scholarly journals Regulatory Focus and Conspiratorial Perceptions: The Importance of Personal Control

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer A. Whitson ◽  
Joongseo Kim ◽  
Cynthia S. Wang ◽  
Tanya Menon ◽  
Brian D. Webster
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Personal Control ◽  
Baseline Condition ◽  
Sense Of Control ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Conspiracy Theories ◽  
Control Loss ◽  
Control Study

We examine when and why people subscribe to conspiratorial beliefs, suggesting that promotion focus reduces conspiratorial perceptions by activating a sense of personal control. Study 1 established that individuals primed with promotion focus are less likely to perceive conspiracies than those in a baseline condition. However, individuals primed with prevention focus and those in a baseline condition did not differ in their levels of conspiratorial beliefs. Study 2 demonstrated that soldiers higher in promotion focus were less likely to endorse conspiracy theories because of their heightened sense of control; this relationship did not emerge for soldiers higher in prevention focus. Study 3 found that conspiratorial beliefs increased when individuals primed with promotion focus recalled personal control loss, whereas those primed with prevention focus were unaffected by personal control loss. Using measures and manipulations of regulatory focus and personal control, we establish when and why promotion focus reduces conspiracy theories.

scholarly journals Promoting Water Conservation Based on the Matching Effect of Regulatory Focus and Emotion

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1680
Author(s):  
Xiaomei Wang ◽  
Lin Zhang ◽  
Xiaoyu Jiang ◽  
Jia Wang
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Water Conservation ◽  
Information Dissemination ◽  
Interactive Effect ◽  
Water Saving ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Matching Effect ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Cognitive Motivation ◽  
Willingness To Engage

This study aimed to examine the effects of regulatory focus and emotions on water-saving information dissemination. The findings revealed that when water-saving information is framed with a prevention focus, sad emotion fosters more active willingness to engage with the information dissemination than cheerful emotion. However, a promotion focus coupled with cheerfulness is slightly more persuasive than a promotion focus coupled with sadness. Furthermore, compared to the individuals in the nonfit group of emotions who had a regulatory focus, the individuals in the fit group formed a more favorable water-saving attitude and demonstrated a slightly higher willingness to disseminate water-saving information. This article is the first to contribute to exploring the dissemination of water-saving information from the perspective of the interactive effect of individual cognitive motivation and emotion.

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.

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.

scholarly journals The impact of challenge-hindrance stressors on creativity: the mediating role of regulatory focus and the moderating role of proactive personality

2021 ◽  
Vol 245 ◽  
pp. 03031
Author(s):  
Yixin Yang ◽  
Mingjian Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Proactive Personality ◽  
Regulatory Focus Theory ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Mediating Role ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Moderating Role ◽  
Focus Theory

Based on the challenge-hindrance stressors framework and regulatory focus theory, this study explored the mediating role of promotion focus between challenge stressors and employee creativity, and the mediating role of prevention focus between hindrance stressors and creativity. In addition, we further explored the moderating role of proactive personality in this model. In the end, we discuss implications and limitations of our argument for theory and practices.

Role of regulatory focus in the asymmetric perception of gains versus nonlosses and of losses versus nongains

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yanwei Shi ◽  
Fuming Xu ◽  
Zhuang She ◽  
Peng Xiang ◽  
Hui Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Perceived Fairness ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Outcome Fairness ◽  
Priming Task ◽  
Situational Prevention ◽  
Perceived Unfairness

We tested the effects of regulatory focus on the asymmetric perception of losses versus nongains and of gains versus nonlosses. In Experiment 1, situational regulatory focus was manipulated by a priming task and then participants evaluated the outcome fairness of different distribution scenarios. In Experiment 2, participants completed the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire and then evaluated the outcome fairness of various distribution scenarios. Results showed that: (a) The gains versus nonlosses asymmetry in perceived fairness was stronger with a situational promotion focus, and the losses versus nongains asymmetry in perceived unfairness was stronger with a situational prevention focus; (b) The losses versus nongains asymmetry in perceived unfairness was stronger with a chronic prevention focus, whereas the gains versus nonlosses asymmetry in perceived fairness was positive with both a chronic promotion focus and chronic prevention focus. Taken together, the findings demonstrate that a situational regulatory focus has more extensive effects than does a chronic regulatory focus on asymmetric perceptions of outcomes. These results offer insights for understanding the differences between chronic and situational regulatory focus.

