View source for Regulatory focus theory

{{Short description|Questionnaire designed to measure prevention focus and promotion focus}}
'''Regulatory focus theory''' ('''RFT''') is a [[theory]] of [[goal pursuit]]<ref name="ReferenceB">Cesario, J: "Regulatory fit and persuasion: Basic principles and remaining questions", Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2(1)</ref>{{rp|444}} formulated by [[Columbia University]] [[psychology]] [[professor]] and [[researcher]] [[E. Tory Higgins]] regarding people's [[motivations]] and [[perceptions]] in judgment and [[decision making]] processes. RFT examines the relationship between the [[motivation]] of a person and the way in which they go about achieving their [[goal]].<ref>Higgins, E: "Making a Good Decision: Value From Fit", ''American Psychologist'' 55(11):1217</ref> RFT posits two separate and independent self-regulatory orientations: prevention and promotion (Higgins, 1997).

This psychological [[theory]], like many others, is applied in [[communication]], specifically in the subfields of [[nonverbal communication]] and [[persuasion]]. 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.

==Background==

===Regulatory fit theory===
To understand RFT, it is important to understand another of [[E. 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.<ref name="ReferenceA">Higgins, E. T. (2005). Value From Regulatory Fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(4), 209–213. {{doi|10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00366.x}}</ref>{{rp|209}}  Regulatory fit should not directly affect the [[hedonic]] occurrence of a thing or occasion, but should influence a person's assurance in their reaction to the [[Object (philosophy)|object]] or 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.<ref>Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., & Higgins, E. T. (2007). Regulatory Mode and Preferred Leadership Styles: How Fit Increases Job Satisfaction. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(2), 137–149. {{doi|10.1080/01973530701331700}}</ref>

Regulatory fit does not increase the assessment of a [[decision making|decision]]; instead when someone feels "right" about their decision, the [[experience]] of "correctness and importance" is transferred to the ensuing assessment of the chosen [[Object (philosophy)|object]], increasing its superficial worth.<ref name="ReferenceC">Avnet, T: "Locomotion, assessment, and regulatory fit: Value transfer from 'how' to 'what'", Journal of Experimental Psychology 39(5):525</ref> Research suggests that the "feeling right" [[experience]] can then sway [[retrospective]] or prospective evaluations.{{Citation needed|date=September 2010}} Regulatory fit can be manipulated incidentally (outside the context of interest) or integrally (within the context of interest).

===Definition===
RFT refers to when a person pursues a [[goal]] in a way that maintains the person's own personal [[Value (personal and cultural)|value]]s and [[beliefs]], also known as ''regulatory orientation''.<ref name="ReferenceC"/> This [[theory]] operates on the basic [[principle]] that people embrace [[pleasure]] but avoid [[suffering|pain]], and they then maintain their regulatory fit based on this standard.

The ''regulatory focus'' is basically the way in which someone approaches pleasure but avoids pain. An individual's regulatory focus concentrates on desired end-states, and the approach [[motivation]] used to go from the current state to the desired end-state. This theory differentiates between a ''promotion-focus'' on [[hope]]s and accomplishments, also known as gains. This focus is more concerned with higher level gains such as advancement and accomplishment.<ref name=Higgins>Higgins, E: "Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: promotion pride versus prevention pride", ''European Journal of Social Psychology''. 31(1):4</ref>

Another focus is the ''prevention-focus'' based on [[safety]] and [[moral responsibility|responsibilities]], also known as non-losses. This focus emphasizes security and safety by following the guidelines and the rules.<ref name=Higgins/>

These two regulatory focuses regulate the influences that a person would be exposed to in the [[decision-making]] process, and determine the different ways they achieve their goal, as discussed by RFT. An individual's regulatory orientation is not necessarily fixed. While individuals have [[Habit (psychology)|chronic]] tendencies towards either promotion or prevention, these preferences may not hold for all situations. Furthermore, a specific regulatory focus can be [[wikt:induce|induced]].

The [[Value (ethics)|value]] taken 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.<ref name="ReferenceC"/> Regulatory fit allows value to be created by intensifying the commitment, based on one of the regulatory focus orientations. Making [[choices]] and fulfilling [[objective (goal)|objective]]s are 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.{{Citation needed|date=September 2010}} For example, in [[interpersonal]] conflict, 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.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>{{rp|210}} If it is not satisfying, it is known as "non-fit", and they will not reach their desired goal.

