Differences In Regulatory Focus Research Articles

Intrinsic functional connectivity of motor and heteromodal association cortex predicts individual differences in regulatory focus.

Regulatory focus theory (RFT) describes two cognitive-motivational systems for goal pursuit-the promotion and prevention systems-important for self-regulation and previously implicated in vulnerability to psychopathology. According to RFT, the promotion system is engaged in attaining ideal goals (e.g. hopes and dreams), whereas the prevention system is associated with accomplishing ought goals (e.g. duties and obligations). Prior task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have mostly explored the mapping of these two systems onto the activity of a priori brain regions supporting motivation and executive control in both healthy and depressed adults. However, complex behavioral processes such as those guided by individual differences in regulatory focus are likely supported by widely distributed patterns of intrinsic functional connectivity. We used data-driven connectome-based predictive modeling to identify patterns of distributed whole-brain intrinsic network connectivity associated with individual differences in promotion and prevention system orientation in 1,307 young university volunteers. Our analyses produced a network model predictive of prevention but not promotion orientation, specifically the subjective experience of successful goal pursuit using prevention strategies. The predictive model of prevention success was highlighted by decreased intrinsic functional connectivity of both heteromodal association cortices in the parietal and limbic networks and the primary motor cortex. We discuss these findings in the context of strategic inaction, which drives individuals with a strong dispositional prevention orientation to inhibit their behavioral tendencies in order to shield the self from potential losses, thus maintaining the safety of the status quo but also leading to trade-offs in goal pursuit success.

Focusing on Safety or Pleasure Determine Condom Use Intentions Differently Depending on Condom Availability and STI Risk

Objective Regulatory Focus Theory suggests that goal pursuit is driven by two separate and fundamental motives. Being more focused on prevention motivates people to enact safer behaviors and avoid negative outcomes (e.g., to prevent diseases), whereas being more focused on promotion motivates people to take risks and pursue pleasurable experiences (e.g., condomless sex). Methods A quasi-experimental study (N = 476) examined if differences in regulatory focus (i.e., prevention vs. promotion) determined condom use intentions with a prospective casual partner, depending on condom availability delay and STI risk cues. Results Participants focused on prevention (vs. promotion) were less likely to consider having condomless sex across condom availability delays conditions. However, STI risk cues changed condom use intentions. When STI risk was lower, condom use intentions decreased as condom availability delays increased (particularly for participants focused on promotion). When STI risk was higher, condom use intentions were stronger and consistent across condom availability delays (particularly for participants focused on prevention). Conclusions These findings highlight the importance of distinct sexual motives when examining sexual health practices.

Examining the moderating role of regulatory fit on stereotype threat among Ugandan adolescents

ABSTRACT Prior research in Western contexts has tested the hypothesis that stereotype threat induces a prevention focus and that in contexts where both prevention focus and stereotype threat are simultaneously activated, members of stereotyped groups experience a performance boost due to the fit between one’s goal orientation and the task demands (i.e. regulatory fit or stereotype fit). The present Study tested this hypothesis with high school students in Uganda, East Africa. Study findings revealed that in this cultural context where high-stakes testing fosters a predominantly promotion-focused testing culture, individual differences in regulatory focus interacted with the broader cultural, regulatory focus test culture to impact student performance.

Different Forms of Creativity? Regulatory Focus & Cognitive Processes on Novelty and Usefulness

This paper examines how individual differences in regulatory focus (promotion and prevention focus and their combination) influence individuals to generate creative solutions that vary in their degree of novelty and usefulness. In an experimental design using a product development task (n = 227), we disentangled the effect of individual regulatory focus on the cognitive processes and creativity facets. Individuals with a high promotion focus produced creative prototypes that were more novel. Flexibility was a partial mediator of this relationship with a positive effect on novelty, while fluency had a negative mediating effect. Although prevention focus did not have an effect on either novelty or usefulness, it had a conditional effect on the relationship between promotion focus and novelty. The positive effect of promotion focus became insignificant for both low and high levels of prevention focus. Overall, our findings suggest that the impact of promotion focus on creativity is mainly on the novelty side of creativity, while prevention focus in itself has no relationship with either creativity facet. We discuss implications of the findings for future research on creativity in workplace settings.

