Regulatory Focus and Perceived Self-Value as Predictors of Work Engagement

This research examines the influence of consumer regulatory focus on preference for product bundles. Product bundling is a type of consumer promotion in which multiple products are combined as a single comprehensive package, commonly accompanying with price discounts. This research focuses on the non-variety bundle that includes multiple units of the same item and the variety bundle that is composed of different products that vary in terms of ingredients, taste, or flavor, and examines the influence of consumer regulatory focus on preference for non-variety and variety bundles. It is hypothesized that between the two types of bundles, variety (vs. non-variety) bundle is preferred for consumers with higher promotion (vs. prevention) focus. This prediction is based on the theory of regulatory focus that people with promotion-focus tend to seek diversification, whereas people with prevention-focus tend to prefer safety in their purchase. The results of two empirical studies show that regulatory focus has a significant influence on preference for product bundles. Study 1 tested the influence of consumers’ chronic regulatory focus on choice between variety bundle and non-variety bundle options. The results showed that the regulatory focus of the participants was significantly related to the choice of variety (vs. non-variety) bundle. Consumers with higher promotion (vs. prevention) focused were more likely to select the variety (vs. non-variety) bundle. Study 2 re-examined the influence of regulatory focus on preference for bundle by examining its influence on the attitude toward the variety and non-variety bundle products. The results of Study 2 showed that the attitude toward the variety bundle was positively related to the participants’ chronic promotion-focus, whereas the attitude toward the non-variety bundle was positively related to the participants’ chronic prevention-focus. Consequently, the results of two empirical studies present strong evidence that evaluation of the variety bundle is positively related to consumers’ promotion focus, whereas evaluation of the non-variety bundle was positively related to prevention focus. The result was significant in bundle choice (Study 1) and attitude toward bundles (Study 2). The paper also present theoretical contributions, managerial implications, limitations, and directions for future research. This research contribute to the related research domains by presenting that consumer regulatory focus is one of consumer characteristics has a strong influence on preference for bundle types. This research also contribute to the sales promotion research by testing the factors that influence consumer preference for variety and non-variety bundles. In addition, this research presents important practical implications. For instance, this research highlights the importance of identifying the right target consumers when promoting bundled products. A firm should target its marketing effort toward the consumers with promotion focus when promoting variety bundle and toward the consumers with prevention focus when promoting non-variety bundles. This paper also presents directions for future research.

Transformational leadership and work engagement in public organizations: promotion focus and public service motivation, how and when the effect occurs

For successful innovations, identifying and facilitating goal-orientations of the workforce is of vital importance in the present day competitive organizational scenario. This study deepens the understanding that innovative work behavior (IWB) of an employee is facilitated by both promotion and prevention foci. Drawing insights from the regulatory focus (RF) theory we have developed and tested a model involving the motivational dynamics of work engagement (WE) in the relationship between regulatory focus (RF) and IWB. Structural equation modeling analysis of responses from 603 information technology (IT) employees in India confirmed the partial mediation effect of WE between promotion focus and IWB. A full mediation effect of WE between prevention focus and IWB was also established. The data model exhibited a good fit. The results help in establishing the role of WE in contributing to IWB of employees who are either promotion or prevention focused. Scope for future research and implications of the results are discussed.

Built on regulatory focus theory, this article develops a research model proposing the relationship between management controls (outcome, activity and capability), sales employees’ prevention and promotion focus and their behavioral responses (feedback seeking from different sources and relationship investment). The model also suggests that salesperson perceived organizational fit (P-O fit) contributes by influencing the situational self-regulatory mechanism based on regulatory fit theory. To analyze the data, a structural equation model procedure using LISREL 8.5 was employed. To access the potential common method bias, the MV” marker method was applied using a scale theoretically unrelated to at least one scale in the analysis as the MV marker. The results showed that the greater the salesperson’s perceived activity control system, the greater the extent of employee prevention focus. The findings also showed that output control and capability control system are positively related to the promotion focus of salespeople. Salespeople’s prevention focus relates negatively to the relational investment and positively to organization feedback seeking. The results indicate that salespeople who have promotion focus exhibit the predicted positive influence on their relationship investment. A significant contribution of this research framework is suggesting salesperson regulatory focus as a mediator and its’ effects on different types of sales-related behaviors. The author suggests that the motivational orientations of salespeople play key roles in shaping feedback seeking behaviors from different sources; broadly, that employees with a promotion focus will be more sensitive to customers’ feedback, and employees with a prevention focus will seek more feedback from the organization. Furthermore, salespeople with a promotion focus will invest more resources to build relationships with customers than salespeople with a prevention focus. This research also explains the moderating role of person-organization fit on the effect of salespeople’s regulatory focus and behavioral responses based on regulatory fit theory

