Abstract
Regulatory focus theory uses two different motivation focus systems—promotional and preventive—to describe how individuals approach positive goals and avoid negative goals. Moreover, the regulatory focus can manifest as chronic personality characteristics and can be situationally induced by tasks or the environment. The current study employed eye-tracking methodology to investigate how individuals who differ in their chronic regulatory focus (promotional vs. preventive) process information (Experiment 1) and whether an induced experimental situation could modulate features of their information processing (Experiment 2). Both experiments used a 3 × 3 grid information-processing task, containing eight information cells and a fixation cell; half the information cells were characterized by attribute-based information, and the other half by alternative-based information. We asked the subjects to view the grid based on their personal preferences and choose one of the virtual products presented in this grid to “purchase” by the end of each trial. Results of Experiment 1 show that promotional individuals do not exhibit a clear preference between the two types of information, whereas preventive individuals tend to fixate longer on the alternative-based information. In Experiment 2, we induced the situational regulatory focus via experimental tasks before the information-processing task. The results demonstrate that the behavioral motivation is significantly enhanced, thereby increasing the depth of the preferred mode of information processing, when the chronic regulatory focus matches the situational focus. In contrast, individuals process information more thoroughly, using both processing modes, in the non-fit condition, i.e., when the focuses do not match.
Highlights
The hedonic principle proposes that people characteristically approach pleasure and avoid pain
These results showed that individuals with different chronic regulatory orientations manifested distinctive processing features during information coding before making a decision; this difference was displayed from an early stage of information processing to the late integration stage
Chronic-preventers had a greater frequency of regression-in [M = 1.90, SD = 0.12; F(1,76) = 27.34, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.26] and a higher total viewing time ratio [M = 0.13, SD = 0.01; F(1,76) = 6.65, p = 0.01, η2 = 0.08] for the alternative-based cell than for the attribute-based cell (M = 1.26, SD = 0.41 and M = 0.11, SD = 0.01, respectively). These results suggest that chronic preventers distinctly prefer alternative-based information
Summary
The hedonic principle proposes that people characteristically approach pleasure and avoid pain. Regulatory focus theory explains how individuals succeed in these goals. In this theory, Higgins (1997) distinguishes two motivational systems that regulate individual goaldirected behaviors: promotional and preventive. Regulatory Focus and Information Processing Eye-Tracking higher regulatory fit; individuals with promotional focus (“promoters”) incline more toward eagerness means, whereas preventive individuals (“preventers”) prefer vigilance means because individuals have stronger motivation under fitting circumstances. We wondered whether there was a fit or compatibility between chronic and situational regulatory focus and how the fit of these two regulatory focuses states affect the individual’s information processing in decision making. We first explored the information processing of individuals with differing chronic regulatory focuses when they were making decisions. Our framework was regulatory focus theory, and we obtained our data using the eye-tracking method
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
