Regulatory focus and learning

2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (4/5) ◽  
pp. 425-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica E. Federman
Keyword(s):  
Informal Learning ◽  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Learning Performance ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Learning Behaviors ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Differential Effects ◽  
Performance Success

Purpose The purpose of this study is to understand how regulatory focus influences informal learning behaviors. A growing body of research indicates that regulatory focus has significant consequences for goal pursuit in the workplace, yet it has not been readily studied or applied to the field of human resource management (Johnson et al., 2015). This is one of the few studies to examine the relationship between informal learning and regulatory focus theory that can be applied to the training and development field. Design/methodology/approach Using a qualitative research design, a semi-structured interview was used to increase the comparability of participant responses. Questions were asked in an open-ended manner, allowing for a structured approach for collecting information yet providing flexibility for the sake of gaining more in-depth responses. An interview guideline was used to standardize the questions and ensure similar kinds of information were obtained across participants. A typological analytic approach (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) was used to analyze the data. Findings In a sample of 16 working adults, (44% female and 56% male), participants who were identified as having either a promotion- or prevention-focus orientation were interviewed about types of informal learning strategies they used. The results revealed that performance success and failure have differential effects on learning behaviors for prevention and promotion-focus systems. Stress and errors motivate informal learning for the prevention-focus system, whereas positive affect motivates informal learning for the promotion-focus system. Prevention-focus participants articulated greater use of vicarious learning, reflective thinking and feedback-seeking as methods of informal learning. Promotion-focus participants articulated greater use of experimentation methods of informal learning. Originality/value This study provides an in-depth understanding of how regulatory focus influences informal learning. Few studies have considered how regulatory focus promotes distinct strategies and inclinations toward using informal learning. Performance success and failure have differential effects on informal learning behaviors for regulatory promotion and prevention systems. This has theoretical and practical implications in consideration of why employees engage in informal learning, and the tactics and strategies they use for learning.

Regulatory focus and learning. How the pursuit of promotion and prevention-focus goals influence informal learning in the workplace

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica E. Federman
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Informal Learning ◽  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Learning Activities ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Student Body ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Self Reflection ◽  
The Individual

Purpose The purpose of the study is to understand how regulatory focus influences informal learning behaviors. Design/methodology/approach This is a qualitative research study. Sixteen individuals were interviewed using a semi-structured format with open-ended questions. Data analysis used a typological analytical approach as was a software program which conducted indexing and reorganization to facilitate further data analysis. Findings Individuals with a promotion-focus engage in informal learning more when they are experiencing or anticipating success with their goals. Prevention-focused individuals engage in informal learning more when they are experiencing or anticipating failure with their goals. Individuals with a promotion-focus engage in experimentation and feedback-seeking but few reported engagement in self-reflection. Individuals with a prevention-focus engaged in feedback and reflection in particular as informal learning activities. Research limitations/implications The sample was drawn from a specific student body. Practical implications Informal learning operates in different ways for different individuals. Organizations and individuals can consider how best to tailor types of informal learning activities to the particular regulatory focus of the individual. Originality/value This study is one of the first to examine the relationship between regulation focus and informal learning.

Achievement vs avoidance

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 14-16
Keyword(s):  
Emotional Exhaustion ◽  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Work Performance ◽  
Reading Time ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Pertinent Information ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies. Design/methodology/approach This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context. Findings The effects of a promotion focus, prevention focus, and a dual regulatory focus on work performance, sickness, and emotional exhaustion were investigated for managers and non-managers in The Netherlands. The dual focus relates more to managers, who have more complex roles and are called on to be able to act in flexible ways on a continual basis. It was tentatively found that a dual focus is not as beneficial as previously expected, and perhaps enhancing a promotion focus for managers and non-managers is more advantageous for an organization. Practical implications The paper provides strategic insights and practical thinking that have influenced some of the world’s leading organizations. Originality/value The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent, information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.

The role of regulatory focus and team mindfulness in megaproject conflicts

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dedong Wang ◽  
Yuxue Wang
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Task Conflict ◽  
Relationship Conflict ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Process Conflict ◽  
Positive Effect

PurposeProject conflicts are inevitable. Megaproject conflicts need to be managed across different levels. The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of individual-level regulatory focus and organization-level team mindfulness in managing megaproject conflicts.Design/methodology/approachBy combining the individual motivation basis and organizational background of conflict resolution, this study constructed a multi-level structural equation model. The hypothesis is tested based on data collected from 182 respondents.FindingsThe findings of this study show that project manager's promotion focus has a direct positive effect on task conflict and a negative effect on relationship conflict. Prevention focus has a positive effect on relationship conflict and a negative effect on task conflict and process conflict. Team mindfulness has a negative effect on relationship conflict and process conflict and a positive effect on task conflict. Task conflict was negatively affected by the interaction between team mindfulness and promotion focus. The interaction between team mindfulness and prevention focus had a positive effect on relationship conflict.Originality/valueThis study verifies the positive role of project manager's promotion focus and prevention focus in conflict management and clarifies the strengthening role of team mindfulness in constructive conflict and the prevention role in destructive conflict. This study also confirms that team mindfulness can act as a reinforcement and complementary factor of regulatory focus in megaproject conflict, contributing to the current understanding of the project manager's role in megaproject mindfulness contexts.

