Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator.

Abstract

Goals with a promotion focus versus a prevention focus are distinguished. Chronic ideal goals (hopes and aspirations) have a promotion focus, whereas ought goals (duties and responsibilities) have a prevention focus. The hypothesis that emotional responses to goal attainment vary as a function of promotion versus prevention goal strength (conceptualized as goal accessibility) was tested in correlational studies relating chronic goal attainment (self-congruencies or self-discrepancies) to emotional frequency and intensity (Studies 1-3) and in an experimental study relating immediate goal attainment (i.e., success or failure) to emotional intensity (Study 4). All studies found that goal attainment yielded greater cheerfulness-dejection responses when promotion focus was stronger and greater quiescence-agitation responses when prevention focus was stronger.

The influence of approach and avoidance motor actions on food intake

“…With regard to affective pleasure and pain, successful attainment of nurturance-related goals within a promotion focus engenders cheerfulness-related affect, whereas failure within a promotion focus leads to dejection-related affect. In contrast, successful attainment of security-related goals within a prevention focus engenders quiescence-related affect, while failure within a prevention focus leads to agitationrelated affect (Higgins, Shah, & Friedman, 1997). Whereas the motivational orientation in a promotion focus, which is concerned with gains and non-gains, is eagerness, the motivational orientation in a prevention focus, which is concerned with losses and non losses, is vigilance (see for example, Förster, Higgins, & Taylor Bianco, in press).…”

Emotional transfer in goal systems

“…By contrast, attainment of prevention goals may induce feelings of relief and quiescence and their non-attainment feelings of anxiety and agitation. In support of these ideas, Higgins and his colleagues found that framing the same activity (i.e., solving anagrams) as means to a promotion or a prevention goal led to the predicted, qualitatively different, emotional experiences of joy and of quiescence, respectively, upon pursuing the goal through the activity (Higgins, Shah, & Friedman, 1997). We further predict that the transfer of affective qualities from promotion and prevention goals will be proportionate to the strength of association between the goals and the means pursued in order to attain them.…”

On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness.

“…Importantly, felt accountability is advanced as a psychological mechanism through which external societal constraints ultimately influences behavior (Propositions 3a,3b what a person believes is his or her responsibility to be, based either on prescriptions from close others or prescriptions from the generalized society, the latter of which is referred to as "normative ought-guides" (Higgins, 1996). Higgins, Shah, and Friedman (1997) showed that there are individual differences in the accessibility of ideal and ought self-guides. We predict that individuals in tight societies, who have higher felt accountability, will tend to have chronic accessibility of normative ought self-guides and a prevention regulatory focus (i.e., will be focused on not making mistakes).…”