Expressed likelihood as motivator: Creating value through engaging what’s real

Abstract

Our research tested two predictions regarding how likelihood can have motivational effects as a function of how a probability is expressed. We predicted that describing the probability of a future event that could be either A or B using the language of high likelihood (“80% A”) rather than low likelihood (“20% B”), i.e., high rather than low expressed likelihood, would make a present activity more real and engaging, as long as the future event had properties relevant to the present activity. We also predicted that strengthening engagement from the high (vs. low) expressed likelihood of a future event would intensify the value of present positive and negative objects (in opposite directions). Both predictions were supported. There was also evidence that this intensification effect from expressed likelihood was independent of the actual probability or valence of the future event. What mattered was whether high versus low likelihood language was used to describe the future event.

How the “Truth” Self Relates to Altruism: When Your Problem is Mine

“…The latter, intriguing possibility would point more to the "phenomenal" quality of truth motivation. Rather than being just a subjective assessment of one's overall effectiveness in this motivational domain, truth motivation could be an experience of the world becoming more real and coherent, and thus more valuable (see Higgins, Franks, Pavarini, Sehnert, & Manley, 2012, for some evidence of this), as well as, more specifically, an experience of a stronger motivation for solving puzzles and problems that disrupt that coher-ence (whether your own or others' problems). The present research suggests that this experience is relevant not only in that it gradually brings focus to one's personal goals, but also because it embeds the experiencer in a world that places demands on one's actions and character to right wrongs they encounter.…”

Scarcity, engagement, and value

“…This is not to say that Brehm's theory of emotional intensity is the same as regulatory engagement theory. Brehm's theory identifies other factors that contribute to emotional intensity that are not part of regulatory engagement theory and regulatory engagement theory postulates additional sources of engagement strength other than opposing interfering forces, such as regulatory fit (see Higgins 2006), use of proper means , and expressions of likelihood that make future events more real (Higgins et al 2013). Nonetheless, there are implications of Brehm's theory that are applicable to regulatory engagement theory as well, such as his theory highlighting an important boundary condition to intensification from opposition-that the interfering force could become too strong to be overcome (i.e., too strong to oppose), which would produce disengagement and de-intensify the evaluative responses.…”

“…Indeed, the value effect in such scarcity situations could also be reduced by people not experiencing the objects as being real, as when a threatened, almost extinct species has become so rare that it feels almost imaginary, like the extinct dodo bird. In this regard, it should also be noted that expressing the low likelihood that the almost extinct species will survive-in the hope that this will make the need to help the species seem more urgent-could actually make the species seem less real and thus less valuable (see Higgins et al 2013). These possibilities should also be examined in future research.…”

“…Yet another source of stronger engagement is experiencing an object or event as real (vs. imaginary), such as being told that a future event has a high likelihood of happening (treated as real) or only a low likelihood of happening (not treated as real). Treating something as real recruits resources to deal with it, thereby strengthening engagement (Higgins et al 2013). Participants vary in how real they experience the object choices to be.…”

Regulatory focus in economic contexts

“…Higgins, Franks, Pavarini, Sehnert, & Manley, 2013). Moreover, previous research has found that individuals increase the strength with which they engage in their goal pursuit under regulatory fit (Hong & Lee, 2007;Uskul et al, 2008).…”