Teaching and Learning Guide for: Self‐regulation of Group Members: The Case of Regulatory Focus
Authors: Sassenberg Kai , Woltin Karl‐Andrew 
Published: August 2009

Author’s Introduction

In our globalized world individuals are frequently confronted with intergroup encounters. Some of them pass by more smoothly than others. Understanding group members’ motivational dynamics provides the key for positive intergroup encounters and the creation of environments fostering such positive events. For a long time, research on motivation in the domain of intergroup behavior mainly focused on needs and motives such as the need for self‐esteem in social identity theory and the need to reduce uncertainty in uncertainty‐identity theory. In contrast, approaches to motivation in many other domains of psychological research have switched from such need‐based approaches to self‐regulation approaches (i.e., theories and models focusing on the processes underlying motivated action). This change of focus from the content of motivation (i.e., need and motives answering the question what motivates behavior) to studying the motivational processes (i.e., self‐regulation approaches answering the question how motivation translates in to action) has led to an enormous progress. To give just one example, this approach allows for much more precise predictions of behavior. Only recently research on intergroup behavior has adopted this change of paradigms in research on motivation. The current article summarized one line of research within this domain, namely the work applying regulatory focus theory (one of the dominant self‐regulation theories) to intergroup behavior.

Author Recommends

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

This is a seminal publication on social identity theory and offers important and fundamental information about what intergroup behavior is. At the same time, it presents the first need‐based approach to intergroup behavior.

Otten, S., Sassenberg, K., & Kessler, T. (Eds.) (2009). Intergroup relations: The role of motivation and emotion. New York: Psychology Press.

This book provides an up‐to‐date overview of research on motivation in the field of intergroup behavior. It provides a good understanding of a variety of intergroup phenomena and explanations for them based on motivational approaches and social cognition approaches to emotions.

Carver, C. S. (2004). Self‐regulation of action and affect. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of Self‐Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications (pp. 13–39). New York, NY: Guilford.

The whole book provides an excellent overview of self‐regulation research in a variety of domains. The particular chapter is an excellent, comprehensive, and concise introduction to the basic ideas of self‐regulation.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.

This is a seminal publication on regulatory focus theory and offers the fundamental information on what regulatory focus is, what its basic principles are, and outcomes it leads to.

Higgins, E. T. (2008). Regulatory fit. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 356–372). New York: Guilford.

This chapter provides a summary of the more recent developments that followed regulatory focus theory. Its main focus is on regulatory fit (i.e., the fit between an individual’s behavioural strategy and the options provided by the environment).

Sassenberg, K., & Woltin, K.‐A. (2008). Group‐based self‐regulation: The effects of regulatory focus. European Review of Social Psychology, 19, 126–164.

This article offers a more extensive analysis and overview of the research on regulatory focus and intergroup behavior. It presents a comprehensive narrative review of this research and how regulatory focus and self‐discrepancies operate at the group level.

Levine, J. M., Higgins, E. T., & Choi, H.‐S. (2000). Development of strategic norms in groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 88–101.

This article presents the first study applying regulatory focus theory to the group level. It assesses how regulatory focus – manipulated as part of the instructions for a group task – affects small group decision making.

Sassenberg, K., Kessler, T., & Mummendey, A. (2003). Less negative = more positive? Social discrimination as avoidance and approach. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 48–58.

The research presented in this article is the first in applying regulatory focus theory to intergroup behavior. In studies making use of the minimal group paradigm, it demonstrates how regulatory focus can help to make more precise predictions about intergroup behavior – in this case social discrimination.

Seibt, B., & Förster, J. (2004). Stereotype threat and performance: How self‐stereotypes influence processing by inducing regulatory foci. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 38–56.

This article explains another prominent intergroup phenomenon based on regulatory focus theory, namely stereotype threat.

Sassenberg, K., Jonas, K. J., Shah, J. Y., & Brazy, P. C. (2007). Regulatory fit of the ingroup: The impact of group power and regulatory focus on implicit intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 249–267.

This article connects socio‐structural variables of the intergroup context and regulatory focus by studying how the social power of a group and the regulatory focus of an individual predict whether individuals are interested to become a member of a particular group and how much they like a group they are a member of.

