DOCSLIB.ORG

Combining Approach-Gain and Avoid-Loss Frames Increases Message Effectiveness DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Combining Approach-Gain and Avoid-Loss Frames Increases Message Effectiveness DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of Combining approach-gain and avoid-loss frames increases message effectiveness DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University Tyler Solloway, B.A. & M.A. Graduate Program in Communication The Ohio State University 2014 Dissertation Committee: Zheng (Joyce) Wang, Advisor Michael Slater Brad J. Bushman ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Copyrighted by Tyler Solloway 2014 ! ! ! Abstract Gain-loss framing has produced inconsistent results in communication (O’Keefe & Jensen, 2006, 2007, 2009). Yet, studies from psychology demonstrate consistent gain- loss message effects (Higgins, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2005). Regulatory focus theory suggests the lack of operational clarity in communication applications may be the one of the reasons for inconsistent results. It is proposed that communication scholars use approach-gain and avoid-loss frames to create effective messages. The dissertation extends regulatory focus theory by arguing (a) frames’ relationship with perceived effectiveness is mediated by attention to the frames, (b) the combination of approach-gain and avoid-loss frames will receive the most attention, when the message has low to moderate arousing content, and (c) the combination of approach-gain and avoid-loss will be most effective. Two within-subjects experiments were conducted, using visual fixations to operationalize attention. Study 1 examined the combination of approach-gain and avoid-loss frames, without manipulating arousing content. Study 2 examined the combination of frames and manipulated arousing content. The two studies revealed that individuals looked the most at approach-gain information, and attention to information did not influence perceived message effectiveness. As predicted, when arousal was controlled for, messages with the combination of approach-gain and avoid-loss frames were perceived as more effective than messages with only one type of frame. ii Acknowledgments I would like to express my deepest appreciation for my advisor, Dr. Joyce Wang, whose kindness, brilliance and mentorship was essential to my growth and success. Dr. Wang’s stewardship and funding has made this dissertation possible. I am also grateful for Dr. Slater and Dr. Bushman’s guidance and wisdom throughout my graduate studies. I am indebted to my committee for developing my tools and skills to creatively solve complex problems. My love goes to my entire family for their support, through my studies. My parents, Maureen Gales and Bram Solloway, and brother, Dean Solloway, provided the encouragement to succeed and flourish. I am grateful for Gerald and Ruby Gales’ compassionate advice and thoughtful perspective. All my mentors have shaped me in a way that is reflective in my studies and dissertation. I feel genuine appreciation to: Christopher Langone and Samuel Nelsons for teaching me how to analyze arguments publicly and fostering intellectual curiosity, Dr. Lauren Feldman and Dr. Matthew Nisbet for shaping my thought process and guiding me to OSU’s Doctoral Program, and Christopher Bennett for sparking my interest in communication. iii Vita 2005 ............................................................... Saint George’s School 2009 ............................................................... B.S. Economics, Cornell University 2010 ............................................................... M.A. Public Communication, American University 2010 to present ............................................. Graduate Teaching Associate, School of Communication, The Ohio State University Publications Wang, Z., Solloway, T., Shiffrin, R. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2014). Context effects produced by question orders reveal quantum nature of human judgments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(26), 9431-9436. Solloway, T., Slater, M., & Chung, A., & Goodall, C. E (2013). Anger, sadness and fear in response to breaking crime and accident news stories: How emotions influence support for alcohol-control public policies via concern about risks. Journal of Media Psychology, 25(4), 160-170. Wang, Z., Solloway, T., Tchernev, J., & Barker, B. (2012). Dynamic motivational processing of antimarijuana messages: Coactivation begets attention. Human Communication Research, 38(4), 485-509. Wang, Z., Tchernev, J., & Solloway, T. (2012). A dynamic longitudinal examination of social media use, needs, and gratifications among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1829-1839. Wang, Z., Solloway, T., Tchernev, J., & Barker, B. (2011). Dynamic motivational processing of anti-drug messages: Mixed feelings and attention. Pychophysiology, 48. S100. Fields of Study Major Field: Communication iv Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii! Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................. iii! Vita ..................................................................................................................................... iv! List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii! List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... ix! Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 1! Regulatory Focus Theory: Approaching Gains and Avoiding Losses ............................ 4! Attention Mediates The Framing Process ..................................................................... 17! Attending to Approach-Gain and Avoid-Loss Messages .............................................. 22! Coactive Activation: Greater Effectiveness by Using Both Approach-Gain and Avoid-Loss Frames .............................................................. 28! Sensation Seeking Moderates the Effects of Arousing Content .................................... 33! Trait Aggressiveness Moderates the Effects of Arousing Content ............................... 34! Study 1: Combining Approach-Gain and Avoid-Loss Messages ...................................... 