Promotion Focus, Prevention Focus, and the Expression of Positive Emotions When Things Turn Out Well

The type and intensity of emotion people feel depends on if they have a prevention or promotion focus going in to a situation according to the regulatory focus theory by Higgins (1997). An individual might approach a good outcome as being a gain, where they win, or nonloss, where they avoid losing. In a promotion focus, achieving a good outcome—a gain—will induce feelings of cheerfulness, while in a prevention focus, avoiding a failure—a non-loss—will induce feelings of quiescence. People can be placed in situations framed as with a promotion or prevention focus. In our study, 103 participants played computerized games where they experienced four outcomes framed as either promotion (gain, non-gain) or prevention focus (non-loss, loss). Their reactions to each game was videotaped, and four judges coded their facial expressions as cheerful, quiescent, or other. We predicted that participants in a promotion focus experiencing a gain would elicit more cheerfulness than the other outcomes, as indicated by the judges, and that participants in the prevention focus experiencing a non-loss would elicit more quiescence. Our results indicated that participants experienced neither more cheerfulness nor quiescence in good outcomes (gain, non-loss) compared to bad outcomes (non-gain, loss). Similarly, a gain outcome did not elicit more cheerfulness compared to a non-loss, and a nonloss did not elicit more quiescence than a gain. We speculated that our findings did not match previous ones because our methods included videotaping positive emotions that might be harder to tease apart compared to negative emotions. Moreover, previous studies showing support for the regulatory focus theory used personal questionnaires with leading questions that might have inadvertently influenced participants’ answers. REGULATORY FOCUS THEORY AND POSITIVE EMOTIONS 3 Promotion Focus, Prevention Focus, and the Expression of Positive Emotions When Things Turn Out Well Imagine if you score a 95 on your next exam, you will receive an A in the class overall. After studying hard, you do end up receiving that 95 and getting that great final grade. How do you feel? Now imagine that you had to score a 95 on the exam to not fail the class. In this instance, you also receive a 95 on the exam and pass the class. Do you feel as you did in the first scenario? In both cases, you might expect to feel happy, but some researchers might argue that the happiness you feel differs depending on if you had something to gain or something to lose. Regulatory focus theory proposes that we have two foci to approach different types of desired end states (Higgins, 1997). In the first focus, a person seeks positive outcomes, and this is kind of goal attainment deals with a promotion focus. This would be like making the 95 and succeeding in the class overall. In the second focus, a person has a prevention focus when concerned with avoiding negative outcomes. This would be like being motivated to make that 95 to prevent failing the class. Higgins' regulatory focus theory provides the backbone of this paper – how people approach situations, what kind of outcome they expect, and the kind of emotion they might feel from their particular situation (1997). Essentially, Higgins explores what motivates people and what the consequences are of this motivation. When examining what kind of different positive emotions one might feel from getting a good grade on the exam, the theory predicts that when one is in a promotion focus and succeeds his goal, he feels cheerful. On the other hand, the theory predicts that when one is in the prevention focus and avoids a bad outcome, such as failing the class, he feels calm or relaxed. In particular, we refer to this emotional state as quiescence based on Higgins’ emotion predictions. Now if someone in a promotion focus did not succeed in attaining the positive outcome (e.g. he did not make a 95 to REGULATORY FOCUS THEORY AND POSITIVE EMOTIONS 4 get the great final grade, then he would feel disappointed or dejected). Similarly, if he were in a prevention focus and failed to avoid the negative outcome, e.g. he did not make a 95 and thus failed the class, then he would feel agitated or uneasy. While Higgins (1997) postulates various needs and self-ideals that might motivate individuals, researchers can place people in experimental conditions framed as either promotion or prevention focus. A promotion focus frame would make the situation a gain, with something to be attained, if the event turns out well. The prevention focus frame would make the situation that turns out well a non-loss, as the individual is more sensitive to bad outcomes and will avoid them. When those sensitive to positive outcomes do not attain them, they are then in a non-gain situation, while when those