Motivational Influences on Attentional Scope

Motivational Influences on Attentional Scope Ruby Theresa Nadler (rnadler@uwo.ca) Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario London, ON N6A 5C2 John Paul Minda (jpminda@uwo.ca) Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario London, ON N6A 5C2 Abstract The influence of motivation on attentional scope was investigated using two triad classification tasks. Both tasks allowed subjects to make holistic matches or analytic matches. One of two situational regulatory focus states (promotion, prevention) was induced in subjects before completion of the triad tasks. It was predicted that a promotion focus would engender a preference for holistic matches while a prevention focus would engender a preference for analytic matches. In the first experiment, promotion-focused subjects made more holistic matches than prevention-focused subjects. In the second experiment chronic regulatory focus was also measured, and subjects who experienced regulatory fit made more holistic matches than subjects who experienced regulatory mismatch, and situational regulatory focus alone did not significantly predict the proportion of holistic responses. These results suggest that both regulatory focus and regulatory fit states broaden attention, and that uncontrolled regulatory fit may be driving promotion focus effects. Keywords: Triad classification; motivation; regulatory focus theory; regulatory fit; perception. Introduction Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997) is a framework that can be used to explore the influence of motivation on perception and cognition. There are two regulatory focus systems: promotion and prevention. When someone is thinking about something they would like to achieve or attain, they can be said to be in a promotion-focused state, and are more eager and focused on making gains in the environment. When someone is thinking about something they do not want to lose or a state they want to maintain, they can be said to be in a prevention-focused state, and are more vigilant and focused on avoiding mistakes that will result in losses (Higgins & Spiegel, 2004). People are theorized to have a chronic, unchanging regulatory focus, and in addition to this regulatory focus can be temporarily manipulated experimentally by focusing the subject on promotion or prevention concerns (Higgins, 1997). People living in individualistic cultures (like Canada and the United States) tend to have a chronic promotion focus, while people in more collectivistic cultures tend to have a chronic prevention focus (Elliot, Chirkov, Kim & Sheldon, 2001; Lee, Aaker & Gardner, 2000). Regulatory focus states have been hypothesized to differentially affect attentional processing. Forster and Higgins (2005) hypothesized that a promotion focus broadens attention and supports holistic processing while a prevention focus narrows attention and supports analytic processing. Reaction times on a holistic processing task were positively correlated with a chronic promotion focus and negatively correlated with a chronic prevention focus, while reaction times on an analytic processing task were positively correlated with a chronic prevention focus and negatively correlated with a chronic promotion focus. In addition to the idea that one’s chronic regulatory state (promotion or prevention) can influence one’s processing abilities, one’s chronic regulatory focus can either match or mismatch with manipulated situational/experimental regulatory focus. If one has a chronic promotion focus and is placed in a condition where a situational promotion focus is induced, they can be considered to be in a state of regulatory fit, whereas a person with a chronic promotion focus placed in a situational prevention condition can be considered to be in a state of regulatory mismatch. The converse is also true; thus if one has a chronic prevention focus and is placed in a situational promotion condition, this would be a regulatory mismatch, whereas being placed in a situational prevention condition would create a state of regulatory fit. When regulatory fit occurs, one is hypothesized to feel right about what they are doing, and this increases motivation (Higgins, 2000). It has recently been hypothesized that another consequence of regulatory fit is broadened attention (Memmert, Unkelbach & Ganns, 2010). The authors measured subjects’ chronic regulatory focus using a self- report questionnaire and also manipulated situational regulatory focus states using a maze task. Following this induction subjects completed a well-known inattentional blindness task. Subjects who experienced a fit between their chronic regulatory focus and the situational focus induction were more likely to notice a gorilla while counting basketball passes than subjects who experienced a mismatch. The situational focus manipulation did not significantly predict the likelihood of noticing the gorilla. This leads to the question of whether it is a promotion focus that broadens attention, or regulatory fit. Forster and Higgins (2005) measured chronic regulatory focus but did not control for or manipulate regulatory fit, making it impossible to assess the influence of fit in their study. The results of Memmert et al. (2010) strongly suggest that it is regulatory fit, and not a promotion focus, that broadens