Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making

Crowe, Ellen; Higgins, E. Tory

doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.2675

Cited by 1,496 publications

(1,648 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,561

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Whereas the motivational orientation in a promotion focus, which is concerned with gains and non-gains, is eagerness, the motivational orientation in a prevention focus, which is concerned with losses and non losses, is vigilance (see for example, Förster, Higgins, & Taylor Bianco, in press). Significantly, promotion motivation is posited to involve a relatively 'risky' processing style in which novel alternatives are eagerly and actively sought, whereas prevention motivation is posited to involve a relatively risk-averse and vigilant processing style in which repetition is favored over novelty and alternatives are carefully eliminated (Crowe & Higgins, 1997;Liberman, Idson, Camacho, & Higgins, 1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of approach and avoidance motor actions on food intake

Förster

2002

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments explored the effect of arm positions of approach and avoidance on food intake. In Experiment 1, arm extension, an expression of avoidance behavior, led to smaller food intake than arm flexion, an expression of approach behavior. In Experiment 2, this effect was found only for a delicious drink (i.e. orange juice), but not for a neutral drink (lukewarm water). Different theoretical accounts for explaining the findings are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of approach and avoidance motor actions on food intake

Förster

2002

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prevention focus is principally concerned with the absence or presence of negative outcomes (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). Therefore, we contend that when a decision-maker composes a shortlist, this assuages her prevention concerns by drawing attention to the fact that there has been a reduction in the presence of relatively disfavored choice options.…”

Section: Regulatory Focusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Promotion focus is principally concerned with the absence or presence of favored outcomes (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). In two-stage decisions, the number of favored choice options should be the same in the initial set of alternatives and in the shortlist, because preferred options will typically survive and make it into the shortlist.…”

Section: Regulatory Focusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-stage decisions increase preference for hedonic options

Bhargave

Chakravarti

Guha

2015

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When choosing from multiple options, decision-makers may directly choose an option (single-stage decision), or initially shortlist a subset of options, and then choose an option from this shortlist (two-stage decision). Past work suggests that these two decision formats should lead to the same final choice when information about the choice alternatives is held constant. In contrast, this research demonstrates a novel effect: two-stage decisions increase preference for hedonic (vs. utilitarian) options. A regulatory focus account explains this effect. In a two-stage process, after shortlisting, decision-makers feel that they have sufficiently advanced their prevention goals, and this reduces their prevention focus during the final choice stage. Reduced prevention focus, in turn, enhances hedonic preference. Four studies across different decision contexts illustrate this effect and support the underlying process mechanism. The findings suggest that the formal structure of a decision (single-stage vs. two-stage) leads to systematic differences in decision-makers’ choices

show abstract

“…Prevention focused individuals do better on tasks when using a vigilant, conservative response pattern of ensuring non-losses. In addition, they do poorly when asked to focus on "hits" (gains), avoid errors of omission (non-gains), and be relatively risk-prone (Roney, Higgins, & Shah, 1995;Crowe & Higgins, 1997). As further evidence of risk aversion, people with a stronger prevention focus disengage more readily when an ongoing task becomes relatively difficult.…”

Section: Approach-avoidance Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social anxiety and disinhibition: An analysis of curiosity and social rank appraisals, approach–avoidance conflicts, and disruptive risk-taking behavior

Kashdan

Elhai

Breen

2008

Journal of Anxiety Disorders

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined how social anxiety is related to appraisals for various disinhibited behaviors and sought to identify potential subgroups of socially anxious people. College students completed trait measures and appraised disinhibited behaviors on their potential for threat, opportunity to satisfy curiosity, and ability to enhance social status. Three months later, participants were asked to report on their frequency of disinhibited behaviors since the initial assessment. People with greater social anxiety demonstrated frequent approach-avoidance conflicts -co-existing recognition of threats and rewards -about social interactions and disinhibited behaviors. Even when asked about the activity most likely to be avoided, participants with greater social anxiety evaluated these as having potential to satisfy curiosity and advance their social status. Three qualitatively different groups of people were identified based on social anxiety tendencies and approach-avoidance appraisal patterns. Groups differed on the degree of approach-avoidance conflicts, measures of psychological and social wellbeing, and frequency of social interactions and disinhibited behaviors. Moderately socially anxious people who were approach oriented reported the most difficulties. Results suggest that social anxiety is associated with tension between competing desires to avoid anxiety and explore. However, there appears to be important variability in the regulatory orientation, behavior, and well-being of socially anxious people. Conclusions about the nature of social anxiety may be compromised by not attending to existing differences in self-regulatory orientation and strategies.Keywords social anxiety; emotion regulation; curiosity; social rank; sexual activity; aggression; substance abuse One of the core components of social anxiety is an approach-avoidance conflict between wanting to make a good impression and form relationships with other people yet wanting to avoid exposure to negative evaluation (Clark & Wells, 1995;Gilbert, 2001;Kashdan, 2007; Contact Author: Todd B. Kashdan, Department of Psychology, MS 3F5, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, Email: E-mail: tkashdan@gmu.edu, Office Phone : 703-993-9486, Fax: 703-993-1359, website: http://mason.gmu.edu/∼tkashdan. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. NIH Public Access NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptRapee & . The motivation to avoid negative evaluation leads many socially anxious people to avoid or escape social situations. Most work on social anxiety has focused on over-regula...

show abstract

Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making

Cited by 1,496 publications

References 14 publications

The influence of approach and avoidance motor actions on food intake

The influence of approach and avoidance motor actions on food intake

Two-stage decisions increase preference for hedonic options

Social anxiety and disinhibition: An analysis of curiosity and social rank appraisals, approach–avoidance conflicts, and disruptive risk-taking behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About