hypothesis from a given set. Five studies confirmed these predictions for both situationally induced and chronic individual differences in regulatory focus. In Studies 1, 2, and 3, individuals in a promotion focus generated more hypotheses than individuals in a prevention focus. In Studies 4 and 5, individuals in a promotion focus discounted explanations in light of alternatives less than individuals in a prevention focus. Study 5 also found that in a promotion focus, person explanations were generalized across situations less than in a prevention focus.

Imagining How You’d Feel: The Role of Motivational Experiences from Regulatory Fit

The authors propose that how people imagine they would feel about making a choice is affected not only by the outcome’s anticipated pleasure or pain but also by regulatory fit. Regulatory fit occurs when people pursue a goal in a manner that sustains their regulatory state and it intensifies the motivation to pursue that goal. Considering positive outcomes fits a promotion focus more than a prevention focus, whereas the reverse is true for negative outcomes. Thus, it is proposed that anticipating a desirable choice is more intensely positive for promotion than prevention, and anticipating an undesirable choice is more intensely negative for prevention than promotion. The results of three studies support these predictions. Studies 2 and 3 also demonstrate that motivational intensity underlies the stronger responses. Thus, to understand fully what it means to feel good or bad about a prospective choice, motivational experiences from regulatory fit must be considered.

The personality of familiar and significant people: the lay perceiver as a social-cognitive theorist

When are perceivers guided more by implicit social-cognitive theories of personality and when more by trait theories? As perceivers become more familiar with a person they infer relatively more psychological mediating variables (e.g., construals, goals) that underlie the persons behavior and relatively fewer broad, uncontextualized traits such as aggressive or friendly (Study 1). The effects of familiarity are moderated by the importance of the target to perceivers (Study 2). Specifically, perceivers make relatively more inferences using mediating variables and fewer inferences with traits as the target becomes more familiar, if and only if the target plays an important role in their lives. The findings indicate that psychological mediating variables play a significant role in lay perceptions of people and specify conditions in which perceivers function like implicit social-cognitive theorists, namely, when the perceived is familiar and important to the perceiver.

How current feedback and chronic effectiveness influence motivation : everything to gain versus everything to lose

We found that the effects on subsequent motivation of success and failure feedback are moderated by the extent to which individuals have been previously successful in promotion self- regulation (achieving their ideals) and prevention self- regulation (meeting their oughts). Specifically, we found that the more individuals are ideal congruent, the more their performance increases over time following success than failure feedback, whereas the more individuals are ought congruent, the more their performance increases over time following failure than success feedback. These findings have implications for research on the effects of feedback on motivation, as well as for the motivational significance of the expressions, ‘everything to gain’ and ‘everything to lose’. Copyright