Vague Language in Online Medical Consultation

Online medical consultation has become increasingly popular, while little is known about what features of such service can impact users’ emotions and behaviours. This study looked into the language features of online text-based medical consultation. Specifically, the aim of this paper was to examine the effects of vague language (i.e., non-specific, imprecise language) on health-related uncertainty, and its affective and behavioural consequences, while considering individual differences in regulatory focus. A between-subject (vague language vs. precise language vs. control condition) web-based experiment was conducted (N = 249), where participants in the experimental groups read virtual doctor-patient conversations where the doctor used either vague or precise language. Results showed that vague language induced more uncertainty than precise language (p = .010); such uncertainty was appraised as a danger (r = .18, p = .004) but not an opportunity (r = .01, p = .932), and subsequently led to negative emotions (r = .45, p < .001). No effects were found on behavioural outcomes, and there was no moderation from regulatory focus. The results suggest that online healthcare providers should refrain from using vague language in communication with patients to avoid eliciting uncertainty and subsequent negative feelings. Future research is needed to further examine the behavioural effects of uncertainty and explore factors that could foster the appraisal of opportunity.

Managing loyalty program communications in the digital era: Does culture matter?

This research addresses an important, yet under-researched, issue concerning the real-time management of loyalty programs (LPs) in the digital era: how to leverage culture-specific communications to motivate LP members to pursue and redeem program rewards. Two experimental studies in different LP contexts provide corroborating evidence that to-date (to-go) progress feedback is more effective in motivating consumers from individualist (collectivist) cultures to pursue LP rewards. Moreover, process evidence suggests that these culture-specific progress framing effects are driven by individual differences in regulatory focus and realized through perceived reward attainability. Overall, this paper contributes to the LP and goal pursuit literatures by verifying that communication framing is an effective means to strengthen reward pursuit motivation.

Regulatory Focus and Substance Use in Adolescents: Protective Effects of Prevention Orientation

Background: Substance use is a major risk factor for negative health and functioning outcomes among middle schoolers. The purpose of this study was to assess whether individual differences in the adolescents’ goal orientation are associated with elevated or attenuated risk for substance use. Regulatory focus theory stipulates that individuals vary in their strength of orientation toward promotion goals (“making good things happen”) and prevention goals (“keeping bad things from happening”). Objectives: We sought to examine the association between individual differences in regulatory focus and adolescents’ reports of their own and their friends’ substance use. Methods: Participants were 241 seventh grade students who completed measures of regulatory focus (promotion and prevention orientation), self-reported substance use, perceived substance use habits of peers, and demographics. Logistic regression models were used to examine adjusted odds of lifetime tobacco use, alcohol use, and marijuana use for both participants’ own use and their reports of friends’ use. Results: Prevention orientation was associated with lower odds of all self-reported lifetime substance use outcomes (tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana). Prevention orientation was also associated with lower odds of reporting all types of substance use among friends. Promotion orientation was not associated with any self-reported substance use outcome, and was only associated with higher odds of reporting lifetime alcohol use among friends. Conclusions: These findings underscore the importance of regulatory focus as it relates to adolescent substance use. Future research may seek to incorporate regulatory focus within interventions intended to prevent or delay initiation of substance use in adolescents.

Culture and Patterns of Reciprocity: The Role of Exchange Type, Regulatory Focus, and Emotions.

Reciprocity is a fundamental mechanism for sustained social relationships. Escalation-based theories suggest that reciprocity intensifies over time. In contrast, equity-based theories propose that people reciprocate behaviors in kind. We reconcile these conflicting perspectives by examining social exchanges across different cultural contexts. Using three complementary experiments, we investigate when, how, and why individuals in East Asian settings and those in North American settings differentially reciprocate positive versus negative behaviors over time. Study 1 demonstrated that in positively framed exchanges (i.e., giving) Americans escalated their reciprocity, but Singaporeans reciprocated in kind. However, in negatively framed exchanges (i.e., taking), Singaporeans escalated their reciprocity, but Americans reciprocated in kind. Study 2 replicated the results using Hong Kongers and showed that cultural differences in regulatory focus were associated with specific emotions (i.e., anxiety and happiness), which then escalated reciprocity. To establish causality, Study 3 manipulated regulatory focus within one culture and replicated the pattern of results.

