Summary Articles SIPA
Article 1: Scholer et al.: Regulatory Focus Theory and Research – Catching up and looking
forward after 20 years (3)
What is regulatory focus theory?
Regulatory focus theory distinguished between two coexisting motivational systems
(promotion and prevention) that serve essential but different survival needs. The 2 core
differences between the systems are:
- Differences in what fundamentally motivates goal pursuit
Promotion: growth (i.e. to develop and be nurtured) and advancement
Prevention: security and safety
- Which regulatory strategies are preferred in goal pursuit
Promotion: eagerness
Prevention: vigilance
Theories have long recognized growth and security as fundamental needs. Thus, people
need both systems to be maximally effective in the world. However, in any given moment,
the concerns of one system may predominate over the other because of either chronic or
situational differences in accessibility.
What is promotion motivation?
Promotion focused people are sensitive to growth-related concerns, such as advancement
and progress. They dream big and broadly, aspiring for the next big leap, pursuing ideals.
They are maximally sensitive to two different outcomes: gains (success) vs. nongains
(failure). Even when all is going well, promotion-focused people are looking around to see
how things could go better. They are less sensitive to negative deviations from the status
quo or neutral state – the difference between 0 and -1. Failure is for them captured by
remaining at 0 ad failing to advance.
These concerns with moving towards gains and away from nongains are best served using
eager approach strategies in goal pursuit = enthusiastically approaching matches to desired
end states or gains and approaching mismatches to undesired end states or nongains.
Examples are: considering multiple alternatives, emphasizing positive possibilities, focusing
on the forest over the trees, prioritizing speed, and general openness to change.
What is prevention motivation?
Prevention-focused people are sensitive to security-related concerns, such as maintaining
safety and upholding duties and responsibilities. This sensitivity to the absence and presence
of negative outcomes is reflected in greater assigned significance to the difference between
0 and -1 than 0 and +1. They are maximally sensitive to nonlosses (maintain safety and doing
what you ought to do) vs. losses.
These concerns with moving toward nonlosses and away from losses are best served using
vigilant avoidance strategies in goal pursuit = avoiding mismatches to desired end states or
nonlosses and avoiding matches to undesired end states or losses. Examples are: carefully
vetting the alternative one considers, emphasizing the possibility that things might go wrong,
focusing on the trees over the forest, prioritizing accuracy, and generally embracing norms
and the status quo.
Where does regulatory focus motivation come from?
1
, Different styles of caretaker-child interactions contribute to individual differences in the
chronic strength of the promotion and prevention systems.
- Developing promotion focus caretaker-child interactions that emphasize desired end
states as ideals (hopes, wishes and aspirations) and making advancements that move to
a better state. Caretakers communicate, explicitly and implicitly, that what matters is
making progress, making gains.
Example: instructional scaffolding to support children’s progress in learning
- Developing prevention focus caretaker-child interactions that emphasize desired end
states as oughts (duties, responsibilities, and obligations) and maintain a satisfactory
state rather than a worse state. Caretakers communicate that what matters is to
maintain safety and security, to be prepared for what might jeopardize the current
satisfactory condition.
Example: teaching children good manners and proper social practices
Nurturing and bolstering parenting styles (child receives lot of encouragement) are
associated with stronger ideal self-guides in children and stronger promotion focus in
adults.
Punitive and controlling parenting styles (child must follow specific rules for obedience)
are associated with stronger ought self-guides in children and stronger prevention focus
in adults.
Children can receive both promotion and prevention caretaking styles and thereby
develop both strong promotion and prevention systems of self-regulation.
Situations can also temporarily activate promotion or prevention concerns. Situational forces
may arise from the structure of incentive systems that emphasize the distinction between
gains/nongains vs. losses/nonlosses, from leaders who focus on aspiration and ideals vs
duties an oughts, from tasks that highlight growth vs. security, from goal stages that
emphasize progress vs. maintenance, and from broader culture contexts that emphasize
moving beyond vs. embracing the status quo.
Individuals show significant variability in the strength of regulatory focus motivations across
identities (student vs. close relationship partner). Moreover, these identify-specific
regulatory focus motivations are better predictors of domain-specific goals than domain-
general regulatory focus orientation. Furthermore, if an individual has a promotion
motivational orientation associated with her boss, but a prevention motivational orientation
associated with her romantic partner, her likelihood of approaching current tasks with an
eager or vigilant orientation may depend, in part, on who she just saw for lunch (respectively
boss [eager], or romantic partner [vigilant]).
How is regulatory focus motivation measured and manipulated?
Promotion and prevention orientations can arise either from chronic accessibility
(personality differences or institutionalized situational differences) or from temporary
accessibility (momentary situational factors). The systems are orthogonal: at a chronic level,
individuals can simultaneously have strong promotion and prevention systems. However, at
any given moment, one system is likely to predominate – as a result of chronic and/or
momentary factors – and guide behavior.
2