38! Hypotheses .................................................................................................................... 39! Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 41! Stimuli ....................................................................................................................... 41! v Measures .................................................................................................................... 42! Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 44! Manipulation check ................................................................................................... 44! Latent variables confirmatory factor analysis ........................................................... 46! Analysis approach ..................................................................................................... 47! Hypotheses analysis ................................................................................................... 49! Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 51! Study 2: Arousing Content Moderates the Framing Effects of Approach-Gain vs. Avoid-Loss Messages ........................................................................ 55! Hypotheses .................................................................................................................... 56! Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 57! Stimuli ....................................................................................................................... 57! Stimuli pretest ............................................................................................................ 59! Measures .................................................................................................................... 66! Results ........................................................................................................................... 68! Manipulation check ................................................................................................... 68! Latent variables confirmatory factor analysis ........................................................... 69! Analysis approach ..................................................................................................... 70! Hypotheses analysis ................................................................................................... 72! Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 79! Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 89! References ......................................................................................................................... 94! vi Appendix A: Stimuli for Study 1 ....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comm 6970-001 ~ Seminar in Affective Processes ~ Spring, 2020
    Comm 6970-001 ~ Seminar in Affective Processes ~ Spring, 2020 Claude Miller ~ Thursdays, 3 :00 - 5:50 PM ~ Burton Hall 125C ~ 325-0861 ~ [email protected] OVERVIEW How much of our communication behavior is guided by affect relative to cognition? What is meant by motivation-based processes, and how are they pertinent to communication and social interaction? This seminar is designed to introduce students to classic and current literature exploring the nature, theory, and measurement of affect, emotion, and motivation (drive), and explore how these aspects of mind and body relate to a range of communication behaviors. One objective is to consider the role affect plays in communication theory, research, and behavior. We will consider how affective and motivation-based processes unfold across a range of sub-disciplinary contexts, such as conflict, crisis, health, intercultural, political, mass comm, interpersonal, relational, and social influence. Another goal is to examine the embodied nature of emotion and cognition, and the 3-way interaction between body, mind, and environment. A final overarching objective is to survey the realms of positive emotion, meaning-making, resilience, flourishing, and mattering, and explore the relevance of these more recent literatures for the study of communication and social interaction. Because this seminar offers only an introduction to an extensive literature, the discussions and readings associated with each theoretical domain will be abbreviated. Although a collection of readings is provided, the direction the class takes will be guided by the various interests of the seminar members; thus, in our exploration of the literature, it is expected that each of us will search out, discover, and share readings, research, and insights we feel to be of interest to the class.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Orientation, Message Framing and Influences of Fit On
    REGULATORY ORIENTATION, MESSAGE FRAMING AND INFLUENCES OF FIT ON CUSTOMER BEHAVIORS Trang Phuc Tran, BA, MBA Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS August 2012 APPROVED: Audhesh Paswan, Major Professor Charles Blankson, Committee Member Francisco Guzman, Committee Member Robert Pavur, Committee Member Jeff Sager, Chair of the Department of Marketing and Logistics Finley Graves, Dean of the College of Business Mark Wardell, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School Tran, Trang Phuc. Regulatory Orientation, Message Framing and Influences of Fit on Customer Behaviors. Doctor of Philosophy (Marketing), August 2012, 118 pp., 16 tables, 10 figures, references, 124 titles. Existing literature on consumer behavior has argued that an individual’s regulatory orientation interacts with message framing. If there is a match between regulatory orientation (promotion versus prevention) and message framing, this results in positive attitudes toward a given advertisement. Conversely, if there is a mismatch, the effect is opposite, i.e., attitudes toward that advertisement are less positive and less favorable. This research extends the term of compatibility by examining how regulatory focus moderates the impact of two aspects of message framing (attribute framing and risky choice framing) on customer perceptions. It also examines whether regulatory fit is created when there are interactions between individuals’ regulatory orientation and message framing and how the fit changes customer perceptions about a message.
