DOCSLIB.ORG

What Makes You Happierba Nonloss Or a Gain? the Moderating Role Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Makes You Happierba Nonloss Or a Gain? the Moderating Role Of ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802 What Makes You Happierba Nonloss Or a Gain? the Moderating Role of Regulatory Focus and Need For Cognition Ashwani Monga, University of Minnesota Rui Zhu, Rice University EXTENDED ABSTRACT - Framing refers to equivalent but different descriptions of the same information (Tversky and Kahneman 1981). For instance, consider the case of a surcharge for paying by credit card rather than cash. The same situation can be framed as a loss (i.e., penalty for paying by credit card) or as a gain (i.e., discount for paying in cash). These two frames can lead to four framed outcomesCa loss (i.e., paying the penalty), a nonloss (i.e., avoiding the penalty), a gain (i.e., getting the discount), and a nongain (i.e., not getting the discount). While both a loss and a nongain represent negative outcomes of equal magnitude, a nonloss and a gain represent positive outcomes of the same magnitude. [to cite]: Ashwani Monga and Rui Zhu (2004) ,"What Makes You Happierba Nonloss Or a Gain? the Moderating Role of Regulatory Focus and Need For Cognition", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 31, eds. Barbara E. Kahn and Mary Frances Luce, Valdosta, GA : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 33-34. [url]: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/8835/volumes/v31/NA-31 [copyright notice]: This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/. What Makes You Happier–A Nonloss or a Gain? The Moderating Role of Regulatory Focus and Need for Cognition Ashwani Monga, University of Minnesota Rui Zhu, Rice University EXTENDED ABSTRACT frames (i.e., vigilance means). In terms of affect therefore, we Framing refers to equivalent but different descriptions of the should observe that gain frames lead to more favorable affect than same information (Tversky and Kahneman 1981). For instance, nonloss frames (i.e., the regulatory focus theory prediction) when consider the case of a surcharge for paying by credit card rather than individuals adopt a promotion focus, but nonloss frames lead to cash. The same situation can be framed as a loss (i.e., penalty for more favorable affect than gain frames (i.e., the prospect theory paying by credit card) or as a gain (i.e., discount for paying in cash). prediction) when individuals adopt a prevention focus. These two frames can lead to four framed outcomes—a loss (i.e., These effects should however hold only when individuals paying the penalty), a nonloss (i.e., avoiding the penalty), a gain have the processing motivation required to perceive the fit/misfit. (i.e., getting the discount), and a nongain (i.e., not getting the Research related to need for cognition (NFC) suggests that high discount). While both a loss and a nongain represent negative NFC individuals, compared to low NFC individuals, are more outcomes of equal magnitude, a nonloss and a gain represent sensitive to, and are more likely to elaborate on, the congruency/ positive outcomes of the same magnitude. incongruency of information (Cacioppo and Petty 1982; Srull, The impact of such frames on individuals’ affective experi- Lichtenstein, and Rothbart 1985). Accordingly, high NFC people ences can be viewed from two different perspectives—one based on should be more sensitive to the level of fit between regulatory focus prospect theory and another based on regulatory focus theory. and frame, and exhibit such sensitivity in their affective judgments. Regarding negative outcomes of equal magnitude, both perspec- Low NFC individuals, however, should be relatively immune to the tives make the same prediction—that negative affect evoked by a differences in fit, and therefore exhibit comparable levels of affect. loss will be greater than that evoked by a nongain. As for positive Specifically, we predict: outcomes of equal magnitude however, these two perspectives differ. While prospect theory predicts that the positive affect H1: When individuals approach a frame with a prevention evoked by a nonloss will be greater than that evoked by a gain, regulatory focus, those high in NFC should experience regulatory focus theory predicts exactly the opposite. It is this more positive affect for nonloss rather than gain frames. discrepancy that we aim to resolve in this paper. We try to figure out This difference in affect should however diminish for what makes people happier—a nonloss or a gain? low NFC individuals. According to prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky 1979), H2: When individuals approach a frame with a promotion framing manipulations determine whether individuals will evaluate regulatory focus, those high in NFC should experience an outcome as a gain or a loss in relation to a reference point. Given more positive affect for gain rather than nonloss frames. that the loss portion of the prospect theory value function is steeper This difference in affect should however diminish for than the gain portion, the predictions that arise are that (1) for the low NFC