This study tested whether cues associated with promotion and prevention regulatory foci influence creativity. The authors predicted that the "risky," explorative processing style elicited by promotion cues, relative to the risk-averse, perseverant processing style elicited by prevention cues, would facilitate creative thought. These predictions were supported by two experiments in which promotion cues bolstered both creative insight (Experiment 1) and creative generation (Experiment 2) relative to prevention cues. Experiments 3 and 4 provided evidence for the process account of these findings. suggesting that promotion cues, relative to prevention cues, produce a riskier response bias (Experiment 3) and bolster memory search for novel responses (Experiment 4). A final experiment provided evidence that individual differences in regulatory focus influence creative problem solving in a manner analogous to that of incidental promotion and prevention cues.

No abstract

Three studies tested the hypothesis that regulatory focus, both as a chronic person variable and as a manipulated situational variable, differentially affects the strength of participants' approach and avoidance strategic motivations as they get closer to the goal. In 2 studies, flexion and extension arm pressure were used as on-line measures of approach and avoidance intensity, respectively. As predicted, the approach gradient was steeper for participants with a promotion focus on aspirations and gains than for participants with a prevention focus on responsibilities and nonlosses, whereas the reverse was true for the avoidance gradient. In a third study, the same pattern of results was found on a persistence measure of motivational strength. Participants with a promotion focus worked longer on anagrams closer to the goal when they were approach means for goal attainment than when they were avoidance means, whereas the reverse was true for participants with a prevention focus.

No abstract