Why do I conform to your ideas?

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 346-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yongzheng Qu ◽  
Wen Wu ◽  
Fangcheng Tang ◽  
Haijian Si ◽  
Yuhuan Xia
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Development ◽  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Voice Behavior ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Research Perspective ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Positive Effect

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to advance and test a new construct, harmony voice. Furthermore, according to the social influence theory, the relationship betweenzhongyong, an essential Confucian orientation mode and voice behavior, and the moderating role of coworker’s regulatory focus (promotion focus and prevention focus) has been examined.Design/methodology/approachA field study has been designed to test our hypotheses. We used samples of 291 employee–coworker dyads from a variety of organizations in China to test this study’s hypotheses.FindingsThe results of this empirical study show thatzhongyongis positively related to harmony voice. Coworkers’ promotion focus strengthens the positive effect ofzhongyongon harmony voice, and coworkers’ prevention focus weakens the positive effect ofzhongyongon harmony voice.Research limitations/implicationsTraditionally defined voice and harmony voice might cause different risks to the voicer. However, how and what kinds of risks may be differently caused by these two types of voice behaviors have not been examined in this study. Future empirical research can explore the different effects of traditionally defined voice and harmony voice.Practical implicationsManagers responsible for managing Chinese employees should notice the difference in some important ways of thinking between Easterners and Westerners. Specifically,zhongyongmay direct people to express issues related to work in ways that are different from those of their Western counterparts. Harmony voice can benefit the Chinese organization without disrupting organizational development.Social implicationsBy examining the relationship betweenzhongyongand harmony voice, we contribute to identifying antecedents of voice by using an emic research perspective.Originality/valueWe made significant theoretical contributions to voice literature. We developed the construct of harmony voice, and we examined the relationship betweenzhongyongand voice.

Does innovation leadership enhance creativity in high-tech industries?

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 579-592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Feng-Cheng Tung ◽  
Tsu-Wei Yu
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Structural Equation ◽  
High Tech ◽  
Employee Creativity ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Supportive Leadership ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Common Goals ◽  
Innovation Leadership

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a greater understanding of the effect of innovation leadership (participative, supportive, and instrumental) on supervisory-rated employee creativity through greater employee regulatory focus (i.e. promotion and prevention). Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from dyads of 103 employees and employee supervisors working in Taiwan’s high-tech industry. A structural equation modelling approach was used to examine the relationship posited in this study. Findings – Results reveal that both participative and supportive leadership are positively associated with the creativity of supervisory-rated subordinates when those subordinates adopted a focus on promotion. The data also show that these relationships are partially mediated by employee promotion focus. At the same time, the positive relationship between instrumental leadership and employee creativity is fully mediated by employee prevention focus. Originality/value – The results of this study show that participative and supportive leaders cultivate employee promotion focus, which then enhances employee creativity. Instrumental leaders will induce employee prevention focus, which also enhances employee creativity. These findings imply that when enhancing employee creativity, employees with a promotion focus are more suited to participative and supportive leaders, while employees who do not have a promotion focus may be more suited to leaders who provide these employees with specific instructions on the rules, regulations, and procedures to follow to accomplish given tasks and common goals.

A multi-level test for social regulatory focus and team member creativity

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (8) ◽  
pp. 1057-1077 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen-Ju Lin
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Creative Performance ◽  
Level Control ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Empowering Leadership ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Level Indicator ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Survey Team

Purpose In this study, self-leadership strategy serves as a self-regulatory mediating mechanism of individual differences in predicting individual creativity because it is related to actions intended to lead their own goal-directed activities. The purpose of this paper is to explore the boundary conditions of the effect of regulatory focus on employee self-leadership behaviors. Design/methodology/approach Considering the contextual influence, cross-level moderating effect of empowering leadership on the relationship between the promotion (prevention) focus and self-leadership has been examined. The research data were collected from 441 employees of 65 work teams from three software companies located in Northern Taiwan. A time-lagged design by implementing three time surveys was applied to minimize potential problems of cross-sectional design. At Time 1, employees completed the measures of promotion focus, prevention focus, empowering leadership, and individual-level control variables. At Time 2, employees reported the extent of their self-leadership at work. In the final survey, team leaders assessed the individual employee creativity. Findings This study concludes several findings. When self-leading behavior-focused strategies are considered as mediators, the indirect relationships that promotion focus and prevention focus had with individual creativity were confirmed. As an influential team-level indicator, empowering leadership could moderate the relatedness between employees promotion-focused strategies and behavior-focused strategies that positively influenced on individual creativity. Originality/value In this study, responding to the call by De Stobbeleir et al. (2011) to examine how employees actively manage their creative performance, the author zoomed in on self-leadership strategies and how these strategies relate to actual creative performance.

