Motivating relationship commitment: The role of regulatory focus

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chin Ming Hui ◽  
Daniel Molden
2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam D. Galinsky ◽  
Geoffrey Leonardelli ◽  
Gerardo Okhuysen ◽  
Thomas Mussweiler
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
pp. 089484532199164
Author(s):  
Adam M. Kanar ◽  
Dave Bouckenooghe

This study aimed to understand the role of regulatory focus for influencing self-directed learning activities during a job search. The authors surveyed 185 job-searching university students at two time points to explore the conditions under which regulatory focus (promotion and prevention foci) impacts self-directed learning activities and the number of employment interviews secured. Both promotion and prevention foci showed significant relationships with self-directed learning activities and number of interviews, and positive and negative affect partially mediated these relationships. The relationships between both regulatory focus strategies and self-directed learning were also contingent on self-efficacy. More specifically, prevention focus and self-directed learning showed a positive relationship for job seekers with high levels of self-efficacy but a negative one for job seekers with low levels of self-efficacy. This research extends the understanding of the role of regulatory focus in the context of self-directed learning during a job search. Implications for research and practice are discussed.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nhat Quang Le ◽  
Magne Supphellen ◽  
Richard P. Bagozzi

Abstract Donation campaigns that have an unsuccessful start often trigger negative social information in the social and mass media (e.g., “few others have donated so far”). Little research exists to shed light on the effects of such information in the context of donations. Across three studies involving different causes and different channels of communication, we find harmful effects of negative social information on the willingness to donate among prevention-focused consumers but tendencies of positive effects for consumers with a promotion focus. We identify response efficacy as a mediator of the harmful effect for prevention-focused consumers. This finding suggests that social proof theory is not sufficient to explain the harmful effect of negative social information. Alternative mediators are tested and rejected. The findings imply that an effective strategy to avoid harmful effects of negative social information is to trigger a promotion focus in target group members and communicate facts about charity effectiveness.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document