Regulatory focus theory

Regulatory focus theory(RFT) is atheoryofgoal pursuitformulated byColumbia UniversitypsychologyprofessorandresearcherE. Tory Higginsregarding people'smotivationsandperceptionsin judgment anddecision makingprocesses. RFT examines the relationship between themotivationof a person and the way in which they go about achieving theirgoal.RFT posits two separate and independent self-regulatory orientations: prevention and promotion (Higgins, 1997).
This psychologicaltheory, like many others, is applied incommunication, specifically in the subfields ofnonverbal communicationandpersuasion. Chronic regulatory focus is measured using the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (Higgins et al., 2001) or the Regulatory Strength measure. Momentary regulatory focus can be primed or induced.
To understand RFT, it is important to understand another ofE. Tory Higgins'theories: regulatory fit theory. When a person believes that there is "fit", they will involve themselves more in what they are doing and "feel right" about it.Regulatory fit should not directly affect thehedonicoccurrence of a thing or occasion, but should influence a person's assurance in their reaction to theobjector event.
Regulatory fit theory suggests that a match between orientation to a goal and the means used to approach that goal produces a state of regulatory fit that both creates a feeling of rightness about the goal pursuit and increases task engagement (Higgins, 2001, 2005). Regulatory fit intensifies responses, such as the value of a chosen object, persuasion, and job satisfaction.
Regulatory fit does not increase the assessment of adecision; instead when someone feels "right" about their decision, theexperienceof "correctness and importance" is transferred to the ensuing assessment of the chosenobject, increasing its superficial worth.Research suggests that the "feeling right"experiencecan then swayretrospectiveor prospective evaluations.Regulatory fit can be manipulated incidentally (outside the context of interest) or integrally (within the context of interest).
RFT refers to when a person pursues agoalin a way that maintains the person's own personalvaluesandbeliefs, also known asregulatory orientation.Thistheoryoperates on the basicprinciplethat people embracepleasurebut avoidpain, and they then maintain their regulatory fit based on this standard.
Theregulatory focusis basically the way in which someone approaches pleasure but avoids pain. An individual's regulatory focus concentrates on desired end-states, and the approachmotivationused to go from the current state to the desired end-state. This theory differentiates between apromotion-focusonhopesand accomplishments, also known as gains. This focus is more concerned with higher level gains such as advancement and accomplishment.
Another focus is theprevention-focusbased onsafetyandresponsibilities, also known as non-losses. This focus emphasizes security and safety by following the guidelines and the rules.
These two regulatory focuses regulate the influences that a person would be exposed to in thedecision-makingprocess, and determine the different ways they achieve their goal, as discussed by RFT. An individual's regulatory orientation is not necessarily fixed. While individuals havechronictendencies towards either promotion or prevention, these preferences may not hold for all situations. Furthermore, a specific regulatory focus can beinduced.
Thevaluetaken from interaction and goal attainment can be either positive or negative. The decision has positive value when people attempt to attain their goal in a way that fits their regulatory orientation and it will have negative value when people attempt to attain their goal in a way that does not fit their regulatory orientation.Regulatory fit allows value to be created by intensifying the commitment, based on one of the regulatory focus orientations. Makingchoicesand fulfillingobjectivesare considered as activities, and with any activity, people can be more or less involved. When this involvement is strong, it can intensify the feelings and values about this activity, and the approach to the activity determines whether they are or are not satisfied with the outcome and method of achieving the outcome.
This theory has noteworthy implications for increasing the value of life.For example, ininterpersonalconflict, if each person experiences "fit", each one will be satisfied with and committed to the outcome. In the broad sense, for people to appreciate their own lives, they need to be satisfied and "feel right" about what they are doing, and the way they are doing it.If it is not satisfying, it is known as "non-fit", and they will not reach their desired goal.
Regulatory focus theory, according to Higgins, views motivation in a way that allows an understanding of the foundational ways we approach a task or agoal.Different factors can motivate people during goal pursuit, and we self-regulate our methods and processes during our goal pursuit. RFT proposes that motivational strength is enhanced when the manner in which people work toward a goal sustains their regulatory orientation.Achieving a goal in a way that is consistent to a person's regulatory orientation leads to anindividualsense of importance to the event. The impact ofmotivationis considered calculated and this creates a greater sense of commitment to the goal. The more strongly an individual is engaged (i.e., involved, occupied, fully engrossed) in an activity, the more intense the motivational force experienced. Engagement is of great importance to attain and motivate in order to reach a goal. Engagement serves as intensifier of the directional component of the value experience. An individual who is strongly engaged in a goal pursuits will experience a positive target more positively and a negative target more negatively.
Individuals can pursue different goals with diverse regulatory orientations and in unlike ways. There are two different kinds of regulatory orientations that people use to obtain their goals:promotion-focus orientationandprevention-focus orientation. These terms are derived fromE. Tory Higgins's Theory of Regulatory Focus. In which, he adds to the notion that people regulate their goal-oriented behavior in two very distinct ways, coinedpromotion-focus orientationandprevention-focus orientation
E. Tory Higginsuses this example: there is Student A and Student B, and they both have the shared goal to make anAin a class they are both taking in college. Student A uses apromotion-focus orientationwhich slants them towards achieving their goal and towards advancement, growth and life accomplishment. This would cause Student A to view the goal as anidealthat satisfies their need for accomplishment. Student B uses aprevention-focus orientationwhere the goal is something that should be realized because it fulfills their need forsecurity,protectionand prevention of negative outcomes. Student A uses an eager approach where they read extra materials to obtain their goal of anA. Student B uses a vigilant approach where they become more detail oriented and pay careful attention to completing all of the course requirements.
