etal1994proposedthatindividualschronicselfregatschoolforthebeginning - PDF document

1 etal.(1994)proposedthatindividuals’chron
etal.(1994)proposedthatindividuals’chronicself-reg-atschoolforthebeginningofmy8:30psychologyclassulationinrelationtodifferenttypesofdesiredselveswhichisusuallyexcellent,Iwokeupearlythismorn-exemplifiesthisstrategicdistinction.ing.”[approachingamatchtoadesiredend-state];andepancytheory(Higgins,1987)distinguishes(b)“Iwantedtotakeaclassinphotographyatthebetweentwotypesofdesiredend-states:(a)idealself-communitycenter,soIdidn’tregisterforaclassinguides,whichareindividuals’representationsofsome-Spanishthatwasscheduledatthesametime.”one’s(selforother)hopes,wishes,oraspirationsfor[avoidingamismatchtoadesiredend-state]them;and(b)oughtself-guides,whichareindividuals’Aspredicted,theparticipantsrememberedepisodesrepresentationsofsomeone’sbeliefsabouttheirduties,thatexemplifiedapproachingmatchestodesiredend-ligations,andresponsibilities.Self-regulationinrela-statessignificantlybetterwhenidealversusoughtself-tiontoeitheridealoroughtself-guidesisdiscrepancy-regulationwasactivated,whereastheyrememberedreducingandinvolvesapproachatthegeneralsystemepisodesthatexemplifiedavoidingmismatchestode-level.Higginsetal.(1994)proposed,however,thatidealsiredend-statessignificantlybetterwhenoughtversusandoughtself-regulationdifferintheirstrategicincli-idealself-regulationwasactivated.Asecondstudyon.undthatindividualswithstrongidealself-regulationActualselfcongruenciestohopes,wishes,oraspira-versusstrongoughtself-regulationselecteddifferenttionsrepresentthepresenceofpositiveoutcomestacticswhenaskedabouttheirstrategiesforfriendship,whereasdiscrepanciesrepresenttheabsenceofpositivewiththeformerselectingtacticsthatinvolvedap-outcomes.Thus,thepsychologicalsituationsinvolvedproachingmatches(e.g.,“Besupportivetoyourfriends.inidealself-regulationarethepresenceandabsenceofBeemotionallysupportive”)andthelatterselectingtac-es(seeHiggins,1989).Unlikehopes,ticsthatinvolvedavoidingmismatches(e.g.,“Stayinwishes,andaspirationsthatfunctionlikemaximaltouch.Don’tlosecontactwithfriends”).goals,duties,obligations,andresponsibilitiesfunctionTheresultsofthisandotherstudies(seeHigginset1996).1994;Higgins&Tykocinski,1992)supportedtheThesearegoalsthatapersonmustattainorstandardsproposalthatidealself-regulationinvolvedaconcernthatmustbemet.Whenstrongenough,suchasbiblicalwithpositiveutcomes(presenceandabsence)andammandments,oughtscanevenfunctionlikenecessi-predilectionforapproachmeanstoobtaindesiredend-ties.Discrepanciestosuchminimalgoalsrepresentthestates,whereasoughtself-regulationinvolvedacon-presenceofnegativeoutcomeswhereascongruenciescernwithnegativeoutcomes(absenceandpresence)representtheabsenceofnegativeoutcomes(seeGould,andapredilectionforavoidancemeanstoobtaindesired1939;Rotter,1982).Thus,thepsychologicalsituationsend-states.Butmoregenerally,idealandoughtself-involvedinoughtself-regulationaretheabsenceandregulationcanbeconsideredasinvolvingtwotypesofpresenceofnegativeoutcomes.regulatoryfocuseeHiggins,1996a).Idealself-regula-etal.(1994)proposedthattheconcernoftionhasapromotionfocuswhereasoughtself-regula-idealself-regulationwithpositiveoutcomes(theirpres-tionhasapreventionfocus.Toappreciatebettertheenceandabsence)shouldengenderaninclinationtonatureofthesetwotypesofregulatoryfocus,theirhy-approachmatchestohopesandaspirationsasastrat-pothesizedinvolvementinself-guideacquisitionwillbeegyforidealself-regulation.Incontrast,theconcern(forafullerdiscussionofsocializationofoughtself-regulationwithnegativeoutcomes(theiresses,seeHiggins,1996a).absenceandpresence)shouldengenderaninclinationThechildexperiencesthepresenceofpositiveout-avoidmismatchestodutiesandobligationsasastrat-comeswhencaretakers,forexample,encouragetheegyforoughtself-regulation.Inoneoftheirstudies,childtoovercomedifficultiesorsetupopportunitiesforetal.(1994)testedthesepredictionsbyfirstthechildtoengageinrewardingactivities,andtheaskingundergraduatestoreporteitheronhowtheirchildexperiencestheabsenceofpositiveoutcomeswhenhopesandaspirationshavechangedovertime(toprimecaretakers,forexample,takeawayatoywhenthechildoractivateidealself-guides)oronhowtheirdutiesandrefusestoshareitorstopastorywhenthechildisnotligationshavechangedovertime(toprimeoughtpayingattention.Thecaretaker’smes

2 sagetothechildself-guides).Next,theparti
sagetothechildself-guides).Next,theparticipantsreadaboutseveralinbothcasesisthatwhatmattersisattainingaccom-thatoccurredoverafewdaysinthelifeofplishmentsorfulfillinghopesandaspirations,butitisanotherstudent,completedafillertask,andthentriedcommunicatedinreferencetoeitheradesiredorantoremembertheepisodesinafreerecalltask.Theundesiredstateofthechild—either“ThisiswhatIepisodesalldescribedthetargetastryingtoexperiencewouldideallylikeyoutodo”or“ThisisnotwhatIwouldadesiredend-statebutvariedinthestrategyused,asinthefollowingexamples:(a)“BecauseIwantedtobeideallylikeyoutodo”.Theregulatoryfocusisoneof COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL 2 promotion,i.e.,aconcernwithadvancement,growth,ofnegative)whentheydidnotsolveananagramandaccomplishment.“Youdidn’tmissthatone”(absenceofnegative)whenIncontrast,thechildexperiencestheabsenceofnega-theysolvedananagram.Afterthefirsttrialinwhichtiveoutcomeswhencaretakers,forexample,traintheeedbackwasgiven,theparticipantsimmediatelyper-ildtobealerttopotentialdangersorteachthechildformedasecondtrialwithoutfeedback.Theresultsforto“mindyourmanners,”andthechildexperiencesthethistrialareofspecialinterestbecausetherewasnopresenceofnegativeoutcomeswhencaretakers,forex-longerfeedbackbutaregulatoryfocushadbeeninducedample,yellatthecildwhenheorshedoesnotlistenfromthefirsttrial.Fortheunsolvableanagrams,theorcriticizethechildwhenheorshemakesamistake.tudyfoundthatparticipantswithapreventionfocusThecaretaker’smessagetothechildinbothcasesisquitbeforethetimewasupon19%oftheproblems,thatwhatmattersisinsuringsafety,beingresponsible,whereasparticipantswithapromotionfocusquitonandmeetingobligations,butitiscommunicatedinref-only4%oftheproblems.erencetoeitheradesiredoranundesiredstateoftheTheresultsofthisstudysuggestthatfeedbackisild—either“ThisiswhatIbelieveyououghttodo”capableofinducingtemporarilyeitherapromotionfo-or“ThisisnotwhatIbelieveyououghttodo.”Thecusorapreventionfocus,andthisinturncaninfluenceregulatoryfocusisoneofprevention,i.e.,aconcernwithmotivationtopersistonatask.Butfeedbackisnotprotection,safety,responsibility.theonlysituationalvariablethatshouldbecapableofThesecaretaker–childinteractionsoccuroverlonginducingdifferenttypesofregulatoryfocus.Touseperiodsandconsistofachild’ssignificantothercommu-againtheanalogyofcaretaker–childinteractions,itnicatingaboutthechild’scontingenciesintheworld.shouldbepossibletoinducearegulatoryfocuswithThedifferentmessagesengenderidealself-regulationinstructionsthatpresentataskcontingencyconcerninginvolvingapromotionfocusconcernedwithadvance-whichactionsproducewhichconsequences,i.e.,howment,growth,accomplishmentoroughtself-regulationtoattaindesired(versusundesired)end-states.Thisinvolvingapreventionfocusconcernedwithprotection,possibilitywastestedinasecondstudybyRoneyetal.safety,responsibility.Butregulatoryfocusshouldnot1995)onmotivationalpersistence.limitedtosuchchronicindividualdifferences.AfterUndergraduateparticipantsweretoldthattheyall,momentarysituationsshouldalsobecapableoftem-wouldperformtwotasks.Foreveryonethefirsttaskporailyinducingeitherapromotionfocusorapreven-wasananagramstaskthatincludedbotheasyana-tionfocus.Justastheresponsesofcaretakerstotheirgramspretestedtobesolvablebyeveryoneandunsolv-ildren’sactionsprovidefeedbacktothechildrenableanagrams.Alloftheparticipantsweretoldthatabouthowtoattaindesired(ratherthanundesired)thesecondtaskwouldbeeitheracomputersimulationend-states,feedbackfromabossorateachercommuni-ofthepopular“WheelofFortune”gameorataskcalledcatestoanemployeeorastudent,respectively,howto“unvariedrepetition”describedinsuchawayastoattaindesiredend-states.Andsuchfeedbackcanoccurappearveryboring.Althoughtheperformancecontin-inamomentarysituationwithouttherebeingalonggencyforplayingthefungameratherthantheboringhistoryorstrongrelationshipbetweentheinteractants.gameasthesecondtaskwasthesameforeveryone,thehus,promotionorpreventioneedback,whetheritcon-framingofthecontingencywasexperimentallyvaried.rnsadesiredstate(positivefeedback)oranundesiredHalfoftheparticipantsweregivenapromotionfocusstate(negativefeedback),shouldbecapableofinducinginwhichtheyweretoldthatiftheysolved2(ormore)atemporarystateofregulatoryfocusthatinfluencesoutofthe25anagr

