regulatory focus theory

n. Regulatory focus theory proposes that two distinct regulatory systems have developed to deal with two distinct survival concerns – nurturance and security. To survive, people (and other animals) receive support or nourishment from the environment (often provided by others) and protection from dangers in the environment (social and nonsocial dangers). When people succeed in satisfying a concern, they experience pleasure, and when they fail, they experience pain. Thus, both of these regulatory systems involve approaching pleasure and avoiding pain. To this extent, regulatory focus theory is consistent with the classic hedonic principle that people approach pleasure and avoid pain. The hedonic principle has been the dominant motivational principle across all areas of psychology and many other disciplines as well. Although consistent with the hedonic principle, regulatory focus theory goes beyond this principle by emphasizing the motivational significance of the differences in the ways actors approach pleasure and avoid pain when they regulate within the distinct nurturance and security systems.

Regulatory focus theory relates the nurturance motive to the development of promotion focus concerns with accomplishment, with fulfilling hopes and aspirations (ideals). It relates the security motive to the development of prevention focus concerns with safety, with meeting duties and obligations (oughts). People can succeed or fail to fulfill their promotion or prevention focus concerns, and, thus, for both promotion and prevention, they will experience pleasure from success and pain from failure. But the hedonic experience is not the end of the story. Regulatory focus theory predicts, and research has found, that the emotional and motivational consequences of success or failure are different in the promotion and prevention systems. When people are in the promotion focus system, they experience cheerfulness-related emotions after success (e.g., happiness, joy) and dejection-related emotions after failure (e.g., sadness, discouragement). This is true whether people are in a promotion focus from a chronic predisposition to be in that system or from a current situation activating that system. The pleasure of success and the pain of failure are different in the prevention focus system. They experience quiescencerelated emotions after success (e.g., calmness, relaxation) and agitation-related emotions after failure (e.g., nervousness, tension). These emotional differences between promotion and prevention also apply to emotional appraisals. Individuals in a promotion focus more readily appraise objects and events along a cheerfulness-dejection dimension, whereas individuals in a prevention focus more readily appraise objects and events along a quiescence-agitation dimension.

Regulatory focus theory is especially concerned with the differences between promotion and prevention motivationally. Regulatory focus theory proposes that when people pursue goals, their strategic preferences are different in a promotion versus a prevention focus. The theory proposes that individuals in a promotion focus prefer to use eager strategies to pursue goals – strategies of advancement (a gain), which move the actor from a neutral (the status quo) to a positive state. In contrast, individuals in a prevention focus prefer to use vigilant strategies to pursue goals (a nonloss) – strategies of carefulness that stop the actor from moving from neutral to a negative state. What underlies this difference in strategic preferences? Individuals in a promotion focus experience positive and negative events in the world as gains and nongains, respectively, because their concerns are about accomplishments and aspirations. Strategic eagerness is also about ensuring gains and not wanting to miss gains, so eagerness fits a promotion focus. In contrast, individuals in a prevention focus experience positive and negative events in the world as nonlosses and losses, respectively, because their concerns are about safety and meeting obligations. Strategic vigilance is also about trying to be careful to ensure nonlosses and not wanting to commit mistakes that produce a loss, so vigilance fits a prevention focus.

Indeed, many studies have found that individuals in a promotion focus prefer to use eager strategies to pursue goals, whereas individuals in a prevention focus prefer to use vigilant strategies. There is also evidence that when an eager versus strategic approach to an achievement task is experimentally manipulated, individuals in a promotion focus perform better when instructed to use eager means than when instructed to use vigilant means, whereas the opposite is true for individuals in a prevention focus. Persuasive messages with an eager tone are more effective in changing attitudes when received by individuals in a promotion than a prevention focus, whereas the reverse is true for persuasive messages with a vigilant tone. The difference between a promotion focus on eager gains versus a prevention focus on vigilant nonlosses also influences the nature of ingroup versus out-group bias. For individuals in a promotion focus, in-group members are treated with a positive bias (“promoting us”), but there is little bias regarding outgroup members. In contrast, for individuals in a prevention focus, the out-group members are treated with a negative bias (“preventing them”), but there is little bias regarding ingroup members.

Because of this difference in strategic preferences for people in a promotion versus a prevention focus, the motivational significance of success and failure is also very different in promotion versus prevention. When individuals succeed in a promotion focus, that increases their eagerness (experienced as high-intensity joy), and when they fail, that decreases their eagerness (experienced as low-intensity sadness). In contrast, when individuals succeed in a prevention focus, that reduces their vigilance (experienced as low-intensity calmness), and when they fail, that increases their vigilance (experienced as high-intensity nervousness).

This regulatory focus difference in the motivational significance of success and failure influences postperformance expectations as well. Optimism increases eagerness but reduces vigilance. Thus, after success on an initial trial of a task, individuals in a promotion state, more than individuals in a prevention state, should raise their expectations for the next trial (be optimistic) to maintain the strategic eagerness that sustains their focus. After failure on an initial trial, individuals in a prevention state, more than individuals in a promotion state, should lower their expectations for the next trial (be defensively pessimistic) to maintain the strategic vigilance that sustains their focus. Research has confirmed these predictions.

Regulatory focus differences in strategic approaches are especially likely to be revealed when there is a conflict between different choices or different ways to proceed on a task. One prevalent conflict is between being “risky” or being “conservative” when making a judgment or decision. When people are uncertain, they can take a chance and treat something as being correct that could actually be incorrect (a possible error of commission). Alternatively, they can be cautious and reject something as being incorrect that could actually be correct (a possible error of omission). Studies on memory and judgment have found that, when the status quo is satisfactory, individuals in a promotion focus are more risky than those in a prevention focus. There is also evidence that individuals in a promotion focus are more creative than those in a prevention focus and are also more willing to change and try something new when given the opportunity. This again suggests that under conditions of uncertainty (and a satisfactory status quo), individuals in a promotion focus, compared to individuals in a prevention focus, are more willing to consider new alternatives and not simply stick with the established state of affairs. There are benefits from the prevention strategic approach as well, however. Compared to promotion focus individuals, prevention focus individuals are more committed to their choices and are less likely to abandon them when obstacles arise.

There are other conflicts on which individuals in a promotion focus act differently than those in a prevention focus. One classic conflict on many tasks is between speed (or quantity) and accuracy (or quality). Individuals in a promotion focus emphasize speed more than accuracy, whereas individuals in a prevention focus emphasize accuracy more than speed. A third conflict concerns whether to represent objects or events in a more global and abstract manner or in a more local and concrete manner. There is evidence that individuals in a promotion focus are more likely to represent objects and events in a global and abstract manner (and as more temporally distant) than in a local and concrete manner, whereas the opposite is true for those in a prevention focus.

In sum, regulatory focus theory differs from the traditional emphasis on hedonic outcomes. Rather than outcomes, it considers the strategic and process differences of individuals making decisions and pursuing goals in a promotion versus a prevention focus. These strategic and process differences have been shown to have significant emotional and motivational effects on people's lives. – ETH