Prevention Focus Relates to Performance on a Loss-Framed Inhibitory Control Task

Abstract

Information framing can be critical to the impact of information and can affect individuals differently. One contributing factor is a person’s regulatory focus, which describes their focus on achieving gains vs. avoiding losses. We hypothesized that alignment between individual regulatory focus and the framing of performance feedback as either gain or loss would enhance performance improvements from computer-based training. We measured participants’ ( N = 93) trait-level regulatory focus; they then trained in a go/no-go inhibitory control task with feedback framed as gains, losses, or control feedback conditions. Some changes in performance with training (correct rejection rate and response time) were consistent with regulatory fit, but only in the loss-framed condition. This suggests that regulatory fit is more complex than cursory categorization of trait regulatory focus and feedback framing might indicate. Regulatory fit, feedback framing, and task affordances should be considered when designing feedback or including game-like feedback elements to aid computer-based training.

Need for Cognition Is Positively Related to Promotion Focus and Negatively Related to Prevention Focus

“…Data and code for analyses are available online (Oiknine, 2019). These data were collected as a part of an overarching project containing various studies (Files et al, 2019). We have reported how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures in the study.…”

“…Our sample size for this study was not predetermined. Our study was advertised for 6 months until a parent study (Files et al, 2019) was complete. We took data from all participants who responded to our ad during this time window.…”

Correct response negativity may reflect subjective value of reaction time under regulatory fit in a speed‐rewarded task

“…All human subjects testing was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the US Army Research Laboratory under protocol 17‐166. Our target sample size was 90, which we selected to match the sample size in our previous work using a similar paradigm (Files, Pollard, et al., 2019 ). For that study, the sample size was expected to be sufficient to find a medium‐to‐large effect size in a 3 × 2 between‐subjects design based on an a priori sensitivity analysis.…”

“…The images were taken from preexisting simulated wartime environments used in past research and were meant to be ecologically valid for military contexts. We used a similar task in a previous study (Files, Pollard, et al., 2019 ), although the number and timing of trials differs here. The go stimulus was a computer‐rendered character holding a rifle.…”

“…Regulatory fit enhances the subjective value of activities, leading to increases in effortful engagement with those activities (Cooper et al., 2015 ). Regulatory fit can influence self‐reported measures of states such as motivation (e.g., Idson et al., 2004 ) and observable behavior in or performance on a task (e.g., Files et al., 2019 ; Worthy et al., 2007 ).…”