PROBLEM 2
STRUCTURE OF SELF-REGULATION AND NUGDING
LEARNING GOALS
– Part 1
- What is the difference between promotion and prevention (what is RF theory)?
- Which factors (antecedents) determine whether a person is more motivated by promotion or prevention
messages?
- What is the effect of promotion and prevention (RF) on performance and other outcomes?
– Part 2
- Which types of achievement goals can be set?
- Does someone always set the same achievement goals?
- Which factors determine the achievement goals someone sets?
- What is the influence of the type of goals you set on behaviour and performance?
ARTICLE SUMMARIES
PART 1
ARTICLE 1
FREITAS ET AL. (2002) – When to Begin? Regulatory focus and initiating goal pursuit
– Article /study.
– Proposes that a prevention focus leads to preferences to initiate action earlier compared to a promotion focus.
– Proof from 4 studies performed in this article.
INTRODUCTION
– “In addition to the important hedonic considerations noted above, we suggest that one’s regulatory focus, or
how one regulates pleasure and pain, also can influence when one initiates action.”
– Regulatory focus theory (RFT)
- Like most other theories on self-regulation – explains how ppl reduce discrepancies between current and
desired states.
- Two types of desired end states (self-guides):
· Ideal self-guides (promotion focus) – ppl’s representations of desired end states = hopes or aspirations.
- Heightens ppl's sensitivity to opportunities to advance goal attainment.
· Ought self-guides (prevention focus) – = duties or responsibilities.
- Heightens ppl's sensitivity to impediments to goal attainment.
- “Situations can induce a promotion focus by emphasizing how to take advantage of opportunities for goal
attainment, and situations can induce a prevention focus by emphasizing how to avoid impediments to goal
attainment.”
– “As observed by Gould (1939), people can construe standards as minimal goals they must attain or as maxi- mal
goals they hope to attain. Minimal goals thus differentiate negative from nonnegative events, whereas maxi- mal
goals differentiate positive from nonpositive events.”
- Prevention focus should equal to experiencing objectives as minimal goals.
, - Promotion focus should experience objectives as maximal goals.
– Effects of regulatory focus on ppl's tendencies to view objectives as minimal or maximal should affect when ppl
chose to initiate action.
- “By facilitating construing a goal as a minimal standard one must meet, a prevention focus should lead one to
initiate relatively quickly goal-directed action.”
- “By facilitating construing a goal as a maximum standard one only hopes to meet, a promotion focus should
lead one to feel little pressure to initiate immediately any single action.”
– Hypotheses:
- Proposes that a prevention focus should lead to earlier initiation of actions compared to a promotion focus.
- Primary focus of this article is to test above claim.
– Study 1
- “Examined whether ppl's chronic accessibility of ideal and ought self-guides would be associated differentially
with their preferences for when to initiate action.”
· Expected ppl’s accessibility of ideal self-guides to be associated with later initiation of action, and ought ones
to predict earlier preferences for action.
– Study 2 + 3
- “Tested whether framing tasks in terms of avoiding impediments to goal pursuit or in terms of advancing
opportunities for goal pursuit would affect ppl's preferences for when to initiate single actions.”
· Expected the avoiding impediments framing to elicit earlier preferences for action initiation compared to the
advancing opportunities framing.
– Study 4
- Continuation of study 2 + 3 … “and their action choices as they performed a multitrial laboratory task.”
· Same as above.
– Second goal of research – examine whether hypothesised effects of regulatory focus on timing preferences
would be independent on any effects of task valence.
- Thus (studies 1-3) they examined several indicators of perceived task valence – wanted to see if any effects of
regulatory focus would hold while controlling for these measures of task valence.
STUDY 1
– “Study 1 tested whether individual differences in regulatory focus accounted for variability in participants’
preferences for when to begin a hypothetical task. Asked to imagine that they had decided to write an essay for a
fellowship application, participants indicated when they would want to begin writing the essay.”
– Attitude accessibility has been operationalised as the amount of time required to respond to attitude queries.
- Highly accessible/strong attitudes = faster reaction times.
- This operationalisation is supported by large body of research.
– “Higgins et al. (1997) (the next mandatory article) constructed an instrument that assesses individual differences
in promotion focus strength and prevention focus strength via reaction times to questions about ideal and ought
self-guides, respectively.”
- “Proposed that chronically accessible ideal and ought self-guides, reflected in fast reaction times to relevant
queries, indicate stronger promotion and prevention focuses, respectively.”
– Current study – expected faster responses to ought queries to predict earlier preferences for task
commencement but faster responses to ideal queries to predict later preferences for task commencement.
- Also assessed and controlled for interest of the task + expected performance on the task (key aspects of
valence).
- “One’s interest in an action denotes the event’s response elicitation (i.e., whether one wants to engage in the
action), whereas one’s expectancy of success at an action denotes the action’s goal supportiveness (i.e.,
whether one expects one’s engagement of the action to facilitate goal satisfaction).”
- ”We predicted that regulatory focus would relate to action-initiation preferences when holding constant these
indicators of action valence.”
, Valence was included as a variable to
test whether regulatory focus
influences decision making beyond
Design any simple hedonic effects of pleasure
– Pps
versus pain framing.