    [Show full text]
  • Motivation and Learning Interface: How Regulatory Fit Affects Incidental Vocabulary Learning and Task Experience
    MOTIVATION AND LEARNING INTERFACE: HOW REGULATORY FIT AFFECTS INCIDENTAL VOCABULARY LEARNING AND TASK EXPERIENCE By Mostafa Papi A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Second Language Studies - Doctor of Philosophy 2016 ABSTRACT MOTIVATION AND LEARNING INTERFACE: HOW REGULATORY FIT AFFECTS INCIDENTAL VOCABULARY LEARNING AND TASK EXPERIENCE By Mostafa Papi According to the regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2000), individuals with a promotion regulatory focus are more motivated when they approach gains while those with a prevention regulatory focus are more motivated when they avoid losses. The present study examined how the match or mismatch between the incentive structure of a task (gain-framed vs. loss-framed) would influence the learning experiences and outcomes of learners with different chronic regulatory foci (Higgins, 1997). One-hundred-eighty-nine ESL learners at a large U.S. university completed a vocabulary pre-test. A week later, they attended an experimental session in a computer lab, where they read a 675-word article about animal testing and wrote an argumentative essay on the topic. They were instructed that if they obtained or sustained 70 out of 100 points they would enter a drawing to win one of three $100 gift cards. The participants were randomly assigned to two conditions. In the gain-framed condition they started the task with zero points and had to gain 70 points to enter the drawing. Conversely, participants in the loss-framed condition started with 100 points but had to avoid losing more than 30 points in order qualify for the drawing.
    [Show full text]
  • Entrepreneurial Success: an Integrative
    ENTREPRENEURIAL SUCCESS: AN INTEGRATIVE STUDY OF TEAM CLIMATE FOR INNOVATION, GROUP REGULATORY FOCUS, INNOVATION PERFORMANCE, AND SUCCESS By PAUL D. JOHNSON Bachelor of Arts in Zoology University of Oklahoma Norman, OK 1999 Master of Business Administration University of Oklahoma Norman, OK 2004 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May, 2010 ENTREPRENEURIAL SUCCESS: AN INTEGRATIVE STUDY OF TEAM CLIMATE FOR INNOVATION, GROUP REGULATORY FOCUS, INNOVATION PERFORMANCE, AND SUCCESS Dissertation Approved: Dr. J. Craig Wallace Dissertation Advisor Dr. Debra Nelson Dr. Mark Gavin Dr. Todd Arnold Dr. A. Gordon Emslie Dean of the Graduate College ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’, but ‘That’s funny …’ - Isaac Asimov Looking back, I’ve had a number of ‘That’s funny’ moments which have conspired to lead me to this point. Most such moments involved excessive kindness, understanding, and generosity from friends, family, and acquaintances for which I am indebted. However, some people are owed special mention because of their extraordinary effect on my life. First, thanks Mom and Dad for your love and support through this and everything else I’ve done. It is easy to reach for the stars when you’re sure of your footing and I’ve never once doubted that you were my bedrock. I couldn’t have done it without you and the rest of the family. Thank you Karen, Kyle, Kaden, Kana, Karian, Kyson, Ninnie, Chad, Mallory, Brody, Daniel, Courtney, and Angela.