individuals. same negative outcome, a loss feels worse than a nongain, and (2) for the same positive outcome, a nonloss feels better than a gain. We use a series of scenario-based experiments to understand Regulatory focus theory (Higgins 1997, Idson et al. 2000) how regulatory focus might be induced in framed situations, and presents a different view of framing effects. According to this how this might have implications for affect. We first demonstrate theory, a gain/nongain situation encourages a promotion focus, (pretest 1) that buying situations induce a prevention focus whereas which in turn is likely to make a current goal seem like a maximal selling situations induce a promotion focus. Consequently (experi- goal. In contrast, a loss/nonloss situation induces a prevention ment 1), in support of our hypotheses, we observe an interesting focus, which in turn is likely to make the same goal seem like a reversal among high NFC participants, such that nonlosses produce minimal goal. While minimal goals are those that one must achieve, more favorable affect than gains in buying situations, but gains maximal goals represent those that one aspires to achieve. Accord- produce more favorable affect than nonlosses in selling situations. ingly, failing to achieve a minimal goal (e.g., a loss) should be more This effect is absent among low NFC participants. We next repli- aversive than failing to achieve a maximal goal (e.g., a nongain), cate the buying situation results using a different scenario (pretest whereas achieving a higher order maximal goal (e.g., a gain) should 2). Finally (experiment 2), we find further support for our theorizing be more pleasurable than achieving a minimal goal (e.g., a nonloss). by employing the same buying situation, but inducing a global, Notice that the latter prediction of gains being more pleasurable frame-unrelated regulatory focus before individuals actually see than nonlosses is the exact opposite of the prospect theory predic- the frame. tion. Overall, our results demonstrate that, given adequate process- In order to reconcile this discrepancy, we argue that one factor ing motivation, the prospect theory prediction (i.e., nonloss>gain) ignored by both theories is the regulatory focus that individuals holds for prevention focus individuals and the regulatory focus have when they approach framed situations. We suggest that affect theory prediction (i.e., gain>nonloss) holds for promotion focus will be more positive when regulatory fit (Higgins 2000, Higgins et individuals. This research presents insights into not only framing al. 2003) exists between individuals’ regulatory focus, and the effects, but also the broader issue of how it is not only the ends, but frame. Regulatory fit occurs when the strategic manner of one’s also the means that matter. goal pursuit is aligned with his or her regulatory orientation. Specifically, eagerness means fit a promotion focus and vigilance REFERENCES means fit a prevention focus. Accordingly, we propose that promo- Cacioppo, John T. and Richard E. Petty (1982), “The Need for tion focus individuals should experience fit when they encounter Cognition,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, gain frames (i.e., eagerness means), whereas prevention focus 42 (January), 116-131. individuals should experience fit when they encounter nonloss 33 Advances in Consumer Research Volume 31, © 2004 34 / What Makes You Happier–A Nonloss or a Gain? The Moderating Role of Regulatory Focus and Need for Cognition Cacioppo, John T., Richard E. Petty, and C. F. Kao (1984), “The Roney, Christopher J., E. Tory Higgins, and James Y. Shah Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition,” Journal of (1995), “Goals and Framing: How Outcome Focus Influ- Personality Assessment, 48 (June), 306-307. ences Motivation and Emotion,” Personality and Social Carmon, Ziv and Dan Ariely (2000), “Focusing on the Forgone: Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1151-1160. How Value Can Appear So Different to Buyers and Sellers,” Srull, Thomas K., Meryl Lichtenstein, and Myron Rothbart Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (December), 360-370. (1985), “Associative Storage and Retrieval Processes in Crowe, Ellen and E. Tory Higgins (1997), “Regulatory Focus Person Memory,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: and Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11 (April), 316-345. Decision-Making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Thaler, Richard (1980), “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Decision Processes, 69 (February), 117-132. Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1 Higgins, E. Tory (1997), “Beyond Pleasure and Pain,” American (March), 39-60. Psychologist, 52 (December, 1280-1300. Thibaut, J. W., and L. Walker (1975), Procedural Justice: A (1998), “Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory Focus as Psychological Analysis, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. a Motivational Principle,” Advances in Experimental Social Tversky, Amos (1994), “Contingent Preferences: Loss Aversion Psychology, 30, 1-46.
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]