Regulatory Nonfit Research Articles

When the going gets tough, the committed get going: Preexisting goal commitment determines the consequences of experiencing regulatory nonfit.

A body of empirical research shows that pursuing goals via means that do not fit (vs. do fit) one's regulatory mode creates resistance that disrupts motivation. However, other empirical research shows that resistance sometimes motivates people to work harder toward their goals, suggesting that regulatory nonfit (vs. fit) might be more motivating at times. The current research tests this possibility while also demonstrating how an integral dimension of a goal-a person's preexisting commitment to it-determines when regulatory nonfit (vs. fit) is more motivating. Three initial studies provide evidence that, among people low in preexisting commitment, regulatory nonfit (vs. fit) demotivates people: goal value and intentions to pursue the goal become lower with nonfit (vs. fit). However, among people high in preexisting commitment, regulatory nonfit (vs. fit) motivates people: goal value and intentions to pursue the goal become higher with nonfit (vs. fit). Three additional studies document an experimental causal chain providing evidence for underlying mechanisms: regulatory nonfit (vs. fit) creates an experience of resistance that people need to interpret, and preexisting commitment shifts whether people interpret resistance as a negative or positive motivational signal. Finally, two studies demonstrate how naturally occurring variance in preexisting goal commitment moderates the effect of experiencing regulatory nonfit (vs. fit) on people's subsequent goal-directed behavior. By identifying an integral dimension of goals that can reverse the motivational effects of regulatory nonfit, the present research connects with other work documenting the importance of mindsets about resistance, and suggests novel implications for motivating desired behaviors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

How online service recovery reviews influence behavioral intentions in the hospitality context: Regulatory focus and loss aversion perspectives

In recent years, the research on online service recovery reviews (OSRRs) has attracted significant attention. However, few studies have focused on prospective consumers’ behavioral intentions after reading OSRRs on social media in terms of asymmetric functions and nonlinear approaches. This study proposes a research model to elucidate the relationships among regulatory focus, OSRRs, corporate reputation, service guarantees, and behavioral intentions. A between-subjects experimental design and restaurant-related scenarios were employed to investigate the proposed hypotheses. The findings suggest that consumers with different types of regulatory focus have different priorities when evaluating OSRRs, which exerts asymmetric effects on satisfaction levels because consumers are more concerned with reducing losses than increasing gains. The results also reveal that although good corporate reputation and service guarantees separately moderate the relationship between regulatory fit/nonfit and behavioral intentions, for consumers with regulatory nonfit, the combined effects of these factors produce a stronger moderating effect on behavioral intentions than that of only presenting it alone.

Supplemental Material for When the Going Gets Tough, the Committed Get Going: Preexisting Goal Commitment Determines the Consequences of Experiencing Regulatory Nonfit

Supplemental Material for When the Going Gets Tough, the Committed Get Going: Preexisting Goal Commitment Determines the Consequences of Experiencing Regulatory Nonfit

Regulatory fit/nonfit and in-game advertising effectiveness on children

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to see whether children’ regulatory fit/nonfit can moderate the implicit influence of in-game advertising.Design/methodology/approachAn experiment was done with 418 children (aged 7–11) from three primary schools in a middle-size city in China that voluntarily took part in the experiment. Children were randomly allocated to the following four conditions: playing a game without any brands (a control group), playing the same game and exposed to a subtle in-game advertising (a test control group), playing the same branded game with regulatory fit (regulatory fit group) and playing the same branded game with regulatory nonfit (regulatory nonfit group).FindingsThe results first suggest exposure to in-game advertising makes children more likely to choose it afterward, despite most of them are not aware being exposed to it. The results further suggest children’s regulatory fit does not further increase children’s choice of the focal brand, suggesting linking the focal brand to fun and engaging game experiences is sufficient to influence their brand choice. However, children’s regulatory nonfit attenuates the implicit influence of in-game advertising.Originality/valueBy focusing on children’s game strategy, this research complements the extant literature that only focuses on advertising features and/or game character to document the implicit influence of in-game advertising. In addition, by focusing on regulatory fit/nonfit, this paper provides initial evidence how contextual factors such as children’s game strategy may help them cope with advertising influence built on affect transfer.