    [Show full text]
  • Implications of Regulatory Focus Theory for Simulation and Experiential Learning
    Implications of Regulatory Focus Theory for Simulation and Experiential Learning James Carlson Texas Tech University [email protected] J. Duane Hoover Texas Tech University [email protected] Ronald K. Mitchell Texas Tech University [email protected] ABSTRACT can be thought of as an expansion of the boundaries of education—from the cognitive processes of the mind to the This paper aims to explore and contribute to an other domains of the “whole person” (Hoover, 2007). understanding of how the psychological concept of self- One aspect of the complexity inherent in educational regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997; 1998) is relevant to processes is learner motivation (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, simulation and experiential learning in general, and 2000). Motivation impacts educational processes because it classroom settings in particular. An overview of self- is related to how individuals process tasks and to what regulatory focus theory, which describes how people extent they will pursue a task (Grimm, Markman, Maddox, pursue pleasure and avoid pain, is presented. The & Baldwin, 2008). Motivation to learn varies between and implications of self-regulatory focus for setting goals and within groups, and across time (Noe, 1986). Most with giving feedback are reviewed in light of previous findings teaching experience would agree that at least sometimes the related to motivation in each literature. Some practical variations are substantial. Even simulation and experiential applications and recommendations are offered for ABSEL approaches, though often superior to lecture-only methods, educators. Overall, this paper asserts that ABSEL scholars are subject to variability in effectiveness and student would do well to be aware of the concept of self-regulatory outcomes, and as previously noted, at least in part due to focus in both the design and execution of simulation and psychological factors such as motivation.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Connect? Moral Consequences of Networking with a Promotion Or
    Why Connect? Moral Consequences of Networking with a Promotion or Prevention Focus Francesca Gino Harvard University Maryam Kouchaki Northwestern University Tiziana Casciaro University of Toronto Forthcoming in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology All authors contributed equally and are listed alphabetically by first name. Networking with a Promotion or Prevention Focus 1 Why Connect? Moral Consequences of Networking with a Promotion or Prevention Focus Abstract Networks are a key source of social capital for achieving goals in professional and personal settings. Yet, despite the clear benefits of having an extensive network, individuals often shy away from the opportunity to create new connections because engaging in instrumental networking can make them feel morally impure. In this paper, we explore how the motives people have when engaging in networking impact these feelings and, as result, change how frequently they engage in networking and their job performance. Across a correlational survey study, a laboratory experiment (with samples from the United States and Italy), two online studies, an organizational network survey study, and a field experiment with professionals (total N = 2,521), we examine how self-regulatory focus, whether promotion or prevention, affects people’s experience of and outcomes from networking. We find that a promotion focus, as compared to a prevention focus or a control condition, is beneficial to professional networking as it lowers feelings of moral impurity from instrumental networking. As such, networking with a promotion focus increases the frequency of instrumental networking as compared to a control condition, while networking with a prevention focus decreases frequency of instrumental networking as compared to a control condition.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Regulatory Focus in the Experience and Self-Control of Desire for Temptations
    JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 16(2), 163-175 Copyright O 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. The Role of Regulatory Focus in the Experience and Self-Control of Desire for Temptations Utpal M. Dholakia Rice University Mahesh Gopinath Old Dominion University Richard P. Bagozzi University of Michigan Rajan Nataraajan Auburn University This research examines the role of regulatory focus in the experience and control of desire for temptations, the fulfillment of which conflicts with other salient goals of the consumer. Rela- tive to a prevention focus (i.e., an orientation away from negative outcomes), our findings dem- onstrate that a promotion focus (i.e., an orientation toward positive outcomes) not only in- creases the intensity of desire experienced on encountering