- 64 Yale undergrads, received course credit.
– Procedure and materials From next article but relevant to this article to
- Computer based “self-guide strength” questionnaire. understand the point of including valence.
- Provided pps with definitions of ideal and ought selves.
· Asked to give their attributes to describe each, had to be different.
· “Participants then were asked to list the attributes in a seemingly random order: one ideal attribute, followed
by two ought attributes, another ideal attribute, another ought attribute, and a final ideal attribute.”
· Asked for each ideal trait they were asked to rate (1-4) how much they would like to possess that attribute
(ideal) and how much they actually did (actual/ideal extent).
· Asked for each ought trait they were asked to rate (1-4) how much ought to possess that attribute (ought)
and how much they actually did (actual/ought extent).
- For each attribute, 3 response time were recorded:
· Time of typing the attribute after being prompted to do so.
· Time to make the self-guide extent rating after being prompted to do so.
· Time to make the actual extent rating.
- All pps were told the deadline for the essay was in 3 months – when would you most like to start it?
· 11 point scale – 1 point = 1 week.
Results and discussion
– Increases in ought strength = associated with decreases in pps’ preferred time to begin writing the essay.
– Increases in ideal strength = associated with increases in pps’ preferred time to begin writing the essay.
- Both above together explained 22% of variance in pps timing preferences.
– Interest + expectancy of success was combined into an index of perceived task valence – did not correlate
significantly with pps timing preferences.
- Neither ought or ideal strength accounted for significant variation in index of task valence.
– As predicted – increases in the accessibility of participants’ ought self-guides were associated with earlier
preferences for when to write the essay.
– Increases in the accessibility of participants’ ideal self-guides – associated with later preferences of starting.
- These findings were independent of participants’ perceptions of the valence of the essay task.”
STUDY 2
– RFT predicts that situations can induce promotion or prevention focus based on framing – if true, framing a task
in prevention perms should lead ppl to start it earlier, compared to promotion terms.
Design
– Pps
- 93 Columbia university undergrads, monetary compensation (2 dollars).
– Procedure and materials
- Same as in study 1.
- Difference – randomly assigned to either prevention of promotion focus of the framing of the fellowship they
were applying for.
· Both framings mentioned failure and success.
- Prevention – “rejection”, “avoid rejection”.
- Promotion – “lack of acceptance”, “attain acceptance”.
Results and discussion
– Prevention framing = significantly earlier start of essay.
– Again – created index of perceived task valence.
- No significant correlation with timing preferences.
– Task framing ≠ association with valence.
STRUCTURE OF SELF-REGULATION AND NUGDING
LEARNING GOALS
– Part 1
- What is the difference between promotion and prevention (what is RF theory)?
- Which factors (antecedents) determine whether a person is more motivated by promotion or prevention
messages?
- What is the effect of promotion and prevention (RF) on performance and other outcomes?
– Part 2
- Which types of achievement goals can be set?
- Does someone always set the same achievement goals?
- Which factors determine the achievement goals someone sets?
- What is the influence of the type of goals you set on behaviour and performance?
ARTICLE SUMMARIES
PART 1
ARTICLE 1
FREITAS ET AL. (2002) – When to Begin? Regulatory focus and initiating goal pursuit
– Article /study.
– Proposes that a prevention focus leads to preferences to initiate action earlier compared to a promotion focus.
– Proof from 4 studies performed in this article.
INTRODUCTION
– “In addition to the important hedonic considerations noted above, we suggest that one’s regulatory focus, or
how one regulates pleasure and pain, also can influence when one initiates action.”
– Regulatory focus theory (RFT)
- Like most other theories on self-regulation – explains how ppl reduce discrepancies between current and
desired states.
- Two types of desired end states (self-guides):
· Ideal self-guides (promotion focus) – ppl’s representations of desired end states = hopes or aspirations.
- Heightens ppl's sensitivity to opportunities to advance goal attainment.
· Ought self-guides (prevention focus) – = duties or responsibilities.
- Heightens ppl's sensitivity to impediments to goal attainment.
- “Situations can induce a promotion focus by emphasizing how to take advantage of opportunities for goal
attainment, and situations can induce a prevention focus by emphasizing how to avoid impediments to goal
attainment.”
– “As observed by Gould (1939), people can construe standards as minimal goals they must attain or as maxi- mal
goals they hope to attain. Minimal goals thus differentiate negative from nonnegative events, whereas maxi- mal
goals differentiate positive from nonpositive events.”
- Prevention focus should equal to experiencing objectives as minimal goals.
, - Promotion focus should experience objectives as maximal goals.
– Effects of regulatory focus on ppl's tendencies to view objectives as minimal or maximal should affect when ppl
chose to initiate action.
- “By facilitating construing a goal as a minimal standard one must meet, a prevention focus should lead one to
initiate relatively quickly goal-directed action.”
- “By facilitating construing a goal as a maximum standard one only hopes to meet, a promotion focus should
lead one to feel little pressure to initiate immediately any single action.”
– Hypotheses:
- Proposes that a prevention focus should lead to earlier initiation of actions compared to a promotion focus.