3 amstheywouldgettoplaythemotivation.“Whee
amstheywouldgettoplaythemotivation.“WheelofFortune”game,otherwisetheywoulddotheThispossibilitywastestedinarecentstudybyRoney,“unvariedrepetition”task.Theotherhalfofthepartici-1995).Undergraduateparticipantspantsweregivenapreventionfocusinwhichtheywereworkedonasetofanagramsthatincludedbothsolvabletoldthatiftheygotfour(ormore)outofthe25ana-anagramsandunsolvableanagrams.Theparticipantsgramswrong,theywoulddothe“unvariedrepetition”weregiven45stosolveeachanagrambuttheycouldtask,otherwisetheywouldplaythe“WheelofFortune”quitbeforethetimewasup.Successorfailurefeedbackgame.Thetimeparticipantsspentworkingontheun-wasgivenaftereachproblem.Halfoftheparticipantssolvableanagramswasrecorded.Consistentwiththereceivedpromotionfocusfeedback,suchas“Right,youresultsofthefirststudydescribedearlier,thisstudygotthatone”(presenceofpositive)whentheysolvedfoundthatparticipantswithapromotionfocusper-ananagramor“Youdidn’tgetthatoneright”(absencesistedoverone-thirdlongerontheunsolvableana-ofpositive)whentheydidnotsolveananagram.Thegramsthanparticipantswithapreventionfocus.otherhalfoftheparticipantsreceivedpreventionfocuseedback,suchas“No,youmissedthatone”(presenceTheresultsofthesetworecentstudiessuggestthat COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL 3 regulatoryfocuscanbeinducedsituationallyandinflu-isexperienced,thisorientationmightmotivatequittingtoavoidexplicitlycommittinganerror.encemotivation.Thus,regulatoryfocusisnotjustanindividualdifferencevariablerelevanttochronicper-ThefindingsofRoneyetal.(1995)needtobereconsid-eredinlightofthisanalysis.Theunsolvableanagramssonalpredilections.Rather,itconcernsdifferentself-regulatorystates.Individualscanbechronicallypredis-intheirstudiesappearedamongthefirstfewproblems,andthustheparticipantsexperiencedfailureearlyonposedtoexperienceaparticularstateoritcanbein-hemtemporarilybypropertiesofthecurrentinthetasks.Thisearlyfailureexperiencemighthavebeennecessarytoproducetheregulatoryfocusdiffer-situation.Ineithercase,individualsinapromotionfocusstateversusapreventionfocusstatewillhaveencethatwasfound.Oneoftheaimsofourfirststudywastoexaminedirectlyforthefirsttimewhetherana-fferentstrategicinclinations.Letusreconsider,then,thenatureofthisdifferenceinstrategicinclinations.gramperformanceonsolvableanagramsisbetterwithapromotionfocusthanapreventionfocusonlywhenApromotionfocusisconcernedwithadvancement,growth,accomplishment.Goalsarehopesandaspira-participantsareexperiencingdifficulty.Anew“embed-dedfigures”taskwasalsoincludedinourfirststudytions.Thestrategicinclinationistomakeprogressbypproachingmatchestothedesiredend-state.Incon-inordertoconsiderthispossibilitymoregenerally.Itwasexpectedthatindividualsinapreventionfocustrast,apreventionfocusisconcernedwithsecurity,safety,responsibility.Goalsaredutiesandobligationswouldquitanespeciallydifficulthiddenfigurebeforethetimelimitwasupinordertoavoidcommittingaorevennecessities.Thestrategicinclinationistoberudentandprecautionaryandavoidmismatchestomistake,whereasindividualsinapromotionfocuswouldpersistlongertoprolongtheopportunityforathedesiredend-state.Giventhesedifferences,onewouldexpectthatpeople’sself-regulatorystateswould“hit.”Tobroadenourexaminationofthisissuestillurther,anadditionalcountingbackwardtaskwasalsobedifferentwhentheirfocusispromotionversuspre-vention.Withapromotionfocus,thestateshouldbeincludedthathadaneasysequencefollowedbyadiffi-cultsequence.Itwasexpectedthataperformancead-eagernesstoattainadvancementandgains.Withapre-ventionfocus,thestateshouldbevigilancetoassurevantageofthepromotionfocuswouldemergeonlydur-ingthedifficultsequence.safetyandnonlosses.HowmightastateofeagernessversusastateofAmorecentralpurposeofourfirststudy(aswellasthesecondstudy)wastoaddressalimitationofthevigilanceimpactstrategicinclinations?Insignaldetec-e.g.,Tanner&Swets,1954;seealsoTrope&Roneyetal.(1995)studiesthatisevidentinthegeneralliteratureaswell.Inmanipulatingregulatoryfocus,Liberman,1996),individualsinastateofeagernessfromapromotionfocusshouldwant,especially,toac-thefirst“feedback”studycontrolledforvalencebyin-cludingbothpositiveandnegativefeedbackwithineachcomplish“hits”andtoavoiderrorsofomission(i.e.,alossofaccomplishment).Incontrast,individualsinaregulatoryfocu

4 scondition.Thesecond“taskcontin-gency”st
scondition.Thesecond“taskcontin-gency”studyconfoundedregulatoryfocusandvalencestateofvigilancefromapreventionfocusshouldwant,especially,toattaincorrectrejectionsandavoiderrorsbyframingthecontingencypositivelyforthepromotionfocusandnegativelyforthepreventionfocus.Toad-ofcommission(i.e.,makingamistake).Thus,touseruneretal.’s(1956)classicterminologycitedearlier,dressthislimitation,thepresentstudiesusedthe“taskcontingency”paradigmandindependentlymanipu-thepromotionfocusinclinationistoinsurehitsandinsureagainsterrorsofomission,whereasthepreven-latedboththeregulatoryfocusandthevalenceofthecontingencyframing.Thusinthecontextofcontingencytionfocusinclinationistoinsurecorrectrejectionsandinsureagainsterrorsofcommission.framing,thepresentstudiesexamineforthefirsttimehowregulatorfocusasonemotivationalprincipleandHowmightthesedifferentstrategicinclinationim-pactbehavioronananagramtaskasusedbyRoneyetvalenceorhedonicvalueasaseparatemotivationalprincipalinfluencestrategicinclinations,bothindepen-1995)?Ananagramtaskrequiresparticipantstofindoneormorewordshiddeninaletterstring.Successatdentlyandincombination.Theothermajoraimofthepresentstudieswastoin-findingawordwouldbeacorrectacceptanceor“hit”whereasfailuretofindawordwouldbeanerrorofomis-vestigateanadditionalimplicationofthehypothesizedstrategicinclinationsthathasnotpreviouslybeenexam-sion.Onthistask,then,thepromotionfocusindividualsshouldbeeagertofindwords(“hits”)andtoavoidomit-ined.Specifically,onewouldexpectdifferencesinthestrategicmotivationtogeneratealternatives.Sometinganypossiblewords.Thisshouldyieldhighpersis-tenceandastrongdesiretofindwordsfollowingafailuretasksallowpeopletoproducefewormanyalternativesingtask,forexample,individ-tofindany.Incontrast,thepreventionfocusindividualsshouldbevigilantagainstnonwordsandwanttoavoidualscouldusethesamecriterion,suchascolor,tosortasetoffruitsandtosortasetofvegetablesortheycouldmmittingtheerrorofproducingthem.Whendifficulty COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL 4 usedifferentcriteria,suchascolorforthefruitsandthestudy,138wererandomlyselectedandscheduledtoparticipateaspaidsubjectsintheexperimentthatshapeforthevegetables.Eitherstrategyisconsideredcorrect.Therequirementisonlythatthesortingcrite-tookplaceapproximatelytwomonthsafterthebattery.rionbeconsistentacrossallmembersofacategory.Thus,individualscanreducethelikelihoodofmakingamis-aterialstakeandstillbecorrectbysimplifyingthetask,suchasAspartofthebatterycompletedweeksbeforetheickingtoonecriterionforbothcategories.Individualsexperiment,allparticipantsfilledouttheTaskRatinginavigilantstatefromapreventionfocuswanttoavoidQuestionnaireandtheSelvesQuestionnaire.rrorsofcommissionandthusshouldbeinclinedtoberepetitive.Incontrast,individualsinaneagerstatefromTaskratingquestionnaire.Thisquestionnaireasksapromotionfocuswanttoaccomplish“hits”andthusrespondentstorate16tasksoractivitiesonashouldbeinclinedagainstastrategythatomitsalterna-7-pointLikertscale,from3(DislikeVeryMuch)totives.Thus,whenthetaskpermits,onewouldexpect3(LikeVeryMuch).Thetasksincludedsuchactivitiessuchindividualstousedifferentcriteria.Thishypothesizeddifferenceinstrategicinclinationsreading,transcribingaudiotapes,andplayingblackjackforconsideringalternativeswastestedinourfirststudy21”).Eachparticipant’smostlikedtaskandleastlikedbyincludingtwoadditionaltasksamongtheinitialsettaskwereselectedfromtheirratingstobeusedaspartoftasks.Oneofthesetaskswasasortingtaskliketheoftheexperimntalframingtobedescribedlater.onejustdescribed.AsecondtaskwasacharacteristiclistingtaskthatpermittedgeneratingmanydifferentSelvesquestionnaire.Thisquestionnaireasksre-alternatives.Participantsarepresentedwiththespondentstolistupto8or10attributesforeachofnamesoffurnitureobjects,suchasdesk,couch,orbed,threedifferentself-states:(a)theiractualself,thekindandareaskedtowritedownallofthecharacteristicsofpersontheybelievetheyactuallyare;(b)theiridealtheycanthinkofforeachobject.Itwashypothesizedself,thekindofpersonthatsomeone(selforother)thatindividualswithapromotionfocus,comparedtowouldideallylikethemtobe,someone’shopes,wishes,individualswithapreventionfocus,wouldbemoreflu-andaspirationsforthem;and(c)theiroughtself,theentinlistinguniquecharacteristi