Having champagne without celebration?

2014 ◽  
Vol 48 (11/12) ◽  
pp. 1939-1961 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shin-Shin Chang ◽  
Chung-Chau Chang ◽  
Ya-Lan Chien ◽  
Jung-Hua Chang
Keyword(s):  
Goal Orientation ◽  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
New Products ◽  
Product Evaluations ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Product Usage ◽  
Usage Context ◽  
The Impact

Purpose – This research aims to analyze whether the self-regulatory focus, a consumer variable, moderates the impact of incongruity on consumer evaluations. A congruity or typicality arises when a product (e.g. champagne) is consistently consumed in certain occasions or is used in conjunction with other specific products. This typicality may remind people of the product with regard to specific contexts but may limit the product’s overall versatility. In line with the moderate incongruity effect, there may be an opportunity to extend a product usage to situations associated with moderate incongruity or atypicality. Design/methodology/approach – Study 1 is a 2 (self-regulatory focus: promotion/prevention) × 3 (atypicality of product usage context: typical/moderately atypical/highly atypical) between-subject experimental design. Study 2 replicated Study 1 with a sample of different age, three different champagne usage contexts and a manipulation of self-regulatory focus. Study 3 is a 2 (self-regulatory focus: promotion/prevention) × 3 (atypicality of product usage context: typical/moderately atypical/highly atypical) × 2 (product replicates: red wine/pearl jewelry) mixed design with self-regulatory focus and atypicality as between-subjects factors and product replicates as a within-subject variable. Findings – Promotion-focus consumers’ product evaluations for the moderate incongruity or atypicality are higher than those for congruity and extreme incongruity. The relationship takes an inverted-U shape. Prevention-focus consumers’ product evaluations decrease monotonically as congruity decreases. Moreover, compared with prevention-focus individuals, promotion-focus ones evaluate moderate incongruity more favorably. Research limitations/implications – There are some limitations to this research. First, it only investigates the moderate incongruity effect with regard to product use occasions and complementary products. To increase the external validity of self-regulatory focus as a moderator of incongruity-evaluation relationships, it remains to future research to extend the research setting to products which have been tightly bonded to specific users, locations, seasons or times. Second, although the experimental designs are similar to previous ones, the scenarios are nevertheless imaginary. Therefore, participants’ involvement levels in all manipulated situations, as well as the quality of their answers, remain unknown. Practical implications – First, brand managers should target only promotion-focus customers to obtain the moderate incongruity effect, but should maintain a consistent marketing strategy for prevention-focus customers. Second, because both promotion- and prevention-focus individuals have unfavorable evaluations of extreme incongruity, drastic changes in marketing strategies should be avoided. Third, people from a Western (Eastern) culture exhibit more promotion (prevention) focus orientation. Therefore, the type of culture can serve as an indicator of regulatory orientation. Fourth, a gain-framed appeal is recommended for realizing the moderate incongruity effect from promotion-focus consumers. Finally, promotion-focus (vs prevention-focus) consumers will welcome a moderately nonalignable than alignable product upgrade. Originality/value – Most prior research on goal orientation has found that promotion-focus (vs. prevention-focus) individuals are more inclined to adopt new products, but both types of people are unlikely to purchase new products when the associated risks become salient, while the research related to schema incongruity has suggested that the moderate incongruity effect may not exist when consumers perceive high risks. By combining both schema congruity and self-regulatory focus theories, this research provides a more precise picture of how and why a person’s goal orientation influences the relative salience of risks and benefits with an increase in incongruity.

Investigating the influence of regulatory focus on the efficacy of online review volume versus valence

2020 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 297-314
Author(s):  
Elika Kordrostami ◽  
Yuping Liu-Thompkins ◽  
Vahid Rahmani
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Product Category ◽  
Online Reviews ◽  
Online Review ◽  
Target Market ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Review Management ◽  
Volume Effects

