Promotion and prevention focus on alternative hypotheses: Implications for attributional functions.

Abstract

Five studies examined hypothesis generation and discounting in causal attribution from the perspective of regulatory focus theory (E. T. Higgins, 1997, 1998). According to this theory, a promotion focus is associated with generating more and simultaneously endorsing multiple hypotheses, whereas a prevention focus is associated with generating only a few hypotheses and selecting 1 hypothesis from a given set. Five studies confirmed these predictions for both situationally induced and chronic individual differences in regulatory focus. In Studies 1, 2, and 3, individuals in a promotion focus generated more hypotheses than individuals in a prevention focus. In Studies 4 and 5, individuals in a promotion focus discounted explanations in light of alternatives less than individuals in a prevention focus. Study 5 also found that in a promotion focus, person explanations were generalized across situations less than in a prevention focus.

Regulatory Fit and Persuasion: Transfer From "Feeling Right."

“…(Regulatory focus is a state that can be investigated either as a chronic tendency or a situationally induced focus.) It has been shown that different strategic means used during goal pursuit fit differently with each regulatory orientation (e.g., Crowe & Higgins, 1997;Liberman, Molden, Idson, & Higgins, 2001;Shah, Higgins, & Friedman, 1998). There is a natural fit between promotion focus concerns and pursuing goals with eager means (in signal detection terms, ensuring hits and ensuring against errors of omission), given that both are concerned with gains and nongains.…”

Differential effects of regulatory fit on category learning

“…For example, Förster and Higgins (2005) argued that a promotion focus supports more global processing while a prevention focus supports more local processing. Evidence for this claim comes from embedded figures tests (Förster & Higgins, 2005), tests of creative performance (Friedman & Forster, 2001), preferences for stability and change (Liberman, Idson, Camacho, & Higgins, 1999), hypothesis generation (Liberman, Molden, Idson, & Higgins, 2001), and probability estimates for conjunctive and disjunctive events (Brockner, Paruchuri, Idson, & Higgins, 2002).…”

Linguistic Signatures of Regulatory Focus: How Abstraction Fits Promotion More Than Prevention.

“…We know that for promotion-focused people, movement toward an end state in an eager manner is inclusive, broad, and general. In a promotion focus, individuals want to ensure against missing any "hits" (see Crowe & Higgins, 1997;Friedman & Förster, 2001;Liberman, Molden, Idson, & Higgins, 2001). The characteristic security concerns of prevention orientation focus are replaced by fulfillment of growth in the case of promotion orientation.…”