===Goal attainment and motivation===
Regulatory focus theory, according to Higgins, views motivation in a way that allows an understanding of the foundational ways we approach a task or a [[goal]].<ref>Higgins, E. (1997, December) Beyond pleasure and pain. ''American Psychologist'', 52(12):1281</ref> 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.<ref>Spiegel, S: "How regulatory fit enhances motivational strength during goal pursuit", European Journal of Social Psychology. 34(1):40</ref> Achieving a goal in a way that is consistent to a person's regulatory orientation leads to an [[individual]] sense of importance to the event. The impact of [[motivation]] is 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 orientation'' and ''prevention-focus orientation''. These terms are derived from [[E. 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, coined ''promotion-focus orientation'' and ''prevention-focus orientation''

[[E. Tory Higgins]] uses this example: there is Student A and Student B, and they both have the shared goal to make an ''A'' in a class they are both taking in college. Student A uses a ''promotion-focus orientation'' which slants them towards achieving their goal and towards advancement, growth and life accomplishment. This would cause Student A to view the goal as an [[ideal (ethics)|ideal]] that satisfies their need for accomplishment. Student B uses a ''prevention-focus orientation'' where the goal is something that should be realized because it fulfills their need for [[security]], [[Safety|protection]] and prevention of negative outcomes. Student A uses an eager approach where they read extra materials to obtain their goal of an ''A''. Student B uses a vigilant approach where they become more detail oriented and pay careful attention to completing all of the course requirements.<ref>Larsen, R., & Buss, D. (2009). Personality psychology: domains of knowledge about human nature. (4th ed., p. 388).</ref>

[[File:Completed RFT flowchart 3.jpg]]

Both forms of regulatory orientation can work to fulfill goals, but the choice of [[orientation (mental)|orientation]] is based on individual [[preference]]s and 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 "[[pleasure]] or [[suffering|pain]]" of the possible outcomes that the focus orientation will produce.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>{{rp|209}} 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 on [[Vigilance (psychology)|vigilance]]. A person imagining the possible [[suffering|pain]] by 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.

==Application==

===Regulatory focus theory and persuasion===
When relating regulatory focus theory to [[persuasion]], it is important to remember that RFT is a [[goal]]-attainment [[theory]], and that RFT can spawn feelings of rightness/wrongness which in turn may produce formulations for [[judgment]]s.<ref>Vaughn, A: "'This story is right on': The impact of regulatory fit on narrative engagement and persuasion", European Journal of Social Psychology. 39:448</ref>

The feelings of rightness give an [[individual]] more commitment to the [[information]] coming 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 negative [[emotion]]s and deem the [[experience]] 
and information as a [[threat]] to their regulatory fit and therefore a threat to their regulatory focus and their [[goal]].

Studies have been done where fit and focus have been applied to show their applicability to [[consumer]] [[purchasing]], health advisories, and [[social policy]] issues.<ref name="ReferenceB"/>{{rp|446}} 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 an [[individual]] receive and review the experience during a particular [[message]] delivery. [[Positive reinforcement]] and [[feeling]]s of rightness while decoding the [[message]] creates a stronger engagement and relationship with processing the [[message]], and [[negative reinforcement]] and feelings of wrongness lessens the engagement and [[Attachment theory|attachment]].<ref name="ReferenceB"/>{{rp|449}}

[[Researcher]]s found that targeting the two different regulatory focus orientations, and their coinciding types of fit, works as an effective process to aid in [[persuasive]] charm or pull when they introduced a manner of [[persuasion]] where the framing of the [[message]] was everything and the content was [[irrelevant]] to uphold or interrupt a person's regulatory fit and follow the pattern of logic used in regulatory orientation.<ref name="ReferenceB"/>{{rp|446}}

Lee and Aaker (2004) conducted an [[experiment]] that involved whether or not to give their information in a prevention-focus- or promotion-focus-concerning way. The study involved an [[advertisement]] for a grape juice drink, which they split into two to create prevention-focus concerns (disease-preventing) and then promotion-focus concerns (energy enhancement).<ref name="ReferenceB"/>{{rp|449}} In doing so, they demonstrated that rather than trying to know each [[individual]] recipient's qualities, one needs only to start by nailing the focus (prevention/promotion) and then framing the [[message]] so 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 related [[theories]] of RFT, such as ones stated above, make it hard to clarify when this theory is applicable or apparent in respect to the [[persuasion]] process.<ref name="ReferenceB"/>{{rp|444–5}}

===Regulatory focus theory and nonverbal communication===
RFT can be a useful outline for a better understanding of the effects of [[nonverbal]] cues in [[persuasion]] and [[impression 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.<ref name="Cesario 2008">Cesario, J., Higgins, E. (2008 May) Making Message Recipients "Feel Right": How Nonverbal Cues Can Increase Persuasion. Psychological Science, 19(5)</ref>{{rp|419}}

[[Nonverbal]] cues can be used by the [[message]] source 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 fast [[speech]] rate. Caution implies vigilant carefulness, so vigilance should be conveyed by [[gesture]]s that show precision like slightly backward-leaning body positions, slower body movement, and slower speech rate.

An eager [[nonverbal]] delivery style will result in greater [[message]] effectiveness for promotion-focus recipients than for prevention-