Does personality provide unique explanations for behaviour? Personality as cross-person variability in general principles

Higgins, E. Tory

doi:10.1002/1099-0984(200009/10)14:5<391::aid-per394>3.0.co;2-6

Cited by 70 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of a comprehensive self-regulatory framework to understand framing effects allows for message content, message framing, and recipient effects to be understood by the same self-regulatory principles. This approach is consistent with other perspectives advocating shared principles, for instance, between person and situation variables (e.g., Higgins, 2000a;. Furthermore, the data presented make a case for the importance of distinguishing different types of framing that can occur in a single message.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

A self-regulatory framework for message framing

Cesario

Corker

Jelinek

2013

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

122

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

A self-regulatory framework for message framing

Cesario

Corker

Jelinek

2013

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

122

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, we examine whether the impact of regulatory fit, made salient situationally through the framing of LP reward types, manifests itself in actual exercise behavior in conjunction with two previously identified manifestations of value derived from fit (Higgins 2000): behavioral intentions and perceived value. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to distinguish between the frequency and intensity of actual behavior in relation to regulatory fit.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Service firms and customer loyalty programs: a regulatory fit perspective of reward preferences in a health club setting

Daryanto

Ruyter

Wetzels

et al. 2009

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we examine the impact of various configurations of regulatory fit on the attitudes, exercise intentions and actual behavior of members of a health club loyalty program. Regulatory fit is conceptualized as both the match between types of program rewards and how they are communicated, as well as the congruence between reward types and regulatory focus as a stable, individual disposition. In two experimental designs, non-point reward programs offering a short-term cash bonus were used. The results of Study 1 suggest that regulatory fit has a positive impact on perceived value, exercise intentions and exercise intensity, but not on visit frequency. Analysis of repeated behavioral measures further reveals that regulatory fit has a stronger impact on exercise intensity over time relative to nonfit. Study 2 also confirms the predictive power of regulatory fit over nonfit when conceptualized as the match between reward type and trait regulatory focus.

show abstract

“…Human behavior changes as a function of individual variables and factors relating both to stable features, such as personality traits and dispositions, and to contextual factors, such as current mood (Higgins, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%