Regulatory focus theory proposes that decision making and goal pursuit occur via either a promotion focus (a sensitivity to gains and a desire for advancement and growth) or a prevention focus (a sensitivity to losses and a desire for stability and security). Recent theorizing in strategic management research suggests that there may be important firm-level outcomes influenced by the regulatory focus of top executives. We expand research on regulatory focus theory by testing whether chief executive officers’ (CEOs’) regulatory focus impacts the proclivity of firms to undertake acquisitions. Furthermore, regulatory focus theory suggests that the effects of people’s promotion and prevention foci are magnified when their regulatory focus is congruent with salient situational characteristics, a phenomenon known as regulatory fit. As a test of this idea, we demonstrate how the effects of CEO promotion and prevention foci are differentially impacted by one such characteristic, namely incentive compensation. Our findings indicate that CEO regulatory focus impacts both the quantity and scale of acquisitions undertaken by a firm. We also find some support for our arguments that these relationships are moderated by stock option pay.

PurposeThe contractors’ consummate performance behavior is the key to achieving the project’s value added, but existing research has paid little attention to how to stimulate this behavior. Based on contractual functions and regulatory focus theory, this study examined how the allocation of contractual functions and the contractors’ regulatory focus affect their consummate performance behaviors. At the same time, considering the important position of guanxi between owner and contractor, this study also examined the moderating effect of guanxi on the relationship between the contractors’ regulatory focus and consummate performance behaviors.Design/methodology/approachThis study first constructs a conceptual model that incorporates contractual functions (control, coordination and adaptation), contractors’ regulatory focus (promotion focus, prevention focus) and the effect of guanxi on contractors’ consummate performance behavior. Next, partial least squares structural equation modeling is used to analyze the survey data of 297 Chinese construction project professionals.FindingsThis study has the following four findings. First, contractual control has a negative effect on contractors’ promotion focus but a positive effect on their prevention focus. Contractual coordination and adaptation have a positive effect on contractors’ promotion focus but a negative effect on their prevention focus. Second, contractors’ promotion focus has a positive effect on their consummate performance behaviors, while their prevention focus has a negative effect on such behaviors. Third, both of contractors’ promotion focus and prevention focus play a mediating role in the relationship between contractual functions and their consummate performance behaviors. Finally, guanxi plays a moderating role in the relationship between contractors’ regulatory focus and their consummate performance behaviors.Originality/valueTheoretically, this study enriches the research on the antecedents of contractors’ regulatory focus and extends the literature on contractual and guanxi management in construction projects. In practice, this study can provide guidance for improving contractors’ consummate performance behaviors and reasonable allocation of contractual functions.

The study examines CEO communication in times of strategic change based on regulatory focus theory that describes individuals’ promotion and prevention focus. While promotion-focused individuals strive for maximizing gains, prevention-focused individuals strive for minimizing losses. As CEO communication is especially relevant during strategic changes, when fundamental processes and beliefs are affected and employees need sense-making and meaning-making contributions, the paper analyzes the regulatory focus of CEO letters to shareholders in annual reports and links it to the intensity of change that the organization is currently executing. The paper first develops existing analysis tools further and examines regulatory focus of CEOs as well as the type of change qualitatively from annual reports. Secondly, the paper ties the intensity of change to the CEO regulatory focus quantitatively. Results indicate a persistence of both promotion as well as prevention elements in CEO letters to shareholders. While controlling for contextual variables of the organization, the findings furthermore show a positive association between a more promotion-focused CEO letter to shareholders and the intensity of the organization’s change. Keywords: CEO Communication, Strategic Change, Regulatory Focus Theory, Promotion Focus, Prevention Focus