5 csforthedifferentkindofpersonthatsomeone
csforthedifferentkindofpersonthatsomeone(selforther)believmembersofacategorybecauseoftheirstrongerstrate-theyoughttobe,someone’sbeliefsabouttheirduties,gicinclinationtogeneratemanydifferentalternativesobligationsandresponsibilities.Thequestionnaireiswhenpossible.Incontrast,individualswithapreven-administeredintwosections,thefirstinvolvingthetionfocus,whoareinclinedtoavoiderrorsofcommis-respondent’sownstandpointandthesecondinvolvingsion,shouldbemorerepetitivethanindividualswiththestandpointsoftherespondent’ssignificantothersapromotionfocus(controllingforfluency).(i.e.,motherandfather).Themagnitudeoftheself-Thefirststudyexaminesperformancewhenexperi-discrepancybetweentheactualselfandeachoftheencingdifficultyandgeneratingalternatives.Eachofidealandoughtself-statesiscalculatedbysummingthesemeasurespermitsatestoftheproposalthatindi-thetotalnumberofmismatcheswiththeactualself,vidualsinaneagerstatefromapromotionfocusarein-thensubtractingthetotalnumberofmatcheswiththelinedtoinsurehitsandinsureagainsterrorsofomis-actualself(seeHiggins,Bond,Klein,&Strauman,sion,whereasindividualsinavigilantstatefroma1986).Becausethepresentstudieswereconcernedwithpreventionfocusareinclinedtoinsurecorrectrejectionshowsituationally-inducedregulatoryfocusinfluencesandinsureagainsterrorsofcommission.Giventhatthisstrategicinclinations,wewantedtocontrolfortheef-proposalwasinspiredbyasignaldetectionanalysis,itfectsofchronicstrategicpredispositions.Thus,thedif-wouldbereasonabletotestitaswellwithasignaldetec-ferentself-discrepancieswereincludedascovariatesintiontask.Thiswastheaimofoursecondstudywhichthemultipleregressionanalyses.examineddecisionsonarecognitionmemorytask.oodquestionnaire.uringtheexperimentalses-sion,measuresofparticipants’moodweretakentoSTUDY1checkonwhethertheexperimentalframingmanipula-Methodtionitselforthetasksthemselveshademotionaleffects.Wedidnotexpecttoproducechangesinemotionsbe-Participantscausetheparticipantsweregivennofeedbackabouttheirlevelofperformanceand,indeed,therewasnoColumbiaUniversityundergraduateswerepaidtocompleteabatteryofquestionnaires.Ofthosewhohadrightorwronganswerontwoofthefivetasksused.Still,wewereconcernedaboutthispossibilitybecauseappropriatelyfilledoutthecriticalquestionnairesfor COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL 5 anychangeintheparticipants’moodmightitselfinflu-thesecondtrialinvolveddecrementsof9,whichisrela-encetheirstrategicinclinations.Themoodmeasurestivelydifficult.permittedusbothtocheckonandtocontrolforthisility.Moodwasassessedthreetimes—onceattheSorting.Thistaskwasbasedonasortingtaskem-verybeginningoftheexperimentalsession,onceaboutedbyMikulincer,Kedem,andPaz(1990).Partici-halfwaythroughthestudy(i.e.,afterthesortingtask),ntsweregivenasetof12membersofagivencate-andagainattheveryendofthesssion.gory,andwereinstructedtosortorseparatethissetofTheMoodQuestionnairecontained16differentmooditemsintosubgroupsaccordingtoasinglecriterionorterms.Becauseidealself-regulationproducesdimensionwhichmadesensetothem.Theyfirstsortedeerfulness/dejection-relatedemotionswhereasoughtalistoffruitsandthensortedalistofvegetables.Onlyself-regulationproducesquiescence/agitation-relatedthenamesoftheitemsappearedoneachpage—nopic-emotions(seeHiggins,1996b),themoodquestionnairetureswereincluded.Thefruitsandvegetableslistedwasconstructedtoincludepositiveandnegativeitemswereallmembersofthesemanticcategoriesasdeter-fromeachofthesetwoemotionaldimensions:(a)cheer-1975).Thetwelvefruitswere[listedfulness-relatedfeelings(happy,upbeatandsatisfied);inorder]:orange,strawberry,banana,pear,lime,pine-(b)dejection-relatedfeelings(discouraged,sad,anddis-apple,apple,grapes,bluebrry,raspberry,watermelon,appointed);(c)agitation-relatedfeelings(uneasy,tense,plum.Thetwelvevegetableswere[listedinorder]:peas,andworried);and(d)quiescence-relatedfeelings(calm,cucumbers,greenbeans,spinach,eggplant,corn,let-secure,andrelaxed).Theremainingfourmoodtermstuce,beets,celery,carrots,greenpeppers,broccoli.weregeneralfeelingsunrelatedtothesetwoemotionalTherewasnotimelimit,andtherewerenorestrictionsdimensions.MostoftheoodtermsweretakenfromonthenumberofsubgroupsorthenumberofitemspertwomoodfactorsintheSemanticDifferentialMoodsubgroup.Theonlystipulatio

6 nwasthatthesubgroupsLorrandWunderlich,19
nwasthatthesubgroupsLorrandWunderlich,1988)—Cheerful–representdifferentvaluesonthesamedimension(e.g.,Depressed,andRelaxed–Anxious.Somemoreextremefruitsofdifferentcolors).Aftercompletingtheseconditems(e.g.,gloomy)werechangedtolessextremeitemspageinwhichtheysortedvegetables,theparticipants(e.g.,discouraged).Foreachmoodterm,therespon-wereaskedonthethirdpagetowritedownasmanydentswereaskedtoindicatewhichextentrating“bestifferentcriteriaastheycouldthinof,asmanydimedescribesHOWYOUFEELRIGHTNOW”ona5-pointsionsaspossible,forseparatingthesamesetof12Likertscalethatrangedfrom0(Notatall)to4(Very).vegetablesintosubgroups,excludingthedimensionAlloftheparticipantsworkedonthefollowingfivetheyhadusedtosortthevegetablesontheprevioustasksintheorderlisted:page.Theywereallowedasmuchtimeastheyneededtocompletethisexercise.Characteristiclisting.ThistaskwasbasedonanattributelistingtaskemployedbyMikulincer,Kedem,Embeddedfigures.ThistaskwasdevelopedbyWit-1990).Participantswerepresentedwiththekin,Oltman,Raskin,andKarp(1971;seealsoRuebush,namesofeightobjects,eachonaseparateseetofpa-1960).Asdescribedbythem,theparticipant’s“taskonper,andweretoldtowritedownallofthecharacteris-eachtrialistolocateapreviouslyseensimplefigureticstheycouldthinkofforeachobject.Participantswithinalargercomplexfigurewhichhasbeensoorga-weregiven11/2minperobject.Theycompletedthenizedastoobscureorembedthesought-aftersimplepagesintheorderpresented,andcouldnotlookforwardfigure(p.3).”Thesimpleandcomplexfigureswereorbackwardatpagesotherthantheonetheyweregeometricshapesthatfitoncards.Thesimpleworkingon.Theeightobjects,oneightdifferentpages,designwasalwayspresentinthecomplexone.Addi-were(inorderofappearance):desk,couch,bookcase,tionally,thesimplefigurewasalwaysrightsideuptable,cabinet,bed,chair,mirror.Allobjectsweremem-andhadthesamesizeinsidethecomplexfigure.Threebersofthesuperordinatesemanticcategoryoffurnitureminutes(180s)wasallottedforeachfigure.GiventhatedbyRosch(1975).thenormsforcollegestudentsfallintherangeof4670sperfigureforthistest(Witkinetal.,1971),untingbackwards.Participantsinthistaskver-thiswasconsideredtobeanampleamountoftiballycountedbackwardsfromagivennumberbyanparticipantstoworkoneachfigure.Theparticipantsssigneddecrement.Theyweregiven1mininwhichweregivensevenembeddedfures.Sixofthefigurestodoso,andweretoldthatthepurposeofthetaskwaswereincolorandonewasinblackandwhite.Pretestingtoseehowmanynumberstheycouldgetinaminute.ofthefigureshadindicatedthattheblackandwhiteTheyperformedthistasktwotimes.Thefirsttrialin-volveddecrementsof6,whichisrelativelyeasy,andfigurewasclearlythemostdifficult.Thisdifficultfigure COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL 6 permittedatestofpersistencebymeasuringtheper-completeaseriesofdifferentattentionandproblem-solvingmeasures.Yourperformanceonthesetaskcentageofparticipantsineachconditionwhoquitwork-ingonthefigure.determinewhatyourfinaltaskwillbe,anditwillbeoneof2things,either[participant’slikedtask]or[parti-Anagrams.Theparticipantswereaskedtocom-cipant’sdislikedtask].”Theinstructionsthenvariedpletefouranagrams,oneperpage.Theinstructionsacrossconditions,asfollows:weretocompletethepagesinorder,andthepartici-(a)PromotionWorking—“Ifyoudowellontheexer-pantswerenotallowedtoreturntoapageonctheycisesI’mabouttogiveyou,youwillgettodothe[partici-hadcompletedit.Therewasnotimelimitperpage.pant’slikedtask]insteadoftheothertask.”Thefouranagrams,inorder,were:“cleets”,“tisrnp”,(b)PromotionNotWorking—“Ifyoudon’tdowell“tohcass”and“wderra”.ThefirsttwohadtwosolutionsontheexercisesI’mabouttogiveyou,youwon’tgettoeach,andthelasthadfoursolutions.Thethirdana-dothe[participant’slikedtask]butwilldotheothergramwasunsolvable.Participantsweretoldthateachtaskinstead.”anagramcouldhavemultiplesolutionsornosolution.(c)PreventionWorking—“Aslongasyoudon’tdoforebeginning,theparticipantsweregivenapracticeoorlyontheexercisesI’mabouttogiveyou,youwon’tanagramthatwaseasierthanthetaskanagrams.havetodothe[participant’sdislikedtask]butwilldotheothertaskinstead.”Procedure(d)PreventionNotWorking—“IfyoudopoorlyontheexercisesI’mabouttogiveyou,youwillhavetodoUponarrivingattheexperimentalsession,theparti-cipantswereaskedtocompletetheMoodQuestion-the[participant’sdislikedtask]inst

