When positive and negative expectancies disrupt performance: regulatory focus as a catalyst

Abstract

The present research investigates the impact of negative and positive stereotypic expectancies on cognitive test performance. A theoretical framework that relates expectancy effects to self-regulatory processes as postulated by Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT) is presented. Building on the differential sensitivity hypothesis proposed in this theoretical model, we argue that when self-regulation in a prevention focus is activated individuals are particularly sensitive with regard to negative cues and therefore negative expectancies are likely to result in poor test performance due to an apprehension about meeting minimal goal standards. Conversely, when self-regulation is guided by a promotion focus individuals are particularly sensitive with regard to positive cues and hence likely to show impaired performance when confronted with positive expectancies due to an apprehension about meeting maximal goal standards. The results of four experiments, relying on both situational and chronic regulatory focus, support these assumptions.

Regulatory focus in economic contexts

“…In general, the eagerness of people in a promotion focus results in an increased sensitivity to positive information, whereas the vigilance of individuals in a prevention focus leads to an increased attention to negative information (Keller & Bless, 2008;Pattershall, Eidelman, & Beike, 2012;Wang & Lee, 2006;Yoon, Sarial-Abi, & Gurhan-Canli, 2012). Based on these findings, we demonstrated that the impact of regulatory focus on the selective processing of positive and negative information has an impact on how advertisings that contain positive and negative product-related information are perceived (Florack et al, 2009).…”

“…The gap between women and men, for example, is substantially larger in math tests that involve point deductions for mistakes than in alternative math tests. Parallel findings documenting particularly strong detrimental effects of negative performance expectancies in prevention-focused test takers were documented in a series of (experimental) studies (Gaillard, Desmette, & Keller, 2011;Keller, 2007;Keller & Bless, 2008). Hence, if the goal were to avoid effects of stereotype threat on the performance of test takers confronted with negative stereotypes, it would be wise to use test methods that activate a promotion focus like tests that allow getting additional points for being successful on additional tasks, and to avoid methods that elicit a prevention focus.…”

The feedback withholding bias: Minority students do not receive critical feedback from evaluators concerned about appearing racist

“…For example, being a target of a negative stereotype cues a motivation to detect, correct and prevent errors as a means to disconfirm that stereotype (Forbes, Schmader, & Allen, 2008;Jamieson & Harkins, 2007;Keller & Bless, 2008). Ironically, the very feedback that minority students might most be searching for and motivated to learn from could be systematically withheld from them.…”

Rising to the threat: Reducing stereotype threat by reframing the threat as a challenge

“…Challenge appraisal, conversely, facilitates performance by inducing adaptive stress responses and preparing the perceiver to address the stress (Scheepers, 2009;Vick, Seery, Blascovich, & Weisbuch, 2008). Importantly, people might interpret the same task as a challenge or a threat, depending on a range of situational factors, like the negative consequences of failure (e.g., Keller & Bless, 2008). Given the divergent consequences of threat and challenge appraisals for performance, reframing an otherwise threatening task as a challenge might reduce the effects of stereotype threat.…”