Gain +1 or Avoid \u22121: Validation of the German Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ)

BackgroundThe Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ) assesses regulatory promotion and prevention focus, which represent orientations towards gains or losses. The main objective of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the newly translated German version.MethodsA sample of 1024 participants answered the questionnaire and several related instruments. We used an online survey tool to collect this data. Data analysis was conducted using methods of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in SPSS and AMOS.ResultsThe RFQ displayed acceptable reliability, while its correlations with other, related psychological constructs indicated good validity. Factor analysis showed good fit for a two-dimensional model. Tests of measurement invariance revealed clear evidence for metric invariance while scalar invariance remained uncertain. Differences in regulatory focus based on sociodemographic characteristics are reported and discussed.ConclusionsOverall, the RFQ can be recommended for application in fields dealing with motivation and goal attainment in a broad sense.

Individual differences in regulatory focus predict neural response to reward

Individual differences in regulatory focus predict neural response to reward

Individual differences in regulatory focus predict neural response to reward

ABSTRACTAlthough goal pursuit is related to both functioning of the brain’s reward circuits and psychological factors, the literatures surrounding these concepts have often been separate. Here, we use the psychological construct of regulatory focus to investigate individual differences in neural response to reward. Regulatory focus theory proposes two motivational orientations for personal goal pursuit: (1) promotion, associated with sensitivity to potential gain, and (2) prevention, associated with sensitivity to potential loss. The monetary incentive delay task was used to manipulate reward circuit function, along with instructional framing corresponding to promotion and prevention in a within-subject design. We observed that the more promotion oriented an individual was, the lower their ventral striatum response to gain cues. Follow-up analyses revealed that greater promotion orientation was associated with decreased ventral striatum response even to no-value cues, suggesting that promotion orientation may be associated with relatively hypoactive reward system function. The findings are also likely to represent an interaction between the cognitive and motivational characteristics of the promotion system with the task demands. Prevention orientation did not correlate with ventral striatum response to gain cues, supporting the discriminant validity of regulatory focus theory. The results highlight a dynamic association between individual differences in self-regulation and reward system function.

Chinese are more loss averse than British

This research investigates how culture might influence loss aversion. Chinese were expected to be more loss averse than British because of cultural differences in regulatory focus. Study 1 reveals that compared with British participants, Chinese participants were less likely to give up gifts they had received in exchange for new gifts. In Study 2, Chinese and British participants imagined buying a computer which either had a high specification and a high price tag (high reference), or a basic specification and a low price tag (low reference). Participants were informed that the (reference) computer was unavailable, and they had to choose between two available computers, which were both cheaper and less powerful than the high reference computer, and more expensive and more powerful than the low reference computer. The results reveal that the difference in price tag between the two available computers had a bigger impact on Chinese buying decisions than on British buying decisions when it was viewed as a loss. Furthermore, both promotion focus and prevention focus mediated the influence of culture on buying decisions in the low reference condition. No cross‐cultural difference was found in the high reference condition.

‘To preserve unity while almost allowing for chaos’: Testing the aesthetic principle of unity-in-variety in product design

Unity-in-variety is considered to be one of the oldest-known universal principles of beauty. However, little empirical research exists on how unity and variety together influence aesthetic appreciation. In three studies we investigated how unity and variety predict the aesthetic appreciation of a range of product designs, and further assessed whether perceived visual complexity and individual differences in regulatory focus influence this relationship. Our findings reveal that both unity and variety, while suppressing each other's effect, positively affect aesthetic appreciation. Hence, product designs that exhibit an optimum balance between unity and variety are aesthetically preferred. Furthermore, the research reveals that unity is the dominant factor in this relationship and facilitates the appreciation of variety. We discuss several theoretical and practical implications resulting from these studies.