7 eadoftheothertask.”naire.Theyweretoldtha
eadoftheothertask.”naire.TheyweretoldthatstudieshaveshownthatmoodcaninfluenceperformanceandsucheffectswouldInadditiontothesefourcontingentframingcondi-tions,therewasalsooneexperimentalnoncontingentinterferewiththeaimsofourresearch.Thus,wewouldliketodeterminewhethermoodisinfluencingperfor-framingcondition.Heretherelationbetweentheinitialsetofexercisesandthefinaltaskwasdescribedasmanceonourstudysothatwecancorrectforitifitis.Usingtheparticipants’earlieridiographicresponsesnoncontingent.ThetwoalternativefinaltasksweredescribedandtheparticipantsweretoldthatoneoftotheTaskRatingQuestionnaire,oneactivitywasse-lectedfortheexperimentthataparticipantclearlylikedthesetaskswouldbendomlyassignedtothem,asfollows:“We’renowgoingtohaveyoucompleteaseriesandanotherwasselectedthattheparticipantclearlydisliked.AftercompletingtheMoodQuestionnaire,theofdifferentattentionandproblem-solvingmeasures.Afteryouhavecompletedthesetasks,yourfinaltaskparticipantsweretoldthattheywouldfirstperformaninitialsetoffiveexercises[theexperimentaltaskswillberandomlyassignedtoyou,anditwillbeoneoftwothings,either[participant’slikedtask]or[partici-describedabove]andthentheywouldbeassignedafinaltask.Thelikedactivity(e.g.,playingavideogame)pant’sdislikedtask].”Byincludinganoncontingentframingcondition,itwaspossibletoexaminehowthe(e.g.,proofreading)wereeachllydescribedasanalternativefinaltaskthatapartic-variableofcontingencyperseinfluencedstrategicincli-nations.ipantmightperform.Propsrelatedtoaparticipant’salternativefinaltaskwerealsoincluded(e.g.,adeckTheparticipantswererandomlyassignedtooneoftheabovefiveframingconditionsuponarrivalattheofcardsforsolitaire)toconvinceparticipantsthatei-therofthesetaskscouldbetheirfinaltask.Thede-experiment.Therewere28participantsinthe“Promo-tionNotWorking”conditionand29inthe“PreventionbriefingattheendoftheexperimentalsessionindicatedthattheparticipantsbelievedthattheywouldperformWorking”condition.Therewere27participantsineachoftheremainingthreeconditions.Eachparticipantre-oneofthesetasksduringthesession.Fouroftheexperimentalframingconditionsweremainedinoneofthesefiveconditionswhileworkingonalloftheinitialsetofexercises.Theparticipantscontingencyconditionsinwhichparticipantsweretoldthatwhichofthealternativefinaltaskstheywouldwereremindedoftheirspecificcontingencyornoncon-tingencyconditionhalfwaythroughtheinitialsetofworkonattheendofthesessiondependedontheirperformanceonaninitialsetoffiveexercises[thefivetasks(i.e.,afterthesortingtask),andtheyfilledouttheoodQuestionnaireforthesecondtimeatthispoint.experimentaltasksprovidingthedependentmea-ures].TherelationbetweentheinitialsetofexercisesAfterfinishingtheAnagramstask,theparticipantsfilledouttheMoodQuestionnaireforathirdtime.Atandthefinaltaskwasdescribedascontingentforevery-one,buttheframingvariedindifferentconditionsasthispoint,theexperimentwasover.Allparticipantsweretoldthattheyhaddonewellontheexercises.Theyunctionofbothregulatoryfocusandvalence.Allinstructionsbeganwith,“We’renowgoingtohaveyouwerethenthankedandfullydebriefed. COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL 7 ResultsandDiscussioneffects(all1).Incontrast,aregressionanalysisonthenumberofsolutionsfoundforthesolvableanagramMethodsofAnalysisfollowedtheunsolvableanagram(controllingforsolutionstotheanagramsprecedingtheunsolvableMultipleregressionanalyseswereperformedonthedependentvariablestoassesstheindependenteffectsanagramandtimespentontheunsolvableanagram)revealedasignificanteffectofregulatoryfocus,(1,1ofeachframingvariablewhilecontrollingforalltheothervariables.Differencesamongthefourcontingency4.6,05.Aspredicted,participantsinthepromo-tionfocusconditionfoundmoresolutions(1.5;withframingconditionswereexaminedbyincludingtwofferentframingvariablesintheanalysis.Thefirstamaximumof4)thanparticipantsinthepreventionfocuscondition(1.0).Therewerenoothersignifi-framingvariablewasRegulatoryFocus,distinguishingbetweenpromotionfocusconditions(PromotionWork-canteffects.ing;PromotionNotWorking)andpreventionfocuscon-ditions(PreventionWorking;PreventionNotWorking).Embeddedfigures.Asdiscussedearlier,theembed-dedfigurestaskpermittedanadditionaltestoftheThesecondframingvariablewasValence,distinguish-ingbetweenpleasantorpositivevale

8 nceconditionseffectsoftaskdifficultyonpe
nceconditionseffectsoftaskdifficultyonpersistencebecauseitin-cludedoneespeciallydifficultproblem.Thepartici-(PromotionWorking;PreventionWorking)andpainfulornegativevalenceconditions(PromotionNotWorking;pantsweregiventheoptionofquittinganyembeddedfigureandmovingontothenextoneiftheywanted;PreventionNotWorking).Differencesbetweenthfourcontingencyframingthatis,theyweretoldthatatanytimetheycouldstopsearchingforanysimplefiguretheyhadnotyetfound.conditionscombinedanthenoncontingencyframingconditionwerealsoanalysedasaContingencyvariableTheparticipantsrarelyquitsearchingformorethanoneoftheembeddedfiguresand,asexpected,thefigure(ContingencyFraming;NoncontingencyFraming).Two-andthree-wayinteractiontermswerealsoin-thattheytypicallyquitwasthemostdifficultone.(Itwasthefifthprobleminthesequenceofsevenprob-cludedinthemultipleregressiontodeterminewhetheranyinteractioneffectsoccurredamongRegulatorylems.)AlogisticregressionanalysisonquittingthisdifficultfigurerevealedaborderlinesignificanteffectFocus,Valence,andContingency.Finally,eachregres-sionanalysisincludedparticipants’idealandoughtdis-ofregulatoryfocus,Wald3.37,.07.Asexpected,theparticipantsinthepreventionfocusconditionwerecrepancyscoresascovariates.(Possibleinteractionsbe-tweenself-discrepanciesandtheothervariablesweremorelikelytoquitthisdifficultfigure(54%)thantheparticipantsinthepromotionfocuscondition(35%).alsoinvestigatedbutnoneweresignificant.)MotivationalResponsetoDifficultyCountingbackwards.Thistaskincludedbothrela-tivelyeasyandrelativelydifficulttrialsofcountingItwasproposedearlierthatthepromotionfocusincli-backwards.Itwashypothesizedthathighermotivationnationistoinsurehitsandinsureagainsterrorsofandperformancewithapromotionthanapreventionomission,whereasthepreventionfocusinclinationisfocuswouldappearwhenthetaskbecamedifficult.Thetoinsurecorrectrejectionsandinsureagainsterrorsparticipantsweregiventwotrialsofcountingback-ofcommission.Whenataskbecomesdifficult,orjustwards,countingfirstbyanintervalof6andthenbyafollowingfailure,promotionfocusindividualsshouldbeintervalof9.Asexpected,theparticipantsfoundtheeagertofind“hits”andinsureagainstomittinganyfirsttrialeasierasreflectedintheircountingmarkedlypossible“hits,”whereaspreventionfocusindividualsfasteronthefirsttrial(21.7numbers/min)thanshouldbevigilantagainstmistakesandinsureagainstthesecondtrial(14.8numbers/min),(1,1mmittingtheerrorofproducingthem.Whenatask10.9,becomesdifficult,then,onewouldexpectpromotionAregressionanalysisfirstrevealedaignificantef-focusindividualstoperformbetterandpreventionfocusfectofcontingencyoncountingspeedduringthefirstindividualstoquitmorereadily.Theresultsonthreetrial,(1,17.9,01,reflectingthefactthatonofthetasksarerelevanttothishypothesithefirsttrialparticipantsinthecontingencyconditionuntedmorequickly(22.4numbers/min)thanAnagrams.Theparticipantscompletedtwosolv-ableanagramsbeforeencounteringtheunsolvableana-participantsinthenoncontingencycondition(18.7numbers/min).Theeffectwasinthesamedirectionongram.Theyweregivenasmuchtimeastheywantedtoworkoneachoftheanagramsandtimespentwork-thesecondtrialbutitwasnonsignificant.TherewerenoothermaineffectsbuttherewasasignificantRegu-ingontheanagramswasincludedasacovariate.AregressionanalysisonthenumberofsolutionsfoundforlatoryFocusTrialOrderinteraction,(1,13.9,.05.Consistentwithourprediction,ontheeasierthefirsttwosolvableanagramsrevealednosignificant COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL 8 firsttrialtheparticipantsinthepreventionfocuscondi-aborderlinesignificanteffectofregulatoryfocus,(1,116)3.7,06.Aspredicted,participantsintionweresomewhatfaster(22.9numbers/min)thanparticipantsinthepromotionfocuscondition(thepreventionfocusconditionhadhigherrepetitionscores(2.8)thanparticipantsinpromotionfocus21.9numbers/min),whereasonthemoredifficultsecondtrialthepreventionfocusparticipantswerecondition2.5).Therewerenoothersignificantef-fects.somewhatslower(14.7numbers/min)thanthepromotionfocusparticipants(15.3numbers/min).Itshouldbenoted,moreover,thattheslowerspeedofSorting.Thefirstmeasurewasthetotalnumberofsubgroupsthatparticipantsgeneratedinboththefruitthepreventionfocusparticipantsonthesecondtrialwasnotintheserviceofreducingerro