Using regulatory fit in cost reduction announcements

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine whether and how the usage of regulatory fit in cost reduction announcements affects employees’ willingness to engage in the cost reduction program (CRP).Design/methodology/approachBased on the regulatory fit theory, a scenario-based experiment was conducted (n= 517) to investigate the effect of promotion- or prevention-oriented framing of the CRP on the acceptance and the motivation to actively contribute to the CRP using multiple ANOVAs.FindingsThe study results point out that the framing of the cost announcement messages should use feelings or emotions and ensure gains for promotion-focused employees to decrease the negative effects of regulatory nonfit. However, in the case of prevention-focused employees, facts and reasons should be used in combination with an assertion of nonlosses in the announcement message to prevent regulatory nonfit.Research limitations/implicationsThis research deepens the understanding on the decision-influencing role of managerial cost announcements on employee motivation and the impact of different regulatory orientations. By this, the authors enhance the current understanding of how employees can effectively be integrated into CRPs and expand previous research on how regulatory fit theory can be used by organizations dealing with negative events.Practical implicationsThe study findings offer several opportunities and implications for managers engaged in corporate communication. More specifically, the study findings provide helpful guidelines for organizations to align their cost reduction announcement with the regulatory focus of their employees to reach regulatory fit and thus enhance employee willingness to participate in the CRP.Originality/valueDespite the increasing attention of regulatory focus and regulatory fit theory and to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first attempt to search for combined effects of emotions and facts versus potential gains and ensuring nonlosses, which both were shown to influence outcomes predicted by regulatory fit.

Regulatory focus and investment advisers' recommending behavior

PurposeThis study examines the effect of a regulatory-focused prime (i.e. a brochure with a picture and message) on the recommending behavior of investment advisers in the context of an investment decision.Design/methodology/approachThree experiments were conducted with 468 participants, mostly from the financial services industry. Study 1 examined the direct effect of a regulatory-focused prime on an investment adviser's recommending behavior, whereas Study 2 examined the moderating role of regulatory fit on such behavior. Study 3 validated the findings.FindingsThe results provide evidence that a message using visual and textual cues based on a promotion and prevention regulatory focus may trigger a preference in an investment adviser's product recommendation. A promotion (prevention)-focused framed message will trigger the recommendation of an investment plan with a higher but riskier (safe and stable) potential return. However, when the same prime is presented with details of a performance incentive scheme, the effect of the prime is reduced when there is a regulatory nonfit between the prime and the message relating to the performance incentive scheme.Practical implicationsThe findings highlight the importance of understanding how regulatory-focused stimuli may subconsciously influence the recommendation of investment advisers as heuristics used in decision-making, thereby influencing their clients' investment decisions.Originality/valuePast studies have focused on how regulatory-focused visual and message cues influence consumer decision-making. This study provides empirical evidence regarding the influence of regulatory-focused prime on an investment adviser's behavior when providing investment advice.

Does that sound right? The effects of regulatory fit and nonfit headline frames on motivated information processing

ABSTRACTFeeling right or wrong about a message frame can be used as a heuristic to infer one’s motivational state and determine the depth of information processing. Two experiments examined how individuals’ regulatory fit/nonfit response to news headlines interact with their motivation to influence information elaboration and information seeking. Under high motivations, regulatory fit confirmed their state and increased time spent on the news, elaboration, and information seeking. However, under low motivation, regulatory fit decreased elaboration and information seeking. Instead, under low motivational states, nonfit headlines increased elaboration and information seeking. The study fills a gap in the cognitive mechanisms of framing effect by demonstrating that there exists a fast and intuitive framing effect through affective responses such as regulatory fit-ness.

Expectancy, Value, Promotion, and Prevention: An Integrative Account of Regulatory Fit vs. Non-fit with Student Satisfaction in Communicating with Teachers

In this study, we report on findings regarding the role that key communication constructs have in mediating the relationships among domain-specific expectancy and value beliefs and general motivation orientations. The results show that when student motivation has a promotion focus, feeling satisfied in communicating with the teacher in a course is a catalyst for heightened levels of expectancy of success and utility value beliefs regarding the course. In contrast, when student motivation has a prevention focus, this orientation is unrelated to expectancy and value beliefs. These findings have pivotal implications for advancing theory development and pedagogical practice.

When impediments make you jump rather than stumble: Regulatory nonfit, implementation intentions, and goal attainment

This paper examines the relative effectiveness of forming implementation intentions (i.e., making specific plans regarding how to go about achieving a goal) for increasing goal attainment under regulatory fit vs. nonfit. We discuss and empirically test the proposition that regulatory nonfit increases the effectiveness of implementation intentions. Extant research contrasts goals of differing difficulty (e.g., buying a textbook vs. finding an apartment) in order to test the relative effectiveness of implementation intentions. In contrast, the present study focuses on identifying the change in implementation intention effectiveness for the same goal (i.e., collecting and turning in receipts for a reward) under conditions of fit vs. nonfit. We empirically demonstrate that when faced with the same goal, people who experience regulatory nonfit perceive the task to be more difficult to complete than people who experience regulatory fit. In turn, when the task is perceived as being more difficult, implementation intentions prove more effective to enhance goal attainment. Our study provides insight into the interaction between regulatory fit and implementation intentions and subsequent effects on goal attainment.

The effect of incidental experiences of regulatory fit on trust

Two experiments provide support for the hypothesis that when people assess how much they trust another person, feelings of rightness from an initial, brief experience of regulatory fit (consistency between prevention or promotion regulatory focus of goals and strategic means) can suggest the other person is trustworthy, relative to feelings of wrongness from regulatory nonfit. This regulatory-fit effect on trust was stronger for acquaintances than for individuals participants knew well (Experiment 1) and was eliminated by drawing participants' attention to how right the earlier, trust judgment-irrelevant event made them feel (Experiment 2). Implications are discussed for regulatory-fit theory, possible applications to applied settings and to other populations, and possible effects of other types of regulatory fit.