Self-regulation and protective health behaviour: How regulatory focus and anticipated regret are related to vaccination decisions

Objective: We examined how individual motivational orientations and anticipated regret are related to the protective health decision of vaccination behaviour.Design: The proposed relations were examined in a large-scale sample (N = 3168) and three medium-sized samples (N = 151, N = 194, N = 208). Questionnaires were applied to assess regulatory focus, anticipated regret and vaccination behaviour.Results: Increased prevention-focused self-regulation – which is represented by concerns about security-related goals, responsibilities and obligations – was related to a greater likelihood of vaccination. Prevention-focused individuals’ higher likelihood of getting vaccinated seems at least in part to be a consequence of anticipated regret for not vaccinating. Study 3 suggests that regulatory focus is less related to vaccination decisions when regret is increased by the decision-making context; that is, when information highlighting vaccination effectiveness and a low likelihood of adverse responses is provided.Conclusion: Prevention-focused self-regulation is related to a greater likelihood of engaging in health-protective behaviour. This can be explained by prevention-focused individuals’ greater tendency to anticipate regret about getting ill as a consequence of not adopting protective measures. If people perceive a protective measure such as a vaccination as highly effective, anticipated regret for not adopting it is generally increased, and individual differences in regulatory focus no longer predict the decision.

Regulatory focus and food choice motives. Prevention orientation associated with mood, convenience, and familiarity

The authors tested the robustness of the Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) with a U.S. sample and examined the relationship between individual differences in regulatory focus and everyday food choice motives. Although a popular measure in cross-culture research, the FCQ has seen limited use with U.S. samples, and its psychometric properties have not been tested in this population. American participants (n = 408) completed the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire and a measure of food choice motives. The data did not support the nine-factor FCQ structure. An ad hoc revised measure of food choice motives showed complete measurement invariance (loadings, intercepts, and residuals) across regulatory focus. Regarding everyday food choices, participants with a prevention focus placed greater importance on mood, convenience, and familiarity than participants with a promotion focus. There were no significant differences regarding the importance of health, environmental protection, impression management, natural content, price, and sensory appeal. Several food choice motives were positively correlated. Compared with the promotion-focused participants, the prevention-focused participants more strongly associated the importance of sensory appeal with the importance of natural content and the importance of price.

Genetic moderation of the association between regulatory focus and reward responsiveness: a proof-of-concept study

BackgroundRecent studies implicate individual differences in regulatory focus as contributing to self-regulatory dysfunction, particularly not responding to positive outcomes. How such individual differences emerge, however, is unclear. We conducted a proof-of-concept study to examine the moderating effects of genetically driven variation in dopamine signaling, a key modulator of neural reward circuits, on the association between regulatory focus and reward cue responsiveness.MethodHealthy Caucasians (N=59) completed a measure of chronic regulatory focus and a probabilistic reward task. A common functional genetic polymorphism impacting prefrontal dopamine signaling (COMT rs4680) was evaluated.ResultsResponse bias, the participants’ propensity to modulate behavior as a function of reward, was predicted by an interaction of regulatory focus and COMT genotype. Specifically, self-perceived success at achieving promotion goals predicted total response bias, but only for individuals with the COMT genotype (Val/Val) associated with relatively increased phasic dopamine signaling and cognitive flexibility.ConclusionsThe combination of success in promotion goal pursuit and Val/Val genotype appears to facilitate responding to reward opportunities in the environment. This study is among the first to integrate an assessment of self-regulatory style with an examination of genetic variability that underlies responsiveness to positive outcomes in goal pursuit.

What shall I be, what must I be: neural correlates of personal goal activation.