a temptation, but also increases success of its subsequent resistance. Differences in self-control efficacy are found to be medi- ated by the type of self-control strategies consumers use in the 2 foci. Convergent evidence ob- tained in 4 studies, considering situational and dispositional aspects of regulatory focus, indi- cates that when temptations are encountered by consumers, regulatory focus is an important determinant of the degree of desire, and the nature and outcome of self-control. A calorie-conscious man standing in the cafeteria line to buy a such temptations, whereas others succumb to them. Even the salad sees a mouth-watering piece of New York cheesecake. A same consumer may be able to resist aparticular temptation at financially constrained shopper receives a preapproved offer some times, but fail to do so at other times. to apply for yet another credit card.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Collective Regulatory Focus and Perceived Organizational Support
    TEAM INNOVATION AND CITIZENSHIP PERFORMANCE: THE EFFECT OF COLLECTIVE REGULATORY FOCUS AND PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT By PATRICIA CIUPAK JORDAN Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineering and Management Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 1986 Master of Business Administration Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 1992 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY July, 2014 TEAM INNOVATION AND CITIZENSHIP PERFORMANCE: THE EFFECT OF COLLECTIVE REGULATORY FOCUS AND PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT Dissertation Approved: Dr. Craig Wallace Dissertation Adviser Dr. Tracy Suter Dr. Bryan Edwards Dr. Ricki Ingalls ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS “All that I am or ever hope to be, I owe to my angel mother.” —Abraham Lincoln I have dreamed of this day for a very long time, and I finally made it! I would never have been able to complete this journey on my own, so I want to say thanks to my extraordinary husband, Jeff, and my two wonderful children, Blake and Summer, for supporting me through this process. I recognize that these past few years have been a sacrifice for all of you; for your patience, I will forever be grateful. Jeff, you are my rock; it is because of you that I had the strength and endurance to reach out and fulfill my lifelong goal. I could not have done this without you, and you deserve this Ph.D. just as much as I do. Thanks to my co-workers and colleagues who provided me encouragement, especially Sally. I also want to thank the faculty at OSU, my committee, and especially Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Regulatory Focus on Divergent Thinking in Sports Daniel Memmert, Stefanie Hüttermann, Josef Orliczek
    bs_bs_banner Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp. 2163–2167 Decide like Lionel Messi! The impact of regulatory focus on divergent thinking in sports Daniel Memmert, Stefanie Hüttermann, Josef Orliczek German Sport University Cologne Correspondence concerning this article should Abstract be addressed to Daniel Memmert, Institute of Cognitive and Team/Racket Sport Research, According to Higgins, the regulatory focus theory states that in terms of motiva- German Sport University Cologne, Am tional information processing, it makes a difference whether people have a promo- Sportpark Müngersdorf 6, 50933 Köln, tion or prevention focus. A focus on aspirations is labeled as promotion focus, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] whereas a focus on responsibility is called prevention focus. In our study, the theory will be applied to the area of sport decision making. We showed that doi: 10.1111/jasp.12159 soccer players make different decisions in a sport-specific divergent-thinking task depending on their regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention). Promotion- framed athletes were able to produce more original, flexible, and adequate solu- tions than prevention-framed athletes. Theoretical and practical implications for sport psychology are discussed. Creative solutions are central facets of life like business, pro- our best knowledge there is no study examining the influence fessional life, or even sports. Managers must find new ways to on creativity in more applied sport settings (e.g., production solve problems for industrial productions,
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Focus Theory Isalt Team Minnesota State University - Mankato
