Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us.

Abstract

In 3 studies, the authors demonstrated that individuals are motivated by role models who encourage strategies that fit their regulatory concerns: Promotion-focused individuals, who favor a strategy of pursuing desirable outcomes, are most inspired by positive role models, who highlight strategies for achieving success; prevention-focused individuals, who favor a strategy of avoiding undesirable outcomes, are most motivated by negative role models, who highlight strategies for avoiding failure. In Studies 1 and 2, the authors primed promotion and prevention goals and then examined the impact of role models on motivation. Participants' academic motivation was increased by goal-congruent role models but decreased by goal-incongruent role models. In Study 3, participants were more likely to generate real-life role models that matched their chronic goals.

Future time perspective and promotion focus as determinants of intraindividual change in work motivation.

“…Although Lockwood et al (2002) measure chronic promotion focus, the results obtained with this measure are similar to the results obtained in studies in which promotion focus was primed (e.g., De Cremer et al, 2009;Lockwood et al, 2002;Pennington & Roese, 2003).…”

“…Adopting a promotion focus is a function of situational and dispositional factors (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). Therefore, regulatory focus has been operationalized both in terms of situational states and chronic tendencies, which have been found to have similar consequences (De Cremer, Mayer, Van Dijke, & Schouten, 2009;Higgins, 1997;Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002;Pennington & Roese, 2003). Here we focus more on promotion focus as a state (i.e., changing over time with age and future time perspective).…”

Retaliation as a response to procedural unfairness: A self-regulatory approach.

“…Evidence suggests that, when the individual self is accessible, the person perceives social interactions as competitive and behaves opportunistically so that she or he Unfair Treatment, Retaliation, and Self-Regulation 9 retaliative action (Miedema et al, 2006;Skitka, 2003). We tested this hypothesis by rendering the individual self accessible through heightened self-attention (Study 4) and uniqueness/authenticity feedback (Study 5).Central to regulatory focus theory is that people not only differ in the extent to which they are dispositionally predisposed to promotion-focus versus prevention-focus goals (Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002), but also that situational or priming cues can induce distinct regulatory foci (Friedman & Förster, 2001;Oyserman et al, 2007). Therefore, we assessed regulatory focus either as a dispositional difference (Studies 2 and 4) or as a momentarily-activated construct (Studies 1, 3, and 5).…”

Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note

“…However, the theory implies two potentially independent definitions of these inclinations, the self-guide versus the reference-point definitions. Two scales (the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire, Higgins al., 2001, and the General Regulatory Focus Measure, Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002) have been widely used to measure dispositional regulatory focus. We suggest that these two scales align respectively with the two definitions, and find that the two scales are largely uncorrelated.…”