The Impact of Regulatory Focus on Challenge and Threat

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Sassenrath ◽  
Kai Sassenberg ◽  
Daan Scheepers
Keyword(s):  
Causal Relationship ◽  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Expected Effect ◽  
Challenge And Threat ◽  
The Impact

Abstract. Research has shown that feelings of threat elicit a prevention focus and feelings of challenge elicit a promotion focus. The present research tested the reverse causal relationship. We predicted that, when people are faced with a demanding task, they experience more challenge and less threat if they are in a promotion focus as compared to a prevention focus because having a promotion focus results in the perception of having more resources than a prevention focus does. In two studies assessing or manipulating regulatory focus, respectively, we found the expected effect on challenge and threat as well as the mediation of this effect via perceived resources. The relationships between regulatory focus and challenge and threat are discussed.

Approaching the True Self: Promotion Focus Predicts the Experience of Authenticity

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinhyung Kim ◽  
Kaiyuan Chen ◽  
William E. Davis ◽  
Joshua A. Hicks ◽  
Rebecca Jean Schlegel
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Goal Pursuit ◽  
Interpersonal Interactions ◽  
True Self ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Future Directions

Research on subjective authenticity identifies several psychological antecedents that seem naturally tied to subjectively authentic experiences. Four studies (N = 525) tested the hypothesis that a promotion focus (compared to a prevention focus) represents another shared antecedent of felt authenticity. Studies 1 and 2 examined correlations between self-regulatory focus and subjective authenticity in the context of goal-pursuit and interpersonal interactions. Studies 3 and 4 were experiments designed to manipulate self-regulatory focus and examine the effect of promotion/prevention foci on subjective authenticity. Across all studies, we found that a promotion focus (relative to a prevention focus) was a robust predictor of subjective authenticity. Implications and future directions are discussed.

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.

Realizing Challenges and Guarding Against Threats: Interactive Effects of Regulatory Focus and Stress on Performance

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (8) ◽  
pp. 3011-3037 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kris Byron ◽  
Suzanne J. Peterson ◽  
Zhen Zhang ◽  
Jeffery A. LePine
Keyword(s):  
Job Performance ◽  
Coping Strategies ◽  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Prevention Focus ◽  
Promotion Focus ◽  
Challenge Stress ◽  
Hindrance Stress ◽  
And Coping ◽  
The Relationship

Self-regulation seems crucial to understanding how employees perform under stress because employees must regulate their thoughts, feelings, and behavior to deal effectively with work stress. Integrating regulatory focus theory and the challenge–hindrance stressor framework, we theorized that the effects of regulatory focus on job performance would vary as a function of the level of stress employees experience. Specifically, we contend that employees are more efficacious and motivated (and thus perform better) when they have established goal and coping strategies that allow them to cope with the stress they face; those lacking in these strategies are likely to find the stress overwhelming and taxing (and perform worse). Using multisource data of 160 salespersons, we investigated this relationship with two measures of job performance. We found that challenge stress moderates the relationship between promotion focus and job performance: When challenge stress is high, promotion focus is positively related to job performance; when low, promotion focus is negatively or not significantly related to job performance. We also found that hindrance stress moderates the relationship between prevention focus and job performance: When hindrance stress is low, prevention focus is negatively related to job performance, but when high, prevention focus is positively related to job performance. Moreover, we find some support for three-way interactions suggesting that using mismatched goal and coping strategies is especially harmful. Our results explain performance differences in high-stress situations and highlight the important role of self-regulation when employees are in stressful conditions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document