9 rsbecause,ifandvegetablesortingstogether
rsbecause,ifandvegetablesortingstogether.Therewasnotimelimitonthesortingtaskandparticipantsvariedinanything,theyalsohadmoreerrorsonthesecondtrial1.3)thanthepromotionfocusparticipantshowmuchtimetheyspent.Althoughtheconditionsthemselvesdidnotdifferintimespentsorting,time0.9).spentwasincludedasacovariateintheanalysis.Multi-GeneratingAlternativespleregressiononthismeasureoftotalnumberofsub-groupsgeneratedrevealedbothaborderlinesignificantItwasproposedearlierthat,givenataskwheregen-effectofregulatoryfocus,(1,13.2,07,anderatinganynumberofalternativesiscorrect,individu-asignificanteffectofvalence,(1,14.4,05.Asalsinapreventionfocusstatewouldtendtoberela-predicted,participantsinthepromotionfocusconditiontivelyrepetitiveandgeneratelessalternativesthansortedtheitemsintomoresubgroups(6.3)thanindividualsinapromotionfocusstate.Weproposedparticipantsinthepreventionfocuscondition(thatindividualsinavigilantstatefromaprevention5.7).Inaddition,participantsinthepositivevalencefocuswanttoavoirrorsofcommissionandthusconditionproducedmoresubgroups(6.4)thanpar-shouldbeinclinedtousethestrategyofstickingtoasticipantsinthenegativevalencecondition(5.7).fewalternativesaspossibleandrepeatingonesalreadyTherewerenoothersignificanteffects.used.Ontheotherhand,stickingtoasfewalternativesThetwomaineffectsmeantthatparticipantsintheaspossiblemeansthatsomepossibilitieswillbeomittedPreventionNotWorkingconditionproducedanespe-uringthetask.Weproposedthatindividualsinanciallylownumberofsubgroups(5.5),whereaseagerstatefromapromotionfocuswanttoaccomplishparticipantsthePromotionWorkingconditionpro-“hits”andthusshouldnotbeinclinedtousethisstrat-ducedanespeciallyhighnumberofsubgroups(egy.Indeed,inataskwheremanydifferentalternatives6.7).Onepossibleexplanationforthisfferenceisthatcouldbeproduced,weproposedthattheseindividualsparticipantsintheseconditionsselecteddifferentcate-wouldbeinclinedtogeneratemanydifferentalterna-goriesthatnaturallyvariedintheirsubgroupingpoten-tives.Boththecharacteristiclistingtaskandthesort-tial,suchasthecategory“Hasseeds[Yes;No]”versusingtaskdirectlytestedthishypothesis.“color”[green,red,yellow,etc.].Areviewofthecatego-riesselectedinthedifferentconditionsindicatedthatCharacteristiclisting.Whencountingthenumberofcharacteristicslistedforeachitem,allrepetitions,thiswasnotthecase.Instead,thedifferencewasduemoretoparticipantsinthePreventionNotWorkingincludingsynonyms,wereexcluded.Theaveragenum-berofcharacteristicsthatparticipantslistedperitemconditionemployingthestrategyofchoosingonesub-group,“X,”asareferencepointandcreatingthetwoonthistaskisameasureoftheirfluencyingeneratinguniqueaspectsofthesedifferentmembersofthefurni-subgroups,“X”and“notX.”Forexample,aparticipantmightchoosetosortvegetablesinto“een”and“notturecategory.Themultipleregressionanalysisonthisfluencymeasurerevealedaborderlinesignificanteffectgreen”.Toeliminateanypossibilitythatdifferencesinsub-ofregulatoryfocus,(1,117)3.7,.06.Aspredicted,participantsinthepromotionfocusconditiondisplayedgroupproductionwasduetochoiceofcategoryforgrouping,ananalysiswasperformedonjustthenum-morefluency(10.0)thanparticipantsinthepre-ventionfocuscondition(9.0).Noothereffectswereberofsubgroupsusedwhensortingvegetablesby“color.”Thecategoryof“color”wasselectedbecauseitsignificant.Asanotherindicatorofcharacteristiclist-ingstyle,theaveragenumberoftimesasubjectre-wasthemostfrequentlyemployedcategoryforsortingbothfruitsandvegetables,andtheanalysiswasper-peatedtermsorwordswhendescribingmorethanoneitemwascalculated.Thenumberofpossiblerepetitionsformedonvegetablesbecausecolorwasmorefrequentlyusedinsortingvegetablesthaninsortingfruit.Theforanyspecifictermvariedfrom2to8.Amultipleregressionanalysisonthemeannumberoftermrepeti-framingconditionsdidnotdifferinhowoftenpartici-pantsusedcolorastheirsortingcategory.Thelogistictionsacrossallitems(controllingforfluency)revealed COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL 9 regressionanalysisrevealedasignificanteffectofregu-thescale.Ateachofthethreemeasurementtimes,boththedejection-relatedandagitation-relatedemotionslatoryfocus,Wald5.2,02.Asexpected,partici-pantsinthepreventionfocusconditionweremorelikelyhadscoresbelow3.5,i.e.,slightlydejectedandslightlyagitated.

10 Ateachofthethreemeasurementtimes,bothtou
Ateachofthethreemeasurementtimes,bothtousean“X”/not“X”colorsortingstrategy(58%)thanparticipantsinthepromotionfocuscondition(41%).thecheerfulness-relatedandthequiescence-relatedemotionshadscoresabove5.5,i.e.,moderatelycheerfulTherewerenoothersignificanteffects.Mostofthecriteriathatwereemployedbypartici-andmoderatelyquiescent.Arepeatedmeasuresanalysisbyframingconditionpantsinthesortingtask,suchas“color,”“size,”or“taste,”couldhavebeenusedtosortboththruitsandwasconductedforeachmoodtypeacrossthethreemea-urementtimes.Therewerenosignificantmoodeffectsthevegetableslisted.Somecriteria,suchas“citrus/noncitrus”forfruits,couldbeappliedtoonlyonelist.asafunctionofframingcondition.Equallyimportant,eachofthesignificantfindingsreportedearlierontheTheparticipantsweregivennoinstructionsregardingwhetherornottheycouldrepeatthecriterionemployeddifferenttaskmeasuresremainedsignificantwhenthefourtypesofemotionsatthedifferentmeasurementforsortingthefruitswhensortingthevegetables,anditwascertainlycorrecttodoso.Alogisticregressiontimes,andthechangesinemotionsbetweenmeasure-menttimes,wereincludedintheregressionanalyses.analysisonrepeatingthesortingcategorywithvegeta-blesthathadbeenpreviouslyusedwithfruits(control-TheresultsofStudy1providesupportforthehypoth-izeddifferenceinstrategicinclinationsbetweenindi-lingforthenumberofsubgroupsproduced)revealedasignificanteffectofregulatoryfocus,Wald5.8,vidualsinapromotionfocusandindividualsinapre-ventionfocus.Wehadproposedearlierthatthe02.Asexpected,theparticipantsinthepreventionfocusconditionweremorelikelytorepeattheirsortingpromotionfocusinclinationistoinsurehitsandinsureagainsterrorsofomission,whereasthepreventionfo-criteriawithbothfruitsandvegetables(28%)thanpar-ticipantsinthepromotionfocuscondition(14%).Therecusinclinationistoinsurecorrectrejectionsandinsureagainsterrorsofcommission.Oneimplicationofthiswerenoothersignificanteffects.icipantshadsortedboththesetoffruitsdifferencewasthatpromotionfocusindividualsshouldbeeagertofind“hits”andinsureagainstomittinganyandthenthesetofvegetables,theywereaskedtolistasmanyadditionalcriteriaordimensionsastheycouldpossible“hits”,whereaspreventionfocusindividualsshouldbevigilantagainstmistakesandinureagainstthinkofforsortingthesamesetofvegetables(i.e.,ex-cludingthecriteriatheyhadjustemployedwhensortingcommittingtheerrorofproducingthem.Thus,whenataskbecomesdifficult,individualsinapromotionfocusthevegetables.)Aregressionanalysisofthenumberoffferentsortingcriteriaparticipantsproduced(control-shouldperformbetterthanindividualsinapreventionfocus,andthelattershouldquitmorereadily.Thislingfortimespent)revealedaborderlinesignificantef-fectofregulatoryfocus,(1,13.0,09.Asex-implicationwassupportedbytheresultsontheana-gramtask(participantsinthepromotionfocuscondi-pected,theparticipantsinthepromotionfocusconditionproducedmoredifferentsortingcriteria(8.7)thantionfoundmoresolutionsforthesolvableanagramsthanparticipantsinthepreventionfocusconditionfol-participantsinthepreventionfocuscondition(7.6).Therewerenoothersignificanteffects.lowingthedifficult,unsolvableanagram),theresultsontheembeddedfigurestask(moreparticipantsintheprevntionfocusconditionthaninthepromotionfocusconditionquitthedifficultfigure),andtheresultsonthecountingbackwardstask(participantsinthepromotionOnepossiblewaythatthedifferentframingcondi-tionsmightinfluenceperformancewasthattheycouldfocusconditionwerefasterthanparticipantsintheprevntionfocusconditiononthemoredifficultsecondinfluencetheparticipants’moodandtheirmoodcouldinfluencetheirperformance.Althoughthismightbetrialbutnotontheeasierfirsttrial).Webelievethattheseresultsforthethreetaskstakentogetherprovideinterestinginitsownright,weweremoreinterestedinthestrategiceffectsofourframingvariables,inde-strongsupportforthefirstimplication.Anotherimplicationoftheproposeddifferenceinpendentofanymoodeffects.Thus,weneededbothtocheckforandcontrolformoodeffects.strategicinclinationswasthat,givenataskwheregen-eratinganynumberofalternativecategoriesisaccept-Therewerethreeemotionseachforcheerfulness,de-jection,quiescence,andagitationasthefourgeneralable,individualsinavigilantstatefromapreventionfocusshouldtendtoberelativelyrepetitiveandgener-t

