Regulatory Focus Theory and Research

Scholer, Abigail A.; Cornwell, James F. M.; Higgins, E. Tory

doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190666453.013.4

Cited by 29 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The manipulation of situational regulatory focus was based on the mouse maze task [ 42 ], but adapted for computerized administration. The structure of the regulatory focus tasks was identical across the conditions, but the framing, target and signal stimuli, feedback presentation, and optimal strategy varied in order to address both the goal and means levels of regulatory focus [ 43 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

State-trait interactions in regulatory focus determine impulse buying behavior

Krishna¹,

Ried²,

Meixner³

2021

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little research has focused on motivational state-trait interactions to explain impulse buying. Although the trait chronic regulatory focus has been linked to impulse buying, no evidence yet exists for an effect of situational regulatory focus and no research has examined whether the fit of chronic and situational regulatory focus can influence impulse buying with actual consumptive consequences rather than purchase intentions. Two laboratory experiments (total N = 250) manipulated situational regulatory focus before providing opportunities for impulse buying. In addition, cognitive constraint was manipulated as a potential boundary condition for regulatory focus effects. Situational promotion focus increased impulse buying relative to situational prevention focus in participants with strong chronic promotion, consistent with regulatory fit theory and independently of cognitive constraint. Surprisingly, situational promotion focus also increased impulse buying in participants with strong chronic prevention, but only under low cognitive constraint. These results may be explained by diverging mediating cognitive processes for promotion vs. prevention focus’ effect on impulse buying. Future research must focus more on combining relevant states and traits in predicting consumer behavior. Marketing implications are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mouse task from Experiment 1 was adapted to increase its power to affect the tactical level of regulatory focus [ 43 ]. Participants again completed trials in which they symbolically led a mouse to certain targets.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

State-trait interactions in regulatory focus determine impulse buying behavior

Krishna¹,

Ried²,

Meixner³

2021

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We extend this argument by suggesting an emotional route of achieving regulatory fit. As previously mentioned, promotion-focus is connected to cheerfulness-or dejectionrelated emotion on the circumplex model of affect and prevention-focus, to quiescenceor agitation-related emotion [22,69,70,73,74]. When a promotion-focused individual, for example, notices another person expressing quiescence in a positive situation, this signals a regulatory fit violation.…”

Section: Regulatory Fit and Cognitive Biasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This difference between the types of chronic regulatory focus leads people to act in distinctive ways [21,[71][72][73]. Promotion-focused individuals show approach strategies (a strategic inclination to show approach behavior, especially in ambiguous situations), generate more hypotheses, and are more open to change.…”

Section: Regulatory Focus and Emotion Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aside from strategic inclinations, the different types of regulatory focus are also associated with emotional experiences [21,69,70,73]. Promotion-focused individuals, with actual-and ideal-self discrepancy, have a tendency to experience dejection-related emotions that are negative in valence and low in arousal (e.g., sadness, disappointment, and dissatisfaction) when they fail to attain gains.…”

Section: Regulatory Focus and Emotion Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Role of Regulatory Focus and Emotion Recognition Bias in Cross-Cultural Negotiation

Han¹,

Park

Rhee

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior research on cross-cultural negotiation has emphasized the cognitive and the behavioral elements. This study takes a different perspective and presents a motivation–emotion model of cross-cultural negotiation. We propose that the cultural differences in chronic regulatory focus will lead to cultural biases in emotion recognition, which in turn will affect negotiation behaviors. People are inclined to perceive and behave in ways that enhance regulatory fit. Westerners and East Asians, who each have different chronic regulatory focus, are likely to interpret the negotiation situation differently in order to increase their regulatory fit. Specifically, this study proposes that when the emotion of the opponent is ambiguous, people from different cultural backgrounds may show cultural biases in emotion recognition, concentrating on the emotion that fits their chronic regulatory focus. Drawing on the Emotion as Social Information (EASI) model, this study discusses how these cultural biases in emotion recognition can affect people’s negotiation behaviors. Finally, some possible moderators of the motivation–emotion model including power and emotion recognition accuracy are suggested to promote sustainable practices in cross-cultural negotiation.

show abstract

Everything right or nothing wrong? Regulatory fit effects in an e-learning context

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feedback is a key factor in helping individuals to self-regulate their learning behavior. Informative feedback, as a very basic form of feedback informing learners about the correctness of their answers, can be framed in different ways emphasizing either what was correct or what must be improved. The regulatory focus theory describes different strategic orientations of individuals towards goals, which may be associated with different effects of different informative feedback types. A promotion orientation describes the preference for approaching positive outcomes, while a prevention orientation describes the preference for avoiding negative ones. Applied to the context of informative feedback in self-regulated e-learning environments, we predict that regulatory fit, defined as the congruence of individuals’ regulatory orientations and framed feedback, positively affects learning persistence and performance. In two experiments, we assessed individuals’ regulatory orientations and experimentally varied framed feedback in samples of university students preparing for exams with an e-learning tool (N = 182, experiment 1; N = 118, experiment 2) and observed actual learning behaviors. Using different operationalizations of regulatory-framed feedback, we found statistically significant regulatory fit effects on persistence and performance in both experiments, although some remain insignificant. In experiment 2, we additionally tested ease of processing as a mechanism for regulatory fit effects. This way, we expand the literature on regulatory fit effects and feedback on actual learning behavior and provide evidence for the benefits of adaptive learning environments. We discuss limitations, especially regarding the stability of regulatory fit, as well as future directions of research on regulatory-framed feedback.

show abstract

Regulatory Focus Theory and Research

Cited by 29 publications

References 0 publications

State-trait interactions in regulatory focus determine impulse buying behavior

State-trait interactions in regulatory focus determine impulse buying behavior

The Role of Regulatory Focus and Emotion Recognition Bias in Cross-Cultural Negotiation

Everything right or nothing wrong? Regulatory fit effects in an e-learning context

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About