Regulatory engagement theory [Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review, 113, proposes that value is a motivational force of attraction to or repulsion from something, and that strength of engagement contributes to value intensity independent of hedonic and other sources of value direction. This paper reviews different sources of engagement strength, including dealing with challenges by opposing interfering forces and overcoming personal resistance, preparing for something that is likely to happen, and using "fit" or "proper" means of goal pursuit. We present evidence that each of these sources of engagement strength can intensify the value of something, and we show how stronger engagement can not only make something positive more positive but also make something negative more negative. We also discuss how these effects of stronger engagement on the value of something else are independent of actors' own personal experiences during goal pursuit. We then broaden regulatory engagement theory by describing the nature of these personal experiences from different sources of engagement strength-distinct positive experiences (e.g., feeling "pleasure" vs. feeling "right") and distinct negative experiences (e.g., feeling "tension" vs. feeling "defiance")-and consider the science and art of combining them with engagement strength for maximal persuasion and influence.

How can researchers and practitioners use regulatory fit theory to increase the effectiveness of their attempts to change attitudes and behavior? In this article, we extract from the literature a set of basic processes by which fit can influence persuasion and describe different methods for inducing fit. Regulatory fit can influence persuasion by: (i) making message recipients feel right during message reception; (ii) increasing recipients' strength of engagement with the message, which contributes to processing fluency; and (iii) influencing elaboration likelihood. Integral methods induce fit within the persuasion situation (as with framing of message arguments, source delivery style, and decision means), whereas incidental methods induce fit independent of the persuasion situation. We discuss common difficulties researchers may encounter with these techniques, and clarify existing confusions about regulatory fit and regulatory focus theory. Throughout, we highlight important questions that must be addressed to attain a complete understanding of regulatory fit.

Self-control is critical for achievement and well-being. However, people's capacity for selfcontrol is limited and becomes depleted through use. One prominent explanation for this depletion is that self-control consumes energy in the form of carbohydrate metabolization and further suggests that ingesting carbohydrates improves self-control. Some evidence has supported this energy model, but given the broad implications of the model for efforts to improve self-control, the present research reevaluated the role of carbohydrates in selfcontrol processes. Four experiments demonstrated that (a) under carefully standardized conditions using precise measurements, exerting self-control did not reduce blood glucose; (b) rinsing one's mouth with, but not ingesting, carbohydrate solutions immediately bolstered self-control and prevented depletion; and (c) carbohydrate rinsing did not itself increase blood glucose. These findings challenge metabolic explanations for the role of carbohydrates in self-control depletion and suggest an alternate motivational model for these and other previously observed effects of carbohydrates on self-control (150 words).

Four studies demonstrate the importance of self-regulatory mechanisms for understanding risk-seeking behavior under loss. Findings suggest that risk seeking becomes a motivational necessity under 3 conditions: (a) when an individual is in a state of loss; (b) when the individual is in a prevention-focused regulatory state (E. T. Higgins, 1997); and (c) when the risky option alone offers the possibility of eliminating loss. In situations involving loss, prevention motivation but not promotion motivation (whether measured or manipulated) was uniquely associated with behaviors that served the motivation to maintain the status quo. When the risky option offered the sole possibility of returning to the status quo, prevention motivation predicted increased risk seeking. However, when a more conservative option was available that also offered the possibility to return to the status quo, prevention motivation predicted risk aversion. When neither option offered the possibility to return to the status quo, prevention motivation was not associated with risky choice. The authors discuss the benefits of complementing existing accounts of risky decision making under loss with regulatory focus motivational mechanisms.

No abstract

One of the challenges of effective goal pursuit is being able to flexibly adapt to changing situations and demands. The current studies investigate whether individuals exhibit effective metamotivation-successful management of one's motivational states-in creating fit between an optimal motivational orientation and specific task demands (e.g., inducing a promotion focus, as opposed to prevention focus, in preparation for an eager brainstorming task). Using regulatory focus theory as a framework, 5 studies provide evidence that although North American individuals exhibit some metamotivational awareness of task-motivation fit in the realm of regulatory focus, they may also have competing beliefs that promotion motivation is generally better, regardless of task type. Given this tension, having metamotivational awareness of taskmotivation fit did not always lead to successful behavioral enactment (Studies 3-5). We discuss connections to metacognition and implications for the role of flexibility in self-regulation.

No abstract

No abstract