11 ypesofemotion.Thus,becauseeachscalemeasu
ypesofemotion.Thus,becauseeachscalemeasuringurrentfeelingswasfrom0(Notatall)to4(Very),eachatefewalternativesinordertoavoiderrorsofcommis-sion,whereasindividualsinaneagerstatefromapro-ofthesefourgeneraltypesofemotionhadatotalscorethatrangedfrom0to12,with6beingthemidpointofmotionfocuswanttoaccomplish“hits”andthusshould COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL 10 beinclinedtogeneratemorealternatives.Thisimplica-signal;and(d)a“CorrectRejection”—saying“no”whentherewasnosignal.Thedecisionalcriterionemployedtionwassupportedbytheresultsonthecharacterlist-ingtask(participantsinthepromotionfocusconditionbyapersonisassumedtodependupontheweightsorpayoffsthatthepersonassignstothesepossibleweremorefluentingeneratingalternativesthanparti-cipantsinthepreventionfocuscondition,and,indepen-outcomes.IfthegainforgettingaHitisgreaterthanthegainforaCorrectRejectionandthecostfor“Missing”adentofthiseffect,particintsinthepreventionfocusconditionrepeatedtermsorwordsmoreacrossitemssignalisgreaterthanthecostofttingaFalseAlarm,thenthepersonwillbeinclined(orhaveabias)tothanparticipantsinthepromotionfocuscondition),andtheresultsonthesortingtask(participantsinthepro-say“yes.”Incontrast,ifthegainforgettingaCorrectRejectionisgreaterthanthegainforaHitandthecostmotionfocusconditiongeneratedmoresubgroupsthanparticipantsinthepreventionfocuscondition,withtheforgettingaFalseAlarmisgreaterthanthecostofssingasignal,thenthepersonwillbeinclinedtterbeingmuchmorelikelytouseasimple“X”/not“X”sortingstrategy,and,independentofthenumberhaveabias)tosay“no.”Signaldetectiontheoryperseissilentonmotiva-ofsubgroupsgenerated,participantsinthepreventionfocusconditionweremorelikelythanparticintsintionaldeterminantsofaperson’spayoffmatrix.Theprincipleofregulatoryfocus,however,doesmakeapre-thepromotionfocusconditiontorepeattheirsortingstrategyacrossobjectcategories).Webelievethatthesediction.Participantswithapromotionfocusareinastateofeagerness.Thisstateshouldinduceadvance-resultstakentogetherprovidestrongsupportforthesecondimplication.menttactics,aninclinationtoapproachaccomplish-ments.TheywanttoinsurehitsandinsureagainstInsum,theresultsofStudy1supportourproposalthatindividualsinaneagerstatefromapromotionerrorsofomission.Theseparticipants,then,shouldwanttoinsureHits(successfullyrecognizingatruefocusareinclinedtoinsurehitsandinsureagainstrrorsofomission,whereasindividualsinavigilanttarget)andinsureagainstMisses(omittingatruetar-get).Thatis,theseparticipantsshouldtrytorecognizestatefromapreventionfocusareinclinedtoinsurecorrectrejectionsandinsureagainsterrorsofcommis-asmanyitemsaspossible,producinganinclinationtosay“yes”(i.e.,ariskybias).sion.Thisproposeddifferenceinstrategicinclinationswasinspiredbyasignaldetectionanalysis(e.g.,Tan-Incontrast,participantswithapreventionfocusareinastateofvigilance.Thisstateshouldinduceprecau-ets,1954;seealsoTrope&Liberman,1996).Itwouldbeuseful,then,touseasignaldetectiontasktionarytactics,aninclinationtoavoidmistakes.Theywanttoinsurecorrectrejectionsandinsureagainsttotestmoredirectlythehypothesizeddifferencesinstrategicinclinationsorresponsebiases.Arecognitionerrorsofcommission.Theseparticipants,then,shouldwanttoinsureCorrectRejections(i.e.,successfullymemorytaskwasselectedforoursecondstudytoac-complishthisaim.avoidingafalsedistractor)andinsureagainstFalseAlarms(failingtoavoidafalsedistractor).Thatis,Study2usedthesamebasicparadigmasStudy1.Undergraduateparticipantsfilledoutaquestionnairetheseparticipantsshouldtrynottocommitmistakes,producinganinclinationtosay“no”(i.e.,aconservativewheretheyexpressedtheirlikingfordifferentkindsofactivitiesduringalargesurveyheldweeksbeforethebias).Inaddition,becauseoftheirvigilanceagainsterrorsofcommission,theseindividualsshouldtakeexperiment.Eachparticipant’sresponseswereusedid-iographicallytoselectoneactivitythattheparticipantmoretimetorespond.Thus,wealsopredictedthattheresponselatencieswouldbelongerforparticipantsinclearlylikedandanotherheorsheclearlydisliked.Whentheparticipantsarrivedforthestudy,theywerethepreventionfocusconditionthanthoseinthepromo-tionfocuscondition.toldthattheywouldfirstperformarecognitionmemorytaskandthenwouldbeassignedasecondtask.Thelikedandthedislikedactivitypreviouslysele

12 ctedwereSTUDY2eachdescribedasanaltrnativ
ctedwereSTUDY2eachdescribedasanaltrnativesecondtask.MethodTherecognitionmemorytaskisasignaldetectiontaskthatrequiresparticipantstomakedecisions.InParticipantssignaldetectiontasks,asignaliseitherpresentedornotpresented,andarespondentsayseither“yes”(theyColumbiaUniversityundergraduateswerepaidtocompleteabatteryofquestionnaires.Ofthosewhohaddetectedasignal)or“no”(nosignalwasdetected).Therearefourpossibleoutcomesforasignaldetectiontrial:appropriatelyfilledoutthecriticalquestionnairesforthestudy,65wererandomlyselectedandscheduledto(a)a“Hit”—saying“yes”whenasignalwaspresented;(b)a“Miss”—saying“no”whenasignalwaspresented;participateaspaidsubjectsintheexperimentthattookplaceapproximately1monthafterthebattery.There(c)a“FalseAlarm”—saying“yes”whentherewasno COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL 1 were13participantsrandomlyassignedtoeachoftheonthewordrecognitionmemorytask,youwon’tgettofiveframingconditions.dothe[participant’slikedtask]butwillhavetodotheothertaskinstead.”Materials(c)PreventionWorking—“Aslongasyoudon’tdooorlyonthewordrecognitionmemorytask,youwon’tTheTaskRatingQuestionnaire,SelvesQuestion-havetodothe[participant’sdislikedtask]andwilldonaire,andMoodQuestionnairewerethesameasthosetheothertaskinstead.”usedinStudy1.Therecognitionmemorytaskthatwas(d)PreventionNotWorking—“IfyoudopoorlyonusedwaspartofasoftwaresystemdevelopedbyEugenethewordrecognitionmemorytask,youwillhavetodoGalanteratColumbiaUniversity.Itwasdevelopedforthe[participant’sdislikedtask]insteadofthethertheMacintoshcomputerandwasdesignedtoallowun-task.”dergraduatepsychologystudentstoruntheirownex-Inadditiontothesefourcontingentframingcondi-periments.Nomodificationsofthesoftwarewereneces-tions,therewasalsotheexperimentalnoncontingentsaryinordertouseitinthisexperiment.Theprogramframingcondition.AsinStudy1,therelationbetweenitselfrandomlygeneratedthenonsensewordsusedtotheinitialrecognitionmemorytaskandthesecond,assesssubjects’recognitionmemory.finaltaskwasdescribedasnoncontingent.Thetwoal-ternativefinaltasksweredescribedandthepartici-Procedurentsweretoldthatoneofthesetaskswouldberan-Theinitialprocedurewhenparticipantrrivedatdomlyassignedtothemaftertheyhadcompletedthetheexperimentalsessionwasbasicallythesameasinrecognitionmemorytask.Study1.TheparticipantsweretoldthattheirmoodFortherecognitionmemorytask,theparticipantswouldbemeasuredduringthesessiontocorrectforanycompletedthreetrials.(Thecomputerprogramauto-possibleinfluenceitmighthaveontheirperformance.maticallycombinedtheresultsforthethreetrials.)InAftercompletingthefirstMoodQuestionnaire,thepar-thefirstpartofeachtrial,theywereshown20nonsenseticipantsweretoldthattheywouldfirstperformanwords,oneatatimefor2s.Eachnonsensewordcon-initialrecognitionmemorytask[theexperimentaltaskssistedoffivelettersinwhichthefirst,third,andfifthdescribedabove]andthentheywouldbeassignedaletterswereconsonantsandthesecondandfourthlet-second,finaltask.Theparticipants’earlieridiographicterswerevowels.TheparticipantsthenperformedaresponsestotheTaskRatingQuestionnairewereusedvowel–consonantfillertaskinwhichtheyidentifiedtoselectonelikedactivityandonedislikedactivity.lettersaseithervowelsorconsonantsfor20s.Next,Thelikedactivity(e.g.,playingavideogame)andthetheywereshownanothersetof40nonsensewords(e.g.,proofreading)wereeachfullyde-askedwhetherornottheyhadseenthembefore.Ofscribedasanalternativesecondtaskthataparticipantthese40nonsensewords,20werenonsensewordsthatmightperform.Propsrelatedtoaparticipant’salterna-theyhadseenbeforeinthetrial,andtheother20weretivesecondtaskwereagainincluded,andthedebriefingnewnonsensewordsthattheyhadnotseeninthetrialattheendoftheexperimentalsessionindicatedthat(orinanyearliertrial).Participantsfirstranthroughtheparticipantsbelievedthattheywouldperformoneapracticetrial.Afterthepracticetrial,theyperformedofthesetasksduringthesession.thethreeconsecutiveexperimentaltrials,withapauseAsinStudy1,fouroftheexperimentalframingcondi-of30sbetweeneach.Therewasnotimelimitforthetionswerecontingencyconditionsinwhichparticipantslastrecognitionphaseofthetrial.Theexperimenterweretoldthatwhichofthealternativefinaltaskstheyrecordedthedurationofthisrecognitionphaseforeachwouldworkonattheendofthesessiondependedontrial