Both forms of regulatory orientation can work to fulfill goals, but the choice oforientationis based on individualpreferencesand style. When a person pursues their goal in the focus that fits their regulatory orientation, they are more likely to pursue their goal more eagerly and aggressively than if they were using the other focus. In this case each student has different styles. They both feel more comfortable in persuading their goal. The outcome in this experiment would have been different if the students were given an undesirable choice.
When people make decisions, they often envision the possible "pleasureorpain" of the possible outcomes that the focus orientation will produce.A person imagining making a pleasing choice is more likely to engage in promotion-focus orientation because envisioning the possible outcome of success maintains eagerness about the outcome but does not place importance onvigilance. A person imagining the possiblepainby making an undesirable choice maintains more vigilance but less eagerness.
A person with promotion-focus orientation is more likely to remember the occasions where the goal is pursued by using eagerness approaches and less likely to remember occasions where the goal is pursued by vigilance approaches. A person with prevention-focus orientation is more likely to remember events where the goal is pursued by means of vigilance than if it was pursued using eagerness approaches.
When relating regulatory focus theory topersuasion, it is important to remember that RFT is agoal-attainmenttheory, and that RFT can spawn feelings of rightness/wrongness which in turn may produce formulations forjudgments.
The feelings of rightness give anindividualmore commitment to theinformationcoming in and therefore can avoid endangering their regulatory fit which in turn changes their regulatory focus and accepting a probable motive to change. If a person experiences feelings of wrongness they will suffer negativeemotionsand deem theexperienceand information as athreatto their regulatory fit and therefore a threat to their regulatory focus and theirgoal.
Studies have been done where fit and focus have been applied to show their applicability toconsumerpurchasing, health advisories, andsocial policyissues.To be persuaded is to change your prior feelings, actions, and/or beliefs on a matter to where you agree with the persuader.
The "fit" involved in RFT plays a large role in such issues and stories because it can be a device to help anindividualreceive and review the experience during a particularmessagedelivery.Positive reinforcementandfeelingsof rightness while decoding themessagecreates a stronger engagement and relationship with processing themessage, andnegative reinforcementand feelings of wrongness lessens the engagement andattachment.
Researchersfound that targeting the two different regulatory focus orientations, and their coinciding types of fit, works as an effective process to aid inpersuasivecharm or pull when they introduced a manner ofpersuasionwhere the framing of themessagewas everything and the content wasirrelevantto uphold or interrupt a person's regulatory fit and follow the pattern of logic used in regulatory orientation.
Lee and Aaker (2004) conducted anexperimentthat involved whether or not to give their information in a prevention-focus- or promotion-focus-concerning way. The study involved anadvertisementfor a grape juice drink, which they split into two to create prevention-focus concerns (disease-preventing) and then promotion-focus concerns (energy enhancement).In doing so, they demonstrated that rather than trying to know eachindividualrecipient's qualities, one needs only to start by nailing the focus (prevention/promotion) and then framing themessageso that it creates that "rightness".
Some may confuse RFT with regulatory fit, regulatory relevance, message matching, and source attractiveness in such an example. The extent of similarities between closely relatedtheoriesof RFT, such as ones stated above, make it hard to clarify when this theory is applicable or apparent in respect to thepersuasionprocess.
RFT can be a useful outline for a better understanding of the effects ofnonverbalcues inpersuasionandimpression formation. Regulatory Fit Theory suggests that the effect of a cue cannot be understood without remembering what the cue means given a recipient's focus orientation.
Nonverbalcues can be used by themessagesource to vary delivery style, more specifically to convey eagerness or vigilance, of a given message in a way that will produce regulatory fit in message recipients of different focus orientations.
Advancement implies eager movement forward, so eagerness is conveyed by gestures that involve animated, broad opening movements such as hand movements projecting outward, forward leaning body positions, fast body movement, and fastspeechrate. Caution implies vigilant carefulness, so vigilance should be conveyed bygesturesthat show precision like slightly backward-leaning body positions, slower body movement, and slower speech rate.
An eagernonverbaldelivery style will result in greatermessageeffectiveness for promotion-focus recipients than for prevention-focus recipients, while the opposite is true for a vigilantnonverbalstyle.
There are various aspects, which may contribute to whether or not amessage'spersuasiveelement is successful. One aspect is the effect ofnonverbalcues and their association withpersuasiveappeals based on themessagerecipient'smotivationalregulatory orientation. This determines the recipient's impression of the source duringimpression formation.
Research has found thatnonverbalcues are an essential element of mostpersuasiveappeals. RFT creates the background that allows apredictionfor when and for whom anonverbalcue can have an effect onpersuasion. Whennonverbalcues and signals are used appropriately, they increase the effectiveness ofpersuasion.
RFT has also been applied withinmoral psychologyto the topic of moral judgment, contrasting the notions of "oughts" and "ideals."