Purpose Valence and volume of online reviews are generally considered to influence sales positively. However, existing findings regarding the relative influence of these two components have been inconclusive. This paper aims to explain some of these inconsistencies by examining the moderating role of regulatory focus (both as a chronic disposition and as a situational focus induced by the product category) in the relationship between online review volume/valence and consumers purchase decisions. Design/methodology/approach Two studies were conducted. Study 1 used a 2 (Volume: high/ low) * 3 (Valence: high/medium/low) within-subject experimental design. Study 2 analyzed real-world data from Amazon.com. Logistic and panel regression analyses were used to test the research hypotheses. Findings The studies confirmed the hypothesized effect of regulatory focus on online review valence and volume effects. Specifically, Study 1 showed that online review valence was more impactful for consumers with a promotion focus than for consumers with a prevention focus. The opposite was true for online review volume effects, where consumers with a prevention focus were influenced more by volume in their decision-making compared to consumers with a promotion focus. Study 2 showed that the pattern of results we found in Study 1 also applied to situational regulatory focus induced by the product category. The effect of review volume on sales rank was stronger for prevention-oriented products, whereas the effect of valence was stronger for promotion-oriented products. Research limitations/implications In Study 1, one product category was involved in the study (Digital camera). Involving more different product categories will add reliability to the results of current research. Also, it can offer external validity to current research results. In Study 2, there was no exact measurement for sales, as Amazon.com does not share that kind of information. Instead, Sales Rank was used as a proxy variable. Future research could look into the websites that offer access to the exact sales information. Practical implications The current research findings suggest the need for companies to adapt their consumer review management strategy to the regulatory orientation of their target market and products. When a promotion-focused mindset is targeted, strategies for increasing the favorability of product reviews should be used, in contrast, tactics for increasing the quantity of reviews may be more suitable when a prevention-focused mindset is involved. Originality/value To the best of the authors' knowledge, this research is the first to investigate the interaction between regulatory focus of consumers and products and online review components.

Motivational virtual agent in e-learning: the roles of regulatory focus and message framing

2020 ◽  
Vol 121 (1/2) ◽  
pp. 37-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Su-Mae Tan ◽  
Tze Wei Liew ◽  
Chin Lay Gan
Keyword(s):  
Learning Environment ◽  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Virtual Agent ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Message Frame ◽  
E Learning ◽  
Loss Frame ◽  
Gain Frame

Purpose The aim of this paper is to examine the effects of a learner’s regulatory focus orientation and message frame of a motivational virtual agent in an e-learning environment. Design/methodology/approach On the basis of quasi-experimental design, university sophomores (n = 210) categorized as chronic promotion-focus, chronic prevention-focus or neutral regulatory focus interacted with either an agent that conveyed gain-frame message or an agent that conveyed loss-frame message to persuade learners to engage with the e-learning content. Statistical analyses assessed the effects of regulatory focus and message frame on agent perception, motivation and cognitive load. Findings The results of this paper did not support the hypotheses that chronic promotion-focus learners will benefit more with gain-frame agent than a loss-frame agent, and that chronic prevention-focus learners will benefit more with loss-frame agent than a gain-frame agent. There were main effects of message frame (albeit small effects) – the loss-frame agent was perceived to be more engaging, induced higher motivation and prompted higher germane load than the gain-frame agent. With gain-frame agent, chronic promotion-focus learners had higher motivation toward the e-learning task than other learners. Originality/value Prior studies have examined regulatory focus and message frame with agents simulating virtual health advocates. This paper extended on this by examining these roles with a persuasive agent simulating virtual tutor in an e-learning environment.

The effect of regulatory focus and performance measurement on corporate social responsibility investment decisions

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hijroh Rokhayati ◽  
Mahfud Sholihin ◽  
Supriyadi Supriyadi ◽  
Ertambang Nahartyo
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Performance Measurement ◽  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Investment Decisions ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Measurement Condition ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Corporate Social

Purpose This paper aims to investigate the relationship between regulatory focus, performance measurement and corporate social responsibility (CSR) investment decisions. Design/methodology/approach Using an experimental method with a 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial design involving 144 participants, the data were analyzed using t-test and contrast test. In the experiment, the authors assigned participants into prevention focus or promotion focus group and complementary performance measurement or substitute performance measurement condition. Findings The results show that CSR investment is more preferable for managers in prevention focus instead of those in promotion focus group. Additionally, CSR investment is more preferable for managers in complementary performance measurement condition compared to those in substitute performance measurement condition. This study also provides evidence that the greatest CSR investment is reached when managers are in both prevention focus group and complementary performance measurement conditions. Practical implications Companies need to activate the prevention focus for managers to motivate CSR investment. Additionally, companies need to use complementary performance measurements, which consist of CSR measurement and financial measurements. Originality/value CSR research is dominated by theories explaining the external models which trigger companies to perform CSR. Existing research related to the internal models is limited to psychological aspects that are not directly related to company performance. This study investigates the motivational attributes that have a direct and strong influence on managers behavior. This research shows that regulatory focus is better at predicting CSR investment and is more motivational for individuals to perform well at work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document