Exploring the Effect of a Promotion and Prevention Regulatory Focus on Subjective Responses to Vaginal Sensations in a Laboratory Research Design

Regulatory focus theory posits the existence of two systems of self-regulation underlying human motivation: promotion focus, which is concerned with aspirations and accomplishments, and prevention focus, which is concerned with obligations and responsibilities. It has been proposed that regulatory focus theory may help to explain learners' variable responses to feedback, predicting that positive feedback is motivating under promotion focus, whereas negative feedback is motivating under prevention focus. We aimed to explore this link between regulatory focus theory and response to feedback using data collected in a naturalistic setting. In a constructivist grounded theory study, we interviewed 22 early-career academic doctors about experiences they perceived as influential in their learning. Although feedback emerged as important, responses to feedback were highly variable. To better understand how feedback becomes (or fails to become) influential, we used the theoretical framework of regulatory focus to re-examine all descriptions of experiences of receiving and responding to feedback. Feedback could be influential or non-influential, regardless of its sign (positive or negative). In circumstances in which the individual's regulatory focus was readily determined, such as in choosing a career (promotion) or preparing for a high-stakes examination (prevention), the apparent influence of feedback was consistent with the prediction of regulatory focus theory. However, we encountered many challenges in applying regulatory focus theory to real feedback scenarios, including the frequent presence of a mixed regulatory focus, the potential for regulatory focus to change over time, and the competing influences of other factors, such as the perceived credibility of the source or content of the feedback. Regulatory focus theory offers a useful, if limited, construct for exploring learners' responses to feedback in the clinical setting. The insights and predictions it offers must be considered in light of the motivational complexity of clinical learning tasks and of other factors influencing the impact of feedback.

The health psychology literature has paid little attention to individuals' intention to vaccinate earlier. Building on regulatory focus theory, which proposes two distinct self-regulatory foci: promotion and prevention focus (Higgins, 1997), the present study tests whether, how, and why regulatory focus contributes to the intention to vaccinate earlier (IVE) and whether IVE predicts actual behavior. This study used a longitudinal design with data collected at two-time points (3.5 months apart). At Time 1, 487 unvaccinated participants completed a survey assessing regulatory focus, ideal and ought reason for IVE (i.e., hopes/wishes and felt obligation/pressure regarding earlier vaccination, respectively), and IVE through leftover vaccines-vaccines that become available due to last-minute vaccination appointment cancellations. At Time 2, 364 participants reported on the attempts they made to get a leftover vaccine, whether they were vaccinated, and if so, the vaccination type (general vs. leftover vaccine), along with the date of vaccination. A promotion focus was associated with IVE via ideal reason (β = .141, 95% confidence interval, CI [.085, .198]), whereas a prevention focus was associated with IVE via ought reason (β = .031, 95% CI [.012, .057]). Furthermore, both the promotion focus (β = .029, 95% CI [.016, .050]) and prevention focus paths (β = .006, 95% CI [.001, .015]) extended to vaccinating via leftover vaccines. The present study illuminates how regulatory focus, especially promotion focus, can be a predictor of earlier vaccination. Our findings suggest that promotion-focused messages highlighting desirable outcomes of vaccination may help encourage earlier vaccination. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Purpose – The present study aims to investigate the motivational correlates of two types of heavy work investment: workaholism and work engagement. Building on Higgins's regulatory focus theory, the paper examines which work goals workaholic and engaged employees pursue and which strategies they use to achieve these goals. Furthermore, the paper examines how workaholism and work engagement relate to three different work outcomes: job satisfaction, turnover intention, and job performance. Design/methodology/approach – Data from a cross-sectional survey study among 680 Dutch employees in the banking industry were analysed using structural equation modeling. Findings – The analyses revealed that workaholism was primarily and positively associated with having a prevention focus, whereas work engagement was primarily and positively associated with having a promotion focus. Furthermore, workaholism was negatively related to job satisfaction and job performance, and positively related to turnover intention, whereas work engagement was positively associated with job satisfaction and job performance, and negatively associated with turnover intention. Both forms of heavy work investment almost fully mediated the associations between the regulatory foci and the three work outcomes. Research limitations/implications – The conclusions rely on self-report data, a relatively homogeneous sample, and a cross-sectional design. This may have biased our findings to some degree and does not allow inferring causal conclusions. Practical implications – The findings show that workaholic and engaged employees have different work goals and use different strategies to pursue these goals. Moreover, both forms of heavy work investment are oppositely related to work outcomes. Organizations may develop policies to reduce workaholism and to promote work engagement by influencing their employees' regulatory foci. Originality/value – The present study demonstrates that two types of heavy work investment can be distinguished, each with a unique motivational make-up and a unique pattern of work outcomes.