Exploring the complexities of value creation: The role of engagement strength

Regulatory engagement theory (Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review, 113, 439–460; Higgins, E.T. & Scholer, A.A. (2009). Engaging the consumer: The science and art of the value creation process. Journal of Consumer Psychology) proposes that engagement strength plays a critical role in the creation of value intensity. We discuss the ways in which engagement, in this model, can be distinguished from arousal, motivation to act, and experienced difficulty. We distinguish between the mechanisms and predictions made by regulatory engagement theory versus cognitive dissonance theory and a goal systems approach. We also describe the complexities and conditions under which some sources of engagement strength (e.g., regulatory fit) may relate to value creation. For instance, while regulatory fit has more typically been associated with increased engagement strength, regulatory nonfit may also sometimes increase engagement by serving as an obstacle to be overcome. We review existing evidence and highlight open questions related to the role of engagement strength in creating value.

Engaging the consumer: The opposing forces of regulatory nonfit versus fit

Higgins and Scholer (Higgins, E. T., and Scholer, A. A. (2009). Engaging the consumer: The science and art of the value creation process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 100-114) propose that while opposing forces do not create value, value is created when people engage in the act of countering these forces. To the extent that feeling wrong from regulatory nonfit may be perceived as an opposing force, their hypothesis can be extended to understanding regulatory nonfit effects. More specifically, while regulatory nonfit does not create value, the experience of regulatory nonfit may signal that something “feels wrong”. Consumers may be prompted to counter this feeling wrong experience when they are involved in the decision making process, and this intervention in turn leads to value creation.

“This story is right on”: The impact of regulatory fit on narrative engagement and persuasion

AbstractWhen people read a story, feelings of rightness from regulatory fit (consistency between regulatory state and strategic means) could suggest that the story is “right on” relative to feelings of wrongness from regulatory nonfit. Under these conditions, individuals who are experiencing feelings of rightness should engage more with the narrative and be more persuaded by its implicit messages. Results from two experiments supported these hypotheses. Participants in Experiment 1 were more mentally engaged (transported) by the story when they experienced regulatory fit. We replicated this effect in Experiment 2 and extended it to endorsement of story‐consistent beliefs, an indicator of persuasion via narratives. Additionally, we found that drawing participants' attention to an earlier event as a source of feelings of rightness eliminated the regulatory fit effects on transportation and persuasion, suggesting attribution of feelings of regulatory fit/nonfit to the plausibility of the narrative world. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Be Fit and Be Strong: Mastering Self-Regulation through Regulatory Fit

This research examines the effect of regulatory fit on self-regulation. People experience regulatory fit when their strategy of goal pursuit fits (vs. conflicts) with their regulatory focus. Four experiments provide support for the hypothesis that regulatory fit improves whereas regulatory nonfit impairs self-regulatory performance. These results were obtained across multiple self-regulatory tasks that included a handgrip exercise to test physical endurance (experiment 1), a choice between a healthy and a decadent snack to test willpower in the face of temptation (experiments 2 and 3), and a health-related compliance decision to demonstrate self-regulation (experiment 4). Intensified motivation seems to be the mechanism underlying the regulatory fit effect.

Regulatory fit as input for stop rules.

Three experiments show that the motivational effects of regulatory fit (consistency between regulatory state and strategic means) are context dependent. With no explicit decision rule about when to stop (Experiment 1) or an explicit enjoyment stop rule (Experiments 2 and 3), participants exerted more effort on tasks when experiencing regulatory fit than when experiencing regulatory nonfit. With an explicit sufficiency stop rule (Experiments 2 and 3), participants exerted less effort when experiencing regulatory fit than when experiencing regulatory nonfit. The interactive effect of regulatory fit and stop rules can be explained by misattribution of rightness feelings from regulatory fit; the effect was eliminated by drawing participants' attention to an earlier event as a source of rightness feelings (Experiments 1 and 3).

When two wrongs can make a right: Regulatory nonfit, bias, and correction of judgments

We propose that when people consider whether their judgments are accurate enough, feelings of wrongness from regulatory nonfit (inconsistency between regulatory state and strategic means) can suggest that the answer is no and enhance correction of judgments relative to feelings of rightness from regulatory fit. Results from two experiments supported that hypothesis. When we activated an accuracy motive, participants who experienced regulatory nonfit provided judgments more consistent with correction for bias when they experienced regulatory nonfit than when they experienced regulatory fit (Experiment 1). Drawing participants’ attention to an earlier event as a source of rightness feelings eliminated the effect of regulatory fit on apparent correction of judgments (Experiment 2), suggesting attribution of regulatory fit/nonfit feelings to the accuracy of those judgments.