- Primary focus of this article is to test above claim.
– Study 1
- “Examined whether ppl's chronic accessibility of ideal and ought self-guides would be associated differentially
with their preferences for when to initiate action.”
· Expected ppl’s accessibility of ideal self-guides to be associated with later initiation of action, and ought ones
to predict earlier preferences for action.
– Study 2 + 3
- “Tested whether framing tasks in terms of avoiding impediments to goal pursuit or in terms of advancing
opportunities for goal pursuit would affect ppl's preferences for when to initiate single actions.”
· Expected the avoiding impediments framing to elicit earlier preferences for action initiation compared to the
advancing opportunities framing.
– Study 4
- Continuation of study 2 + 3 … “and their action choices as they performed a multitrial laboratory task.”
· Same as above.
– Second goal of research – examine whether hypothesised effects of regulatory focus on timing preferences
would be independent on any effects of task valence.
- Thus (studies 1-3) they examined several indicators of perceived task valence – wanted to see if any effects of
regulatory focus would hold while controlling for these measures of task valence.
STUDY 1
– “Study 1 tested whether individual differences in regulatory focus accounted for variability in participants’
preferences for when to begin a hypothetical task. Asked to imagine that they had decided to write an essay for a
fellowship application, participants indicated when they would want to begin writing the essay.”
– Attitude accessibility has been operationalised as the amount of time required to respond to attitude queries.
- Highly accessible/strong attitudes = faster reaction times.
- This operationalisation is supported by large body of research.
– “Higgins et al. (1997) (the next mandatory article) constructed an instrument that assesses individual differences
in promotion focus strength and prevention focus strength via reaction times to questions about ideal and ought
self-guides, respectively.”
- “Proposed that chronically accessible ideal and ought self-guides, reflected in fast reaction times to relevant
queries, indicate stronger promotion and prevention focuses, respectively.”
– Current study – expected faster responses to ought queries to predict earlier preferences for task
commencement but faster responses to ideal queries to predict later preferences for task commencement.
- Also assessed and controlled for interest of the task + expected performance on the task (key aspects of
valence).
- “One’s interest in an action denotes the event’s response elicitation (i.e., whether one wants to engage in the
action), whereas one’s expectancy of success at an action denotes the action’s goal supportiveness (i.e.,
whether one expects one’s engagement of the action to facilitate goal satisfaction).”
- ”We predicted that regulatory focus would relate to action-initiation preferences when holding constant these
indicators of action valence.”
, Valence was included as a variable to
test whether regulatory focus
influences decision making beyond
Design any simple hedonic effects of pleasure
– Pps
versus pain framing.
- 64 Yale undergrads, received course credit.
– Procedure and materials From next article but relevant to this article to
- Computer based “self-guide strength” questionnaire. understand the point of including valence.
- Provided pps with definitions of ideal and ought selves.
· Asked to give their attributes to describe each, had to be different.
· “Participants then were asked to list the attributes in a seemingly random order: one ideal attribute, followed
by two ought attributes, another ideal attribute, another ought attribute, and a final ideal attribute.”
· Asked for each ideal trait they were asked to rate (1-4) how much they would like to possess that attribute
(ideal) and how much they actually did (actual/ideal extent).
· Asked for each ought trait they were asked to rate (1-4) how much ought to possess that attribute (ought)
and how much they actually did (actual/ought extent).
- For each attribute, 3 response time were recorded:
· Time of typing the attribute after being prompted to do so.
· Time to make the self-guide extent rating after being prompted to do so.
· Time to make the actual extent rating.
- All pps were told the deadline for the essay was in 3 months – when would you most like to start it?
· 11 point scale – 1 point = 1 week.
Results and discussion
– Increases in ought strength = associated with decreases in pps’ preferred time to begin writing the essay.
– Increases in ideal strength = associated with increases in pps’ preferred time to begin writing the essay.
- Both above together explained 22% of variance in pps timing preferences.
– Interest + expectancy of success was combined into an index of perceived task valence – did not correlate
significantly with pps timing preferences.
- Neither ought or ideal strength accounted for significant variation in index of task valence.
– As predicted – increases in the accessibility of participants’ ought self-guides were associated with earlier
preferences for when to write the essay.
– Increases in the accessibility of participants’ ideal self-guides – associated with later preferences of starting.
- These findings were independent of participants’ perceptions of the valence of the essay task.”
STUDY 2
– RFT predicts that situations can induce promotion or prevention focus based on framing – if true, framing a task
in prevention perms should lead ppl to start it earlier, compared to promotion terms.
Design
– Pps
- 93 Columbia university undergrads, monetary compensation (2 dollars).
– Procedure and materials
- Same as in study 1.
- Difference – randomly assigned to either prevention of promotion focus of the framing of the fellowship they
were applying for.
· Both framings mentioned failure and success.
- Prevention – “rejection”, “avoid rejection”.
- Promotion – “lack of acceptance”, “attain acceptance”.
Results and discussion
– Prevention framing = significantly earlier start of essay.
– Again – created index of perceived task valence.
- No significant correlation with timing preferences.
– Task framing ≠ association with valence.