Does top management team (TMT) regulatory focus impact firm environmental misconduct (FEM)? If so, how and when? Integrating upper echelons theory with regulatory focus theory, we examine how regulatory focus, as one of the most direct and important psychological characteristics of TMT, impacts FEM. Additionally, we explore how this relationship is moderated by external and internal environmental dynamism from the perspective of regulatory fit. Based on a sample of Chinese listed firms from 2011 to 2017, we conduct computer-aided content analysis to quantify TMT regulatory focus. Results show that TMTs high in promotion focus are more likely to engage in FEM, whereas TMTs high in prevention focus are less likely to misconduct. Moreover, external environmental dynamism strengthens (weakens) the positive (negative) relationship between promotion (prevention) focus and FEM. Internal environmental dynamism strengthens the positive relationship between TMT promotion focus and FEM. By examining this motivation-based psychological characteristic of TMT, the findings suggest the need to consider TMT regulatory focus when analyzing the antecedents of FEM.

Little research has examined the determinants of consumer involvement in nutrition. This study seeks to address this gap by examining the effect of regulatory focus on consumer involvement in nutrition. The fundamental motivational differences that the regulatory focus theory discusses (Higgins 1997) can explain consumer behavior in the domain of health and nutrition. It is proposed that promotion focus is positively related to consumers’ involvement in nutrition and prevention focus is not related to consumers’ involvement in nutrition. In addition, it is proposed that gender moderates the effect of promotional focus on involvement in nutrition such that the effect is stronger among males, compared to females. The hypotheses were tested in a national level study conducted in Taiwan. Data were collected from 1,125 adults aged 20–64. Nutrition involvement was measured using the five item scale proposed by Chandon and Wansink (2007). Promotion and prevention focus were measured using the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ) (Higgins et al. 2001). Hypotheses were tested by regressing promotion, prevention and the product of promotion and gender on nutrition involvement. The model supports the hypotheses (Adj. R squared = .03; Promotion − beta = .17; p = .00; Prevention − beta = −.03; p = .33; Gender × Promotion − beta = −.08; p = .01; Gender was coded as females = 2, males = 1). The study, thus, found that promotion focus leads to nutritional involvement and that prevention focus is not related to nutritional involvement. Gender moderates the effect of promotion focus on nutritional involvement. The results of this study points to the potential applicability of the regulatory focus theory to the study of a range of issues that impacts marketing and public policy.

The Framing of Information Nudge Affects Students' Anticipated Effort: A Large-Scale, Randomized Survey Experiment

Facing trends of environmental regulations and environmental consciousness, firms need to engage in green innovation. Particularly important for family firms, green innovation helps firms to achieve sustainable competitive advantage, fostering long-term firm survival. Yet, we still lack theoretical evidence on how motivational characteristics of the top management team (TMT) (i.e., regulatory focus) relate to green innovation. Drawing on upper echelons and regulatory focus theory, we examine the relationship between TMT regulatory focus and green innovation. We further posit that family involvement and technological turbulence moderate this relationship. Analyzing a longitudinal panel dataset with 910 firm-year observations of 116 S&P 500 family firms between 2005 and 2018, we find that TMT promotion and prevention focus are positively associated with green innovation. Family involvement positively moderates the relationship between TMT promotion focus and green innovation but does not moderate the relationship between TMT prevention focus and green innovation. In addition, technological turbulence positively (negatively) moderates the relationship between TMT promotion (prevention) focus and green innovation. This study expands research on upper echelons and regulatory focus theory by showing that psychological characteristics of TMTs (i.e., regulatory focus) determine firm-level outcomes (i.e., green innovation) in family firms, linking regulatory focus theory to the TMT.