    Minnesota State University, Mankato Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato iSALT Resources: Theories, Concepts, and Institute for the Scholarship of Assessment, Measures Learning, and Teaching (iSALT) 2014 Regulatory Focus Theory iSALT Team Minnesota State University - Mankato Follow this and additional works at: http://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/isalt_resources Part of the Educational Psychology Commons Recommended Citation iSALT Team, "Regulatory Focus Theory" (2014). iSALT Resources: Theories, Concepts, and Measures. Paper 6. http://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/isalt_resources/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Institute for the Scholarship of Assessment, Learning, and Teaching (iSALT) at Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato. It has been accepted for inclusion in iSALT Resources: Theories, Concepts, and Measures by an authorized administrator of Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato. What is Regulatory Focus Theory? Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT) has been found to predict motivation, memory, task enjoyment, creativity and emotion (Förster et al., 2009). According to RFT, human behavior and motivation is underpinned by two unique systems of self-regulation: promotion focus, which is concerned with aspirations and accomplishments of ideals, and prevention focus, which is concerned with avoiding mistakes and fulfilling obligations (Higgins, 1997; Watling et al., 2012). Understanding this distinction has important ramifications on the content and delivery of effective feedback. Key Concepts and Dimensions Promotion is primarily concerned with accomplishments and achievements; goals are perceived as wishes or desires and individuals are motivated by achieving these goals (Watling et al., 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • Distinguishing Gains from Nonlosses and Losses from Nongains: a Regulatory Focus Perspective on Hedonic Intensity
    COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL 1 Distinguishing Gains from Nonlosses and Losses from Nongains: A Regulatory Focus Perspective on Hedonic Intensity Lorraine Chen Idson, Nira Liberman, and E. Tory Higgins Columbia University Received March 16, 1999; revised July 6, 1999; accepted July 6, 1999 We find that the pleasure of a gain is generally greater than the pleasure of a nonloss and that the pain of a loss is generally greater than the pain of a nongain. These patterns were found when participants reported both how they would feel if these outcomes were to happen (Studies 1 and 2) and how they actually felt when they happened (Study 3). Our results also suggest that it is stronger cheerfulness (rather than quiescence) that underlies the greater pleasure of a gain and stronger agitation (rather than dejection) that underlies the greater aversiveness of a loss. This set of findings is predicted by our regulatory focus conceptualization of how gain (promotion success) and nongain (promotion failure) versus nonloss (prevention success) and loss (prevention failure) differ in whether they are experienced in relation to a maximal goal or a minimal goal, respectively. Implications for models of emotional experiences and prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) are discussed. © 2000 Academic Press There is considerable interest, especially in the area of decision making, in the intensity of people’s reactions to gains versus losses. Studies have shown that losses generally loom larger than corresponding gains; i.e., losses are experi- enced more strongly than gains of the same objective magnitude (for a review, see Fishburn & Kochenberger, 1979; see also Galanter & Pliner, 1974).
    [Show full text]
  • Working Paper
    FACULTEIT ECONOMIE EN BEDRIJFSKUNDE TWEEKERKENSTRAAT 2 B-9000 GENT Tel. : 32 - (0)9 – 264.34.61 Fax. : 32 - (0)9 – 264.35.92 WORKING PAPER Consumer Ethics: The Role of Self-Regulatory Focus Tine De Bock* Patrick Van Kenhove† April 2010 2010/653 *Tine De Bock is PhD Student at Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Department of Marketing, Tweekerkenstraat 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium, Tel +32 9 2643567, E-mail: [email protected]. †Patrick Van Kenhove is Professor of Marketing at Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Department of Marketing, Tweekerkenstraat 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium, Tel +32 9 2643526, E-mail: [email protected]. D/2010/7012/24 Consumer Ethics: The Role of Self-Regulatory Focus ABSTRACT. The present study investigates the influence of self-regulatory focus on consumer ethical beliefs (i.e., consumers’ judgment of various unethical consumer practices). The self-regulatory focus framework is highly influential and applies to an impressively wide spectrum of topics across a diverse array of domains. However, previous research has not yet examined the link between this personality construct and the consumer ethics field. Findings indicate that promotion affects one’s attitude toward questionable consumer practices with those having a stronger (versus weaker) promotion focus being more likely to believe these consumer misbehaviors to be acceptable. Further, this study shows that prevention influences one’s perception of morally dubious consumer practices with those
    [Show full text]