Regulatory focus theory distinguishes between two different value concerns: promotion concerns with advancement and growth, and prevention concerns with safety and security. Since its publication more than 20 years ago, regulatory focus theory has generated a substantial amount of research and it has been applied to numerous organizational contexts. We identified four main domains: decision making, messaging, people management (e.g., leadership, organizational development, wellness and employees’ productivity), and entrepreneurship. We selected significant findings in those domains based on individuals, teams, and organizations being motivated by promotion or prevention goals and on the consequences of the match between regulatory focus goal orientation and the manner in which the goal is pursued, as conceptualized by regulatory fit theory. We also highlighted whether the research was concerned with the individual or with a broader group within the organization (including the organization itself). We conclude by suggesting future avenues for research.

When people make decisions, they want the outcomes of their choice to be as positive as possible. But they also want the decision-making process itself to be conducted in the right way. Though this is often described as making decisions that are moral or ethical, it also includes making decisions that are appropriate-that are suitable and fitting. We focus on this latter, overlooked interpretation, and propose that making the right decision is about effectively establishing what is true and real. We discuss three factors that can lead people to experience their decision-making process as being right: (1) making a decision in the "right way"; (2) making a decision in a manner that "feels right" given the decision maker's current motivational orientation; and (3) making a decision based upon a "shared reality" with others. We review evidence that making the right decision in each of these ways intensifies the worth of a given chosen option.

We propose that abstraction is an interpersonal process and serves a social function. Research on shared reality shows that in communication, people raise their level of abstraction in order to create a common understanding with their communication partner, which can subsequently distort their mental representation of the object of communication. This work demonstrates that, beyond building accurate models, abstraction also functions to build accurate models but also to build socially shared models – to create a shared reality.

We propose that abstraction is an interpersonal process and serves a social function. Research on shared reality shows that in communication, people raise their level of abstraction in order to create a common understanding with their communication partner, which can subsequently distort their mental representation of the object of communication. This work demonstrates that, beyond building accurate models, abstraction also functions to build accurate models but also to build socially shared modelsto create a shared reality.

Our study explores how communicating with audiences who hold opposite opinions about a target person can lead to a biased recall of the target's behaviors depending on whom a shared reality is created with. By extending the standard “saying-is-believing” paradigm to the case of two audiences with opposite attitudes toward a target person, we found that communicators evaluatively tune their message to the attitude of each audience. Still, their later recall of the target's behavior is biased toward the audience's attitude only for the audience with whom they created a shared reality. Shared reality creation was manipulated by receiving feedback that, based on the communicator's message, an audience was either able (success) or unable (failure) to successfully identify the target person, with the former creating a shared reality. These results highlight the importance of shared reality creation for subsequent recall when communicating with multiple audiences on a topic.