13 .Afterallthetrialswerecompleted,theparti
.Afterallthetrialswerecompleted,thepartictheirperformanceontheinitialrecognitionmemoryntsfilledouttheoodQuestionnaireforasecondtask.Therelationbetweentheinitialmemorytaskandandfinaltime.thesecond,finaltaskwasdescribedascontingentforeveryone,buttheframingvariedindifferentconditionResultsandDiscussionasafunctionofbothregulatoryfocusandvalence.AlltheparticipantsweretoldthattheywouldfirstbegivenMethodsofAnalysisawordrecognitionmemorytask.Theinstructionsthenvariedacrossconditions,asfollows:AsinStudy1,multipleregressionanalyseswereper-(a)PromotionWorking—“Ifyoudowellonthewordformedonthedependentvariablestossesstheinde-recognitionmemorytask,youwillgettodothe[partici-pendenteffectsofeachframingvariablewhilentrol-pant’slikedtask]insteadoftheothertask.”(b)PromotionNotWorking—“Ifyoudon’tdowelllingforalltheothervariables. COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL 12 ResponseBiasbetweenthetwodistributions,andiscalculatedusingtheformula,(FA)(H)(i.e.,the-scoreforThestatisticsforsignaldetectionparametersareFalseAlarmsminusthe-scoreforHits)(Galanter,basedonthestandardizedfrequencydistributionsof1994,pg.141).Alargervalueindicatesgreatersensi-the“noise”alonedistributionandthe“signalplusnoise”tivitytothesignals,oragreaterabilitytodistinguishdistribution,plusthelocationofaperson’sdecisioncri-betweennoisealoneandsignalplusnoise.terioninrelationtothesetwodistributions.Thiscrite-Aregressionanalysisontheaccuracyscoresrevealedrionline,whichisalsoinstandardscores,isreferencedasignificanteffectofvalence,(1,4.6,withrespecttothenoisedistribution(Galanter,1994,reflectingthefactthatparticipantsinthenegativeva-142).Forthisstudy,theresponsebiasstatisticbetalenceconditionhadahigherrecognitionaccuracyscore),whichisbasedonthecriterionstatistic,wasused1.58)thanparticintsinthepositivevalencetorepresenteachparticipants’sdecisioncriterionpointcondition(1.40).Thiseffectwasduemostlytotheforgivinga“yes”or“no”answer.BetaiscalculatedveryhighrecognitionaccuracyscoresofparticipantsinbytakingtheordinatevalueofthesignalplusnoisethePreventionNotWorkingcondition(1.72).Thisdistributionatthecriterionline(indicatinthepropor-conditiondifferedsignificantlyfromallotherconditionstionofHits)anddividingitbytheordinatevalueofcombined(1.40),(1,4.4,.05),whereasthenoisedistributionatthecriterionline(indicatingtheotherconditionsdidnotdiffersignificantlyfromtheproportionofFalseAlarms)[(H)/(FA),whereeachother.Theparticipants’recognitionaccuracyistheheightoftheordinate,alsoknownasthedensityscoreswerenotcorrelatedwitheithertheirbetavaluesfunction].Abetavalueof1indicatesnobias,whereasortheirresponsetimesinthisstudy,buttomakecertainbeta1indicatesabiastowardsaying“no”andbetatheaccuracyscoreswereindependentthemultiplere-1indicatesabiastowardsaying“yes”.gressionwasrepeatedwithbetaandresponsetimein-Aregressionanalysisonthebetavaluesrevealedacludedascovariates.Theeffectofvalenceandthediffer-significanteffectofregulatoryfocus,(1,6.9,encebetweenPreventionNotWorkingandalltheother01.Aspredicted,participantsinthepromotionconditionscombinedremainedsignificant.Therewerefocusconditionhadariskybiastosay“yes”asindicatednoothersignificanteffects.inscoreslowerthanone(0.92),andparticipantsinthepreventionfocusconditionhadaconservativebiastosay“no”asindicatedbyscoresgreaterthanone1.13).Therewerenoothersignificanteffects.AsinStudy1,wewereinterestedinthestrategicResponseLatencyeffectsofourframingvariables,independentofanyTheresponselatencyofeachparticipantwastheoodeffects.Thus,weneededbothtocheckforandnumberofsecondswaitedonaveragebeforesayingcontrolformoodeffects.Again,thefourgeneraltypesof“yes”or“no”toapresentednonsenseword.Aregressionemotionwerecheerfulness,dejection,quiescence,andanalysisontheresponselatenciesrevealedasignificantagitation,andeachofthesefourgeneraltypesofemo-ffectofregulatoryfocus,(1,6.2,02,re-tionhadatotalscorethatrangedfrom0to12,with6flectingthefactthat,aspredicted,participantsinthebeingthemidpointofthescale.Ateachofthetwopreventionfocusconditionwaitedlongeronaveragetomeasurementtimes,boththedejection-relatedandagi-respond(1.40s)thanparticipantsinthepromotiontation-relatedemotionshadscoresbelow4.0andmostlyfocuscondition(1.23s).Responselatencywasbelow3.0,i.e.,slightlydeje

14 ctedandslightlyagitated.uncorrelatedwith
ctedandslightlyagitated.uncorrelatedwithbetainthisstudy,buttomakecertainAteachofthethreemeasurementtimes,boththecheer-thetwowereindependentthemultipleregressionwasfulness-relatedandthequiescence-relatedemotionsrepeatedwithbetaincludedasacovariate.Theeffecthadscoresabove5.0andmostlyabove6.0,i.e.,moder-ofregulatoryfocusremainedsignificant.Therewerenoatelycheerfulandmoderatelyquiescent.othersignificanteffects.Arepeatedmeasuresanalysisbyframingconditionwasconductedforeachmoodtypeacrossthetwomea-RecognitionAccuracyurementtimes.Therewerenosignificantmoodeffectsasafunctionofframingcondition.Equallyimportant,Theparticipants’recognitionmemoryaccuracyiseachofthesignificantfindingsreportedearlierre-theiraccuracyrateindetectingthepresenceandab-mainedsignificantwhenthefourtypesofemotionsatsenceofsignals,astandardizedscoreknownasthedifferentmeasurementtimes,andthechangesinprime”).Thismeasurewascalculatedwithreferenceemotionsbetweenmeasurementtimes,wereincludedtothetwodistributionsofnoisealoneandsignalplusnoise.Themeasureisthedistanceinstandardscoresintheregressionanalyses. COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL 13 GENERALSUMMARYANDCONCLUSIONScondition,weremorefluentingeneratinguniquechar-acteristicsofdifferentmembersofacategory,sortedApromotionfocusisconcernedwithadvancement,differentmembersofacategoryintomoresubgrougrowth,andaccomplishmentandthestrategicinclina-andusedagreaternumberofdifferentsortingcriteriationistomakeprogressbyapproachingmatchestotheacrosscategories.Participantsinthepreventioncondi-desiredend-state.Incontrast,apreventionfocusistion,comparedtothoseinthepromotioncondition,re-concernedwithsecurity,safety,responsibilityandthepeatedmorecharacteristicsacrosscategorymembersstrategicinclinationistobeprudentandprecautionary(controllingforfluency)andrepeatedthesamesortingandavoidmismatchestothedesiredend-state.Apro-criteriamoreacrosscategories(controllingforthenum-motionfocus,then,wouldinvolveastateofeagernessberofsubgroupsproducedineachcategory).toattainadvancementandgainswhereasapreventionThethirdpredictionwasthatwhenindividualsworkfocuswouldinvolveastateofvigilancetoassuresafetyonasignaldetectiontaskthatrequiresthemtodecideandnon-losses.Giventhesedifferences,wehypothe-whethertheydidordidnotdetectasignal,thoseinaizedthatthepromotionfocusinclinationistoinsurepromotionfocusshouldwanttoinsurehitsandinsurehitsandinsureagainsterrorsofomission,whereastheagainsterrorsofomissionbydecidingthatasignalwaspreventionfocusinclinationistoinsurecorrectrejec-presented,whereasthoseinapreventionfocusshouldtionsandinsureagainsterrorsofcommission.wanttoinsurecorrectrejectionsandinsureagainstThisgeneralhypothesisyieldedthreebasicpredic-rrorsofcommissionbydecidingthatasignalwasnottions.Onepredictionwasthatwhenindividualsworkpresented.Inarecognitionmemorytask,then,individ-onadifficulttaskorhavejustexperiencedfailure,thoseualsinapromotionfocusshouldbeinclinedtorecognizeinapromotionfocusshouldbeeagertofindhitsandasmanyitemsaspossibleandthustorespond“yes”insureagainstomittinganypossiblehits,whereas(ariskyresponsebias),whereasindividualsinapreven-thoseinapreventionfocusshouldbevigilantagainsttionfocusshouldbeinclinedtotrynottocommitmis-mistakesandinsureagainstcommittingtheerroroftakesandthustorespond“no”(aconservativeresponseproducingthem.Underthesecircumstances,then,indi-bias).Moreover,individualsinapreventionfocusvigi-vidualsinapromotionfocusshouldperformbetterthanlantagainsterrorsofcommissionshouldtakemoreindividualsinapreventionfocusandthelattershouldtimetorespondthanindividualsinapromotionfocusquitmorereadily.eagerforhits.TheresultsofStudy2forresponsebiasTakentogether,theresultsofStudy1ontheana-andforresponselatency(controllingforresponsebias)gramstask,theembeddedfigurestask,andthecount-supportedthesepredictions.ingbackwardstaskstronglysupportthisprediction.AnothermajorobjectiveothepresentstudieswasParticipantsinthepromotionfocuscondition,com-toexamineforthefirsttimehowregulatoryfocusasparedtothoseinthepreventionfocuscondition,foundonemotivationalprincipleandvalenceorhedonicvaluemoresolutionsontheanagrafollowingtheirfailureasaseparatemotivationalprincipalinfluencestrategicontheunsolvableanagram,andcountedbackwardsinclinat