How is the brain engaged when people are thinking about their hopes, dreams, and obligations? Regulatory focus theory postulates two classes of personal goals and motivational systems for pursuing them. Ideal goals, such as hopes and aspirations, are pursued via the promotion system through “making good things happen.” Ought goals, such as obligations or responsibilities, are pursued via the prevention system through “keeping bad things from happening.” This study investigated the neural correlates of ideal and ought goal priming using an event-related fMRI design with rapid masked stimulus presentations. We exposed participants to their self-identified ideal and ought goals, yoked-control words and non-words. We also examined correlations between goal-related activation and measures of regulatory focus, behavioral activation/inhibition, and negative affect. Ideal priming led to activation in frontal and occipital regions as well as caudate and thalamus, whereas prevention goal priming was associated with activation in precuneus and posterior cingulate cortex. Individual differences in dysphoric/anxious affect and regulatory focus, but not differences in BAS/BIS strength, were predictive of differential activation in response to goal priming. The regions activated in response to ideal and ought goal priming broadly map onto the cortical midline network that has been shown to index processing of self-referential stimuli. Individual differences in regulatory focus and negative affect impact this network and appeared to influence the strength and accessibility of the promotion and prevention systems. The results support a fundamental distinction between promotion and prevention and extend our understanding of how personal goals influence behavior.

Regulatory focus influences perseveration and distractibility in task switching

In two experiments, we investigated the effect of regulatory focus (Higgins, Am Psychol, 52, 1280-1300, 1997) on people's maintenance and switching behavior. In the experimental tasks, participants were asked to react selectively to one category of stimuli while ignoring the other. After several practice trials, participants had to switch either to new stimuli which were paired with former target stimuli (i.e., in the perseveration condition), or switch to former distracter stimuli which were paired with new stimuli (i.e., in the learned irrelevance condition). Results from both experiments indicated that a promotion focus promoted switching to new stimuli in the perseveration condition, at the cost of poorer performance on switching to former distracters in the learned irrelevance condition. This pattern of results applied to both chronic individual differences in regulatory focus (Experiment 1), and regulatory focus temporarily manipulated in the laboratory (Experiment 2). It suggests that whereas a promotion focus indeed promotes cognitive flexibility, it also incurs a cost in terms of increased likelihood of being distracted.

Promotion Orientation Explains Why Future-Oriented People Exercise and Eat Healthy

The authors extended research linking individual differences in consideration of future consequences (CFC) with health behaviors by (a) testing whether individual differences in regulatory focus would mediate that link and (b) highlighting the value of a revised, two-factor CFC-14 scale with subscales assessing concern with future consequences (CFC-Future) and concern with immediate consequences (CFC-Immediate) proper. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the revised CFC-14 scale supported the presence of two highly reliable factors (CFC-Future and CFC-Immediate; αs from .80 to .84). Moreover, structural equation modeling showed that those high in CFC-Future engage in exercise and healthy eating because they adopt a promotion orientation. Future use of the two-factor CFC-14 scale is encouraged to shed additional light on how concern with future and concern with immediate consequences (proper) differentially impact the way people resolve a host of intertemporal dilemmas (e.g., health, financial, and environmental behavior).

Evidence for individual differences in regulatory focus in rats, Rattus norvegicus.

Regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997) builds on the classic approach-avoidance distinction by identifying two important approach orientations: the promotion focus (approaching gains and attainment) and the prevention focus (approaching nonlosses and safety). Though individual differences in regulatory focus have been widely studied in human psychology, it is unknown if such differences exist in other species. To explore this possibility, we designed a series of tests for laboratory rats, paralleling human regulatory focus research on risk taking. In home-cage tests, rats (N = 23) were given an opportunity to prevent a loss by burying a noxious novel object. In solitary tests in a novel enclosure, the same rats had the opportunity to pursue gains (food rewards) and/or safety (darkness). Rats demonstrated stable individual differences on both tests (p's < .001). Complementing the human research, duration of time spent with the noxious novel object was predicted by an individual's tendency to pursue safety (p < .01) and not by the tendency to pursue gains (p > .8). Some aspects of these results were compatible with alternative approaches, such as the bold-shy axis and "if-then" personality profiles (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Regulatory focus theory, however, was uniquely able to predict the overall pattern, which may be an indication that it could contribute to future research in animal personality, motivation, and welfare.