Distinguishing Levels of Approach and Avoidance: An Analysis Using Regulatory Focus Theory

Scholer, Abigail A.; Higgins, E. Tory

doi:10.4324/9780203888148.ch29

Cited by 96 publications

(182 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

176

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, prevention focus reflects a preference for addressing security needs (approaching safety, avoiding danger) through the use of vigilant strategies, which can be accomplished by either avoiding losses or approaching non-losses. Prior work has established that regulatory focus is orthogonal to approach/avoidance goals (Haws et al, 2010;Scholer & Higgins, 2008). In other words, the current results are silent on the relationship between avoidance goal motivation and boredom, but do suggest that vigilance in the pursuit of security goals (i.e., a prevention focus) correlates negatively with a perceived lack of external stimulation.…”

Section: Boredom Proneness Factors Are Differentially Associated Withcontrasting

confidence: 38%

“…Given that boredom proneness has been associated with behavioral inhibition system sensitivity (Mercer-Lynn, Hunter, & Eastwood, 2013;Mercer-Lynn, Bar, & Eastwood, 2014), it is important to distinguish this relationship from the current findings. Specifically, prevention motivation should not be confused with avoidance behavior and is not synonymous with BIS (Haws, Dholakia, & Bearden, 2010;Mooradian, Herbst, & Matzler, 2008;Scholer & Higgins, 2008). The BIS underlies sensitivity to cues of punishment (both lack of reward and withdrawal of safety) and can be seen as an underlying avoidance motivation.…”

Section: Boredom Proneness Factors Are Differentially Associated Withmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A self-regulatory approach to understanding boredom proneness

Struk

Scholer

Danckert

2015

Cognition and Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Boredom Proneness Factors Are Differentially Associated Withcontrasting

confidence: 38%

Section: Boredom Proneness Factors Are Differentially Associated Withmentioning

confidence: 99%

A self-regulatory approach to understanding boredom proneness

Struk

Scholer

Danckert

2015

Cognition and Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Furthermore, prior research has shown that the promotion and prevention primes employed in this study are uniquely and reliably associated with differences in the use of promotion and prevention language, but not in differences in the use of positive and negative words (Scholer et al, 2010). In both priming conditions, participants are writing about desired end-states (ideals versus oughts, respectively); the content of these goals is orthogonal to regulatory focus and to whether participants are currently succeeding or failing at those goals (Scholer & Higgins, 2008). In addition, there is nothing inherent to the primes that should differentially provoke reminders of success or failure for the target goals.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Inflating and deflating the self: Sustaining motivational concerns through self-evaluation

Scholer

Ozaki

Higgins

2014

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ways in which individuals think and feel about themselves play a significant role in guiding behavior across many domains in life. The current studies investigate how individuals may shift the positivity of self-evaluations in order to sustain their chronic or momentary motivational concerns. Specifically, we propose that more positive self-evaluations support eagerness that sustains promotion-focused concerns with advancement, whereas less positive self-evaluations support vigilance that sustains prevention-focused concerns with safety. The current studies provide evidence that self-evaluation inflation is associated with promotion concerns whereas self-evaluation deflation is associated with prevention concerns, whether regulatory focus is situationally manipulated (Studies 1, 2b, and 3) or measured as a chronic individual difference (Study 2a). Following regulatory focus primes, individuals in a promotion focus showed relatively greater accessibility of positive versus negative self-knowledge compared to individuals in a prevention focus (Study 1). In an ongoing performance situation, participants in a promotion focus reported higher self-esteem than participants in a prevention focus (Studies 2a and 2b). Finally, individuals in a promotion focus persisted longer on an anagram task when given an opportunity to focus on their strengths versus weaknesses, which was not the case for individuals in a prevention focus (Study 3). Across studies, the predicted interactions were consistently obtained, although sometimes the effects were stronger for promotion or prevention motivation. We discuss implications for existing models of the motives underlying self-

show abstract

“…1 As a descriptive endeavor, the framework outlines the different ways that a message can be framed, drawing on approaches that distinguish among levels of a motivational hierarchy (see, e.g., Scholer & Higgins, 2008). Second, the framework serves as a predictive tool, describing when one framing will be more effective than another.…”

Section: A Self-regulatory Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

A self-regulatory framework for message framing

Cesario

Corker

Jelinek

2013

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

121

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After several decades of research on message framing, there is still no clear and consistent answer to the question of when emphasizing positive or negative outcomes in a persuasive message will be most effective. Whereas early framing research considered the type of recommended behavior (health-affirming vs. illness-detection) to be the determining factor, more recent research has looked to individual differences to answer this question. In this paper, we incorporate both approaches under a single framework. The framework describes the multiple self-regulatory levels at which a message can be framed and predicts when framing at each level will be most effective. Two central predictions were confirmed across four studies: (1) messages describing the pleasures of adhering to the recommended behavior are most effective for recipients in a promotion focus (who are concerned with meeting growth needs), whereas messages describing the pains of not adhering are most effective for recipients in a prevention focus (who are concerned with meeting safety needs), and (2) the content of an advocacy message is essential, as different topics induce different regulatory orientations. By showing that different message content can induce a promotion or prevention focus, past findings and theories can be accommodated within the proposed framework, and a single set of self-regulatory principles can be used to understand message framing.Keywords: message framing, gain/loss framing, regulatory focus, social influence, health (Skymall, 2009). At some level, it is clear that both advertisements are using the same approach to persuade potential buyers: "If you use our product, an outcome you want will be yours." At another level, however, it is equally apparent that the advertisements feel quite different from one another. Whereas the LaserComb can lift the weight of your miserable existence, the Laser Orb will make possible the joy of running your fingers through a thick head of hair once again.When will describing an advocated behavior in different ways influence message effectiveness? Beyond helping advertisers sell expensive and no doubt powerful hair growth products, this question of message framing has important theoretical implications. By message framing, we refer specifically to framing the outcomes of an advocated behavior in terms of either the benefits afforded by adopting the recommendation or the costs associated with failing to adopt it (i.e., what is often called "gain/loss" framing). Consistent with the theoretical and practical importance of this topic, research on message framing has been a fixture of the persuasion literature for over three decades. In a highly influential paper, Rothman and Salovey (1997) advocated prospect theory as framework for predicting when different frames would be most effective as a function of the behavior itself (i.e., whether the behavior had certain or uncertain outcomes; see also Rothman, Martino, Bedell, Detweiler, & Salovey, 1999). More recently, the focus has been on ident...

show abstract

Distinguishing Levels of Approach and Avoidance: An Analysis Using Regulatory Focus Theory

Cited by 96 publications

References 0 publications

A self-regulatory approach to understanding boredom proneness

A self-regulatory approach to understanding boredom proneness

Inflating and deflating the self: Sustaining motivational concerns through self-evaluation

A self-regulatory framework for message framing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About