Online Materials

http://gpi.sagepub.com

This is a link to the journal Group Processes and Intergroup relations. Volume 13 will contain a special issue on Self‐regulation within and between groups providing an overview and more examples how self‐regulation approaches allow for a better understanding of (inter)group behavior. In addition, this is a nice place to find some of the current issues being researched in the field of intergroup behavior. It is also a journal to refer students to who are having trouble locating recent articles for class.

http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/crow/socialidentityassignment.htm

This link leads to a small assignment by Michel Schmitt that illustrates the idea of social identity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyI77Yh1Gg

This link leads to the video “A girl like me” which illustrates that from early childhood on group members (here African‐Americans) internalize the characteristics of their group in comparison to other groups and behave in line with them. In other words, it provides an excellent example for how one’s social identity impacts on one’s behavior and self‐image.

http://reducingstereotypethreat.org/

A further excellent resource addressing another phenomenon stemming from the fact that group members behave based on their social identity.

http://www.understandingprejudice.org/

This is an excellent resource containing information about negative intergroup behavior.

Sample Syllabus

Overview

In what follows, a seminar on Self‐regulation and social behaviour is described. This seminar explores individuals’ motivation in social contexts taking a self‐regulation perspective. In other words, it demonstrates the integrative value of just a few self‐regulatory theories in explaining many social psychological phenomena (which so far have been explained with different unconnected approaches). Self‐regulation approaches provide the opportunity to develop more broadly applicable explanations based on the analyses of motivational processes. These explanations do not focus on the question of what motivates behavior but how motivation is transferred into action. This seminar consists of several modules that first introduce self‐regulation approaches and afterwards demonstrate how they can be applied to different social phenomena.

The course adopts a seminar format in which students are assigned readings to study and discuss in class.

Assessment

Assessment can either be done based on a final exam or based on two essays (one mid‐term and one final essay), each 10–15 pages, double spaced. Essays can be a critique of one of the empirical readings or a research idea applying one of the self‐regulation approaches to a group phenomenon not addressed in the readings.

Reading

There are three categories of reading.

1. A general framework and background to the topic is provided by three handbook chapters. All students should read them at the beginning of the semester:

Carver, C. S. (2004) Self‐regulation of action and affect. In R. F. Baumeister, & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self‐regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 13–39). New York, NY: Guilford.

Higgins, E. T. (2007). Value. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 454–472). New York; NY: Guilford.

Hogg, M. A. (2006). Social identity theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 111–136). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Questions students should answer for themselves (or as assignment) while reading these texts:

What are the core assumptions of the theoretical reasoning of this chapter?

Can you think of a real life problem where this approach is relevant and explain why?

2. Background readings introducing four specific approaches to self‐regulation should be read by all students at the beginning of each model:

(a) Affect as an outcome of self‐discrepancies

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control‐process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19–35.

(b) Regulatory focus theory

Higgins, E. T. & Spiegel, S. (2004) Promotion and prevention strategies for self‐regulation. In R. F. Baumeister, & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self‐regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 171–187). New York, NY: Guilford.

(c) Appraoch and avoidance motivation

Elliot, A. J. (2008). Approach and avoidance motivation. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 3–14). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

(d) Goal systems theory

Shah, J. Y. & Kruglanski, A. W. (2000) Aspects of goal networks: Implications for self‐regulation. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self‐regulation (pp. 85–110). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Shah, J. Y. & Kruglanski, A. W. (2008). Structural dynamics: The challenge of change in goal systems. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Ed.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 217–229). New York, NY: Guilford.

Questions students should answer for themselves (or as assignment) while reading these texts:

What are the core assumptions of the theoretical reasoning of this article/chapter?

To what extent does this chapter provide a self‐regulatory approach? Where is this evident?

How does this reasoning differ from or builds up on approaches you have gotten to know so far?

3. The following empirical readings should only be read by those students responsible for the respective presentation and discussion. Readings in this section should only be partly provided to students, as they should find additional reading by themselves as part of their assignment.

(a) Affect as an outcome of self‐discrepancies

Monteith, M. J. (1993). Self‐regulation of prejudiced responses: Implications for progress in prejudice reduction efforts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 469–485.

Monteith, M. J., Ashburn‐Nardo, L., Voils, C. I., & Czopp, A. M. (2002). Putting the brakes on prejudice: On the development and operation of cues for control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1029–1050.

Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811–832.

Liberman, N. & Förster, J. (2000). Expression after suppression: A motivational explanationof postsuppressional rebound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 190–203.

(b) Regulatory focus theory

(b1) Intergroup behavior

Sassenberg, K., Kessler, T. & Mummendey, A. (2003). Less negative = more positive? Social discrimination as avoidance and approach. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 48–58.

Sassenberg, K., & Woltin, K.‐A. (2009). Self‐regulation of group members: The case of regulatory focus. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 118–132.

Sassenberg, K., Jonas, K. J., Shah, J. Y., & Brazy, P. C. (2007). Regulatory fit of the ingroup: The impact of group power and regulatory focus on implicit intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 249–267.

Seibt, B., & Förster, J. (2004). Stereotype threat and performance: How self‐stereotypes influence processing by inducing regulatory foci. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 38–56.

Shah, J. Y., Brazy, P. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Promotion and prevention forms of ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 433–446.

Trawalter, S., & Richeson, J. A. (2006). Regulatory focus and executive function after interracial interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 406–412.

(b2) Persuasion

Lee, A. Y. & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 205–218.

Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). Understanding regulatory fit. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 15–19.

Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). ‘I’ seek pleasures and ‘we’ avoid pains: The role of self‐regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 33–49.

Cesario, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Making message recipients ‘feel right’: How nonverbal cues can increase persuasion. Psychological Science, 19, 415–420.

Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from ‘‘feeling right.’’Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 388–404.

(c) Approach and avoidance motivation

Elliot, A. J., Gable, S. L., & Mapes, A. A. (2006). Approach and avoidance motivation in the social domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 378–391.

Gable, S. L. (2006). Approach and avoidance social motives and goals. Journal of Personality, 74, 175–222.

Impett, E. A., Strachman, A., Finkel, E. J., & Gable, S. L. (2008). Maintaining sexual desire in intimate relationships: The importance of approach goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 808–823.

Strachman, A., & Gable, S. L. (2006). What you want (and do not want) affects what you see (and do not see): Avoidance social goals and social events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1446–1458.

(d) Goal systems theory

Shah, J. (2003). The motivational looking glass: How significant others implicitly affect goal appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 424–439.

Shah, J. (2003). Automatic for the people: How representations of significant others implicitly affect goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 661–681.

An interesting project for transferring the knowledge and skills obtained by the readings and presentations on the effects of regulatory focus at the group level could consist of splitting students up in small groups in which they are assigned to work on other self‐regulation theories.

Specifically, work groups could be formed according to the following topics (motivational orientations):

Deliberative and implementational mindset (Gollwitzer, 1990; Gollwitzer, Heckhausen, & Stellar, 1990).

Action and state orientation (Kuhl, 1992).

Locomotion and assessment orientation (Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah, & Spiegel, 2000).

First, students should familiarize themselves with the key theoretical readings and findings pertaining to these approaches. Then, the work groups should be involved in discussing how these approaches could be implied to (inter)group phenomena. Specifically, after debating the applicability of the respective theory to (inter)group phenomena, the student groups should decide upon one of these phenomena and design a study in which their theory is applied to gain insight into a well‐established social psychological phenomenon. Finally, the work groups should present their research proposal to the other groups. These presentations should entail:

 an introduction to the theoretical approach

 an introduction to the social psychological phenomenon decided on

 the predictions derived from the combination of the two

 their proposed study

 the pattern of expected results

 a discussion of possible implications for the theoretical approach, the social psychological phenomenon, self‐regulation at the group level.

References

Gollwitzer, P. M., Heckhausen, H., & Steller, B. (1990). Deliberative and implemental mind‐sets: Cognitive tuning toward congruous thoughts and information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1119–1127.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind‐sets. In: E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2., pp. 53–92). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., Higgins, E. T., Atash, M. N., Pierro, A., Shah, J. Y., & Spiegel, S. (2000). To ‘do the right thing’ or to ‘just do it’: Locomotion and assessment as distinct self‐regulatory imperatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 793–815.

Kuhl, J. (1992). A theory of self‐regulation: Action versus state orientation, self‐discrimination, and some applications. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 97–129.