15 ions,bothindependentlyandincombination.m
ions,bothindependentlyandincombination.morequicklyonthedifficultsequence.ParticipantsinOurstudiesconsideredthisssueinthecontextoffram-thepreventionfocus,comparedtothoseinthepromo-ingmanipulationsthatcreatedcontingenciesbetweentionfocus,weremorelikelytoquitthedifficultembed-performanceonthetargettasksandassignmentofadedfigure.finaltask.Thereweretwoalternativefinaltasks,oneionwasthatwhenindividualslikedandonedislikedbyeachparticipant.Thesameworkonataskwheregeneratinganynumberofalter-objectivecontingencywasframedinrelationtoaposi-nativesiscorrect,thoseinapreventionfocusshouldtiveoranegativeoutcome(valence)and,orthogonally,wanttoavoirrorsofcommissionbystickingtoasinrelationtoapromotionorapreventionfocus(regula-fewalternativesaspossibleandrepeatingonesalreadytoryfocus).Inaddition,thesecontingentconditionsused,andthoseinapromotionfocusshouldwanttowerecomparedtoanoncontingentconditioninwhichaccomplishhitsandinsureagainstomittingpossiblethefinaltaskwasrandomlyassigned,unrelatedtopre-alternatives.Underthesecircumstances,then,individ-viousperformance.ualsinapreventionfocusshouldbemorerepetitiveAssummarizedearlier,regulatoryfocusframinghadthanindividualsinapromotionfocusandthelattermanysignificanteffects.Incontrast,contingencyhadshouldgeneratemoredistinctalternatives.onlyonesignificanteffectandvalenceframinghadjustTakentogether,theresultsofStudy1onthecharac-twoeffects.Thecontingencyffectwassimplythatonteristiclistingtaskandthesortingtaskstronglysup-thefirsttrialofthecountingbackwardstask,partici-portthisprediction.Participantsinthepromotioncon-dition,comparedtothoseinthepreventionfocuspantsinthecontingencyconditioncountedmore COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL 14 Carver,C.S.,&Scheier,M.F.(1981).Attentionandself-regulation:quicklythanparticipantsinthenoncontingencycondi-trol-theoryapproachtohumanbehavior.NewYork:tion.ThismighthavereflectedgreatermotivationinSpringer-Verlag.thecontingencythanthenoncontingencycondition,butCarver,C.S.,&Scheier,M.F.(1990).Principlesofself-regulation:therewaslittleevidenceforthisconclusionontheotherActionandemotion.InE.T.HigginsandR.M.Sorrentino(Eds.),tasks.ItshouldalsobenotedthattheeffectsofvalenceHandbookofmotivationandcognition:Foundationsofsocialbehav-ior.(Vol.pp.3–52).NewYork:Guilford.framingseemedtobedrivenbyspecificconditionsthatGalanter,E.(1994).PsychTechNotes.Version2.1.NewYork:Adams,involvedregulatoryfocusaswell.Specifically,theva-Bannister,Cox.lencedifferenceinproducingsubgroupsonthesortingGray,J.A.(1982).Theneuropsychologyofanxiety:Anenquiryintotaskreflectedmostlythefactthatparticipantsinthethefunctionsoftheseptohippocampalsystem.NewYork:OxfordPreventionNotWorkingconditionproducedanespe-UniversityPress.ciallylownumberofsubgroupswhereasparticipantsHiggins,E.T.(1987).Self-discrepancy:AtheoryrelatingselfandinthePromotionWorkingconditionproducedanespe-ffect.PsychologicalReviewciallyhighnumberofsubgroups.Andthevalencediffer-Higgins,E.T.(1989).Continuitiesanddiscontinuitiesinself-regula-enceinrecognitionaccuracyreflectedmostlythefacttoryandself-evaluativeprocesses:Adevelopmentaltheoryrelatingselfandaffect.JournalofPersolitythatparticipantsinthePreventionNotWorkingcondi-Higgins,E.T.(1996a).The“selfdigest”:Self-knowledgeservingself-tionhadveryhighrecognitionaccuracyscores.Thisregulatoryfunctions.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychologysuggeststhatindividualsfocusingonpreventionnotworkingmightbeespeciallyvigilantundercertaincir-Higgins,E.T.(1996b).Emotionalexperiences:Thepainsandplea-cumstances,andvigilancemightbeanadvantageinuresofdistinctregulatorysystems.InR.D.Kavanaugh,B.Zim-certaintaskssuchasrecognitionmemory.merberg,andS.Fein(Eds.),Emotion:InterdisciplinaryperspectivesOverall,thepresentstudiesclearlyindicatethatreg-pp.203–241).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.ulatoryfocus,independentofvalence,caninfluenceHiggins,E.T.,Bond,R.N.,Klein,R.,&Strauman,T.(1986).Self-discrepanciesandemotionalvulnerability:Howmagnitude,acces-strategiesordecisionpatternsintaskperformanceandsibility,andtypeofdiscrepancyinfluenceaffect.JournalofPerson-problem-solving.Theresultssupportthegeneralhy-lityandSocialPsychologypothesisthatthepromotionfocusinclinationistoin-Higgins,E.T.,Roney,C.,Crowe,E.,&Hymes,C.(1994).

16 Idealversusurehitsandinsureagainsterrors
Idealversusurehitsandinsureagainsterrorsofomission,whereasoughtpredilectionsforapproachandavoidance:Distinctself-regu-thepreventionfocusinclinationistoinsurecorrectre-latorysystems.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychologyjectionsandinsureagainsterrorsofcommission.Ourstudiesfoundthatregulatoryfocuscanbeinducedus-Higgins,E.T.,&Tykocinski,O.(1992).Self-discrepanciesandbio-graphicalmemory:Personalityandcognitionatthelevelofpsycho-ingacontingencyframingmanipulation.Thismanipu-logicalsiton.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletinlationwasinspiredbyregulatoryfocusdifferencesinthemessagesthatcaretakersgivetotheirchildrenKonorski,J.(1967).Integrativeactivityofthebrain:Aninterdisciplin-whentheyrespondtothemcontingently.Butsuchcon-aryapproach.Chicago:Univ.ofChicagoPress.tingencymessagesarenotrestrictedtocaretaker–childLang,P.J.(1995).Theemotionprobe:Studiesofmotivationandinteractions.Asnotedearlier,teacher–pupilandem-attention.AmericanPsychologistployer–employeeinteractionsalsocommunicatecontin-Lewin,K.(1935).Adynamictheoryofpersonality.NewYork:McGrawgencies.Moregenerally,organizationsandinstitutionsLewin,K.(1951).Fieldtheoryinsocialscience.NewYork:Harper.communicatecontingenciesthroughthekindsofformalLewin,K.,Dembo,T.,Festinger,L.,&Sears,P.S.(1944).Levelincentivesaneedbackthattheyuse.Aninterestingofaspiration.InJ.McHunt(Ed.),Personalityandthebehaviorquestionforfutureresearchishowdifferentkindsofdisorders(Vol.pp.333–378).NewYork:RonaldPress.formalincentivesandfeedbackrelatetoregulatoryfo-Lorr,M.,&Wunderlich,R.A.(1988).Asemanticdifferentialmoodcusandtherebyinfluencemotivationandperformance.scale.JournalofClinicalPsychologyMcClelland,D.C.,Atkinson,J.W.,Clark,R.A.,&Lowell,E.L.REFERENCES(1953).Theachievementmotiverk:Appleton–Century–ofts.Atkinson,J.W.(1964).Anintroductiontomotivation.Princeton,NJ:Mikulincer,M.,Kedem,P.,&Paz,D.(1990).TheimpactoftraitVanNostrand.anxietyandsituationalstressonthecategorizationofnaturalob-jects.AnxietyResearchBandura,A.(1986).Socialfoundationsofthoughtandaction:AsocialcognitivetheoryEnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice–Hall.Roney,C.J.R.,Higgins,E.T.,&Shah,J.(1995).Goalsandframing:Howoutcomefocusinfluencesmotivationandemotion.PersonalityBrendl,C.M.,&Higgins,E.T.(1996)Principlesofjudgingvalence:andSocialPsychologyBulletin1151–1Whatmakeseventspositiveornegative?InM.P.Zanna(Ed.),Advancesinexperimentalsocialpsychology(Vol.pp.95–160).Rosch,E.(1975).Cognitiverepresentationsofsemanticcategories.NewYork:AcademicPress.JournalofExperimentalPsychology:GeneralRoseman,I.J.(1984).Cognitivedeterminantsofemotion:Astruc-runer,J.S.,Goodnow,J.J.,&Austin,G.A.(1956).Astudyofthinking.NewYork:Wiley.turaltheory.ReviewofPersonalityandSocialPsychology COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL 1 Roseman,I.J.,Spindel,M.S.,&Jose,P.E.(1990).AppraisalsofTanner,W.P.Jr.,&Swets,J.A.(1954).Adecision-makingtheoryofvisualdetection.PsychologicalReviewemotion-elicitingevents:Testingatheoryofdiscreteemotions.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychologyTrope,Y.,&Lirman,A.(1996).Socialhypothesistesting:Cognitiveandmotivationalmechanisms.InE.T.HigginsandA.W.Kruglan-Rotter,J.B.(1982).Someimplicationsofasociallearningtheoryforthepracticeofpsychotherapy.InJ.B.Rotter(Ed.),Thedevelopmentski(Eds.),Socialpsychology:Handbookofbasicprinciples(pp.239–270).NewYork:Guilford.andapplicationsofsociallearningtheory(pp.237–262).NewYork:CBSEducationalandProfessionalPublishing.Witkin,H.A.,Oltman,P.K.,Raskin,E.,&Karp,S.A.(1971).manualfortheembeddedfigurestest.PaloAlto,CA:ConsultingRuebush,B.K.(1960).Interferingandfacilitatingffectsoftestanxiety.JournalofAbnormalandSocialPsychology05–212.PsychologistsPress.Received:August7, COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL 16 RegulatoryFocusandStrategicInclinations:omotionandPreventioninDecision-MakingLLENROWEANDE.TORYIGGINSColumbiaUniversity distinguishedbetweentheappetitivesysteminvolvingApromotionfocusisconcernedwithadvancement,approachandthedefensiveoraversivesysteminvolv-growth,andaccomplishment,whereasapreventionGray,1982;Konorski,1967;Lang,focusisconcernedwithsecurity,safety,andresponsi- anavoidancesystem.Theyalsosuggestthatthedis- COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL 1 Published in: Organizational Behavior and Human Dec