A regulatory focus model of self-evaluation

Leonardelli, Geoffrey J.; Lakin, Jessica L.; Arkin, Robert M.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.021

Cited by 49 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, these participants reported that they paid increased attention to their personal target prices. Relatedly, in a self-evaluation study, promotion focus led to higher accessibility of self-esteem relevant words (Leonardelli, Lakin, & Arkin, 2007). …”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The individual self is associated with self-enhancement and selfdefense motivation (Sedikides & Gregg, 2003Sedikides & Strube, 1997). When this type of self is accessible, the person is likely to construe social interactions in a competitive than cooperative manner, to be attuned to available gains, and to behave spontaneously and opportunistically in a way that safeguards or maximizes short-term (rather than long-term) Based, then, on findings that link (a) promotion focus to the individual self (Galinsky et al., 2005;Leonardelli et al, 2007;Moretti & Higgins, 1990), and (b) accessibility of the individual self to short-term and opportunistic behavior (Gaertner et al, 2002(Gaertner et al, , 2008Stapel & Van der Zee, 2006), and (c) accessibility of the individual self to opportunistic responding in justice settings (Miedema et al, 2006;Skitka & Bravo, 2005), we hypothesized that a reason why promotion-focus participants would behave in a retaliatory manner would be the relatively high (chronic or temporary) accessibility of the individual self. This is the "why" question that we addressed in Studies 3-5.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retaliation as a response to procedural unfairness: A self-regulatory approach.

Brebels¹,

Cremer²,

Sedikides³

2008

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When does procedural unfairness result in retaliation, and why do unfair-treatment recipients sometimes pursue and other times inhibit retaliation? Five studies addressed these questions. We proposed and found that regulatory focus moderates retaliation against an unfairness-enacting authority: Promotion-focus participants were more likely to retaliate than prevention-focus participants. Promotion focus was associated with, and also heightened the accessibility of, the individual self. In turn, individual-self accessibility influenced retaliation. In fact, preventionfocus participants were as retaliatory as promotion-focus participants under conditions of high individual-self accessibility. Implications for the procedural fairness and regulatory focus literatures are discussed and suggestions for future research are offered.Keywords: retaliation, unfair treatment, procedural fairness, regulatory focus, self-activation This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.Unfair Treatment, Retaliation, and Self-Regulation 3 Retaliation as a Response to Procedural Unfairness: A Self-Regulatory ApproachFor many people, unfair treatment in group or organizational settings is a recurrent experience; it is also an aversive experience (Mikula, 1986;Miller, 2001;Oyserman, Uskul, Yoder, Nesse, & Williams, 2007). Aversion would be expected to result in retaliation (e.g., revenge, stealing, antisocial resource allocation). Indeed, justice researchers have considered perceived unfairness a key predictor of retaliation in employee-supervisor relationships, and they have carried out field studies to test this idea (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2001;Barclay, Skarlicki, & Pugh, 2005;Bies, Tripp, & Kramer, 1997;Blader, Chang, & Tyler, 2001;Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997;Greenberg, 1993;Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). When these studies were metaanalyzed (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001), however, a rather surprising conclusion emerged: perceived unfairness was an inconsistent predictor of retaliation. This conclusion was echoed by subsequent bodies of research (Bembenek, Beike, & Schroeder, 2007; Colquitt, Scott, Judge, & Shaw, 2006;Posthuma, Maertz, & Dworkin, 2007). In the words of Colquitt et al. (2006), "a substantial amount of variation exists in these relationships, and … moderators could explain much of that variation (p. 111)." It appears, then, that researchers lack a clear understanding of when perceived unfairness translates into retaliation and why unfairness recipients pursue or inhibit retaliation.Some justice research has looked into affect as an explanation for the inconsistent relation between unfair treatment and retaliation (Barclay, Skarlicki, & Pugh, 2005;Bembenek et al., 2007;Bies & Tripp, 1996;De Cremer, 2007). This research has shown that negative emotions (e.g., anger, disappointment) accompany retaliation as a response to perceived unfairness, but the research has not addressed when and why people sometimes pursue and sometimes inhi...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 96%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Retaliation as a response to procedural unfairness: A self-regulatory approach.

Brebels¹,

Cremer²,

Sedikides³

2008

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is supported by the finding of Leonardelli et al (2007) that self-esteem concerns are typically activated by a focus on promotion, which is related to ideals. However, people may also be motivated to differentiate themselves from other groups in order to reduce uncertainty (Hogg, 2000).…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 69%

Explaining the relationship between ingroup identification and intergroup bias following recategorization: A self-regulation theory analysis

Turner

Crisp

2010

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We tested the hypothesis that regulation of discrepancies between perceived actual and ideal differentiation between the ingroup and outgroup could help to explain the relationship between ingroup identification and intergroup bias when participants are recategorized into a superordinate group. Replicating previous findings, we found that following recategorization, identification was positively related to intergroup bias. No such differences emerged in a control condition. However, we also, in the recategorization condition only, observed a positive association between ingroup identification and the perceived discrepancy between actual and ideal degree of differentiation from the outgroup: at higher levels of identification, participants increasingly perceived the ingroup to be less differentiated from the outgroup than they would ideally like. This tendency mediated the relationship between identification and bias. We discuss the theoretical, methodological and practical implications of these findings.

show abstract

“…There has been extensive research on the effect of self-enhancement and regulation focus in relation to various cognitive and social behaviors (Leonardelli et al 2007;Liberman et al 2001;Semin et al 2005;Chung and Tsai 2009). However, there has not been much research on understanding the effect of both self-enhancement and regulation focus on word of mouth, either separately or combined.…”

Section: Current Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Self-Enhancement and Regulatory Focus On Word of Mouth

Akpınar¹

2016

isarder

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Word of mouth is one of the main drivers that shapes consumers' decisions. With the advent of social media, consumer reviews, opinions about brands propagate at a higher spread and reach masses. Thus, giving the rising interest in word of mouth, many brands are interested in understanding what makes consumers talk favorably about their products. Existing research suggests that one of the psychological motivations to engage in positive word of mouth is self-enhancement. Consumers like to provide positive information, which makes them look good to others. Yet, it is not so much known how self-enhancement affects sharing. Do consumers also provide positive recommendations when they already feel good about themselves? Our research shows that self enhancement boosts the likelihood of giving positive recommendations. Yet, this pattern does not always hold and can be moderated with regulatory focus. We show that when consumers are under high prevention focus, higher self-enhancement, in fact, decreases the likelihood of giving positive recommendations. This framework shed lights on how companies can encourage positive word of mouth, by understanding selfenhancement and regulatory focus mechanisms.

show abstract

A regulatory focus model of self-evaluation

Cited by 49 publications

References 35 publications

Retaliation as a response to procedural unfairness: A self-regulatory approach.

Retaliation as a response to procedural unfairness: A self-regulatory approach.

Explaining the relationship between ingroup identification and intergroup bias following recategorization: A self-regulation theory analysis

The Effect of Self-Enhancement and Regulatory Focus On Word of Mouth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About