more sensitive to bad outcomes are unable to avoid them, they are in a loss situation. If this particular frame were applied to playing games or hypothetical situations, people in a promotion focus game where there is the ability to gain will feel cheerful if they succeed. However, those in a prevention focus game where one has the potential to experience a loss will feel quiescent if they succeed in not failing—a non-loss. Idson, Liberman, and Higgins found that gains elicit more pleasure than a non-loss, as predicted by the regulatory focus theory (2000). After filling out a self-questionnaire, participants completed an anagram task and were randomly assigned to receiving positive or negative feedback depending on their performance compared to other students on the anagrams. They would receive $9 if they performed better than 70 percent of other students or $8 if they scored less than the 70 percent. In the positive outcome condition, participants were told they solved the anagrams at the 79 percentile, while in the negative outcome condition, they were told they solved them at the 61 percentile. Participants were asked to rate how happy, relaxed, discouraged, and tense they felt after the task. The results showed that participants with a strong promotion focus, which was determined REGULATORY FOCUS THEORY AND POSITIVE EMOTIONS 5 by the self-questionnaire prior to the task, indicated that they felt happier when they received positive feedback after their successful anagram task than participants with a strong prevention focus. This was in line with the regulatory focus theory that predicted that those with a promotion focus feel more cheerfulness when experiencing a good outcome during a success. Higgins, Shah, and Friedman (1997) assigned their participants a task to complete and placed them in a promotion or prevention-framing condition based on how they wanted the task to be completed. They awarded $5 to participants who completed the task, regardless of succeeding or failing. However, in the promotion focus frame, they could win an additional $1 if they correctly performed the task. Those in the prevention-framing condition were told that they would receive $6 if they succeeded in performing the task but would lose money if they failed. Based on a personal questionnaire, Higgins et al. found that those in a promotion focus experienced greater cheerfulness or dejection based on outcome (gain or non-gain), while those in a prevention focus experienced greater quiescence during a non-loss or agitation during a loss. As in Higgins et al.’s study, here participants are given the promotion or prevention focus frame while playing computerized games. A success is framed as a gain or non-loss and are thus labeled as good outcomes. Losing the game is framed as a non-gain or loss and labeled as bad outcomes. Facial expressions of emotion Discrete facial expressions have provided evidence for six universal emotions using facial expressions, and many studies linking facial expressions with emotions use self-reports to find the connection between the two (Ekman & Friesen, 1971; Izard, 1977). They concluded that many cultures can recognize anger, contempt, disgust, fear, sadness, and surprise on the face. While such studies provide evidence for these six discrete emotions, others depict emotions as REGULATORY FOCUS THEORY AND POSITIVE EMOTIONS 6 being on a dimensional scale and varying from each other in different dimensions (Davidson et al., 2002). Those arguing for discrete emotions reference the evolutionary settings that required such distinct emotions to have evolved. Recent research provides further evidence for discrete emotions using categorical judgment studies, neuropsychological evidence, and autonomic physiology (Davidson et al., 2002). However, the dimensional view of emotions has been found useful in situations where emotions are being tracked over time or within one category of emotion (Ekman, 1992; Ekman et al., 1982). Researchers have begun to incorporate other aspects of the upper body, such as the head position, posture, and gaze, for evidence of other types of discrete emotions. The current research Like Idson et al. and Higgins et al.’s methods, the current study presented participants with promotion and prevention-focus framing conditions. Participants played computerized games. In the promotion-focus games, participants could score points or score nothing (gain or non-gain). In the prevention-focus games, participants could obtain zero over losing points or lose points (non-loss or loss). Based on the existing theory, we predict that gaining will induce feelings of cheerfulness, while not losing will induce feelings of quiescence. We hope to see these emotions on the face to rate their intensity. Judges blind to the framing conditions or tasks labelled the emotions they saw on participants’ faces during the games.