Moving on or digging deeper: Regulatory mode and interpersonal conflict resolution.

Abstract

Conflict resolution, in its most basic sense, requires movement and change between opposing motivational states. Although scholars and practitioners have long acknowledged this point, research has yet to investigate whether individual differences in the motivation for movement from state-to-state influence conflict resolution processes. Regulatory Mode Theory (RMT) describes this fundamental motivation as locomotion. RMT simultaneously describes an orthogonal motivational emphasis on assessment, a tendency for critical evaluation and comparison. We argue that this tendency, in the absence of a stronger motivation for locomotion, can obstruct peoples' propensity to reconcile. Five studies, using diverse measures and methods, found that the predominance of an individual's locomotion over assessment facilitates interpersonal conflict resolution. The first two studies present participants with hypothetical conflict scenarios to examine how chronic (Study 1) and experimentally induced (Study 2) individual differences in locomotion predominance influence the motivation to reconcile. The next two studies investigate this relation by way of participants' own conflict experiences, both through essay recall of previous conflict events (Study 3) and verbal narratives of ongoing conflict issues (Study 4). We then explore this association in the context of real-world conflict discussions between roommates (Study 5). Lastly, we examine results across these studies meta-analytically (Study 6). Overall, locomotion and assessment can inform lay theories of individual variation in the motivation to "move on" or "dig deeper" in conflict situations. We conclude by emphasizing the importance of using RMT to go beyond instrumental approaches to conflict resolution to understand fundamental individual motivations underlying its occurrence. (PsycINFO Database Record

"Letting myself go forward past wrongs": How regulatory modes affect self-forgiveness

“…In this regard, research has found that locomotion increases the motivation to reconcile and decreases the influence on reconciliation of the feelings of negativity from the conflict. In contrast, assessment decreases the motivation to reconcile and increases the influence of the negative feelings from the conflict [ 55 ]. These forgiveness-of-others findings are consistent with what we found for self-forgiveness.…”

Fitting motivational content and process: A systematic investigation of fit between value framing and self‐regulation

“…For example, at the system level, promotion (prevention) has a concern for advancement and growth (safety and security). At the strategic level, promotion (prevention) thus entails a preference for eager and risky approach (cautious and vigilant avoidance) strategies (for a similar reasoning and predominance approach regarding regulatory mode, not considered in this work, see, e.g., Higgins, Pierro, & Kruglanski, 2008;Orehek, Mauro, Kruglanski, & Van der Bles, 2012;Webb et al, 2017). 3 Using a mixed repeated measures ANOVA is a conservative means to test our hypothesis regarding the Regulatory Focus 3 Value Framing interaction, as it controls for the covariation of all 20 dependent variables (i.e., the 10 values in both frames).…”

“…The predominance perspective thus creates the clearest theory‐driven predictions, as predominance determines which focus/orientation is chronically in the foreground (cf. Cesario & Higgins, ; Righetti et al, ; Webb, Coleman, Rossignac‐Milon, Tomasulo, & Higgins, ). As noted elsewhere (e.g., Higgins, ; Righetti et al, ; Webb et al, ), regulatory focus and other motivational orientations are in opposition at the system and strategic levels.…”

“…Cesario & Higgins, ; Righetti et al, ; Webb, Coleman, Rossignac‐Milon, Tomasulo, & Higgins, ). As noted elsewhere (e.g., Higgins, ; Righetti et al, ; Webb et al, ), regulatory focus and other motivational orientations are in opposition at the system and strategic levels. For example, at the system level, promotion (prevention) has a concern for advancement and growth (safety and security).…”

“…For example, at the system level, promotion (prevention) has a concern for advancement and growth (safety and security). At the strategic level, promotion (prevention) thus entails a preference for eager and risky approach (cautious and vigilant avoidance) strategies (for a similar reasoning and predominance approach regarding regulatory mode, not considered in this work, see, e.g., Higgins, Pierro, & Kruglanski, ; Orehek, Mauro, Kruglanski, & Van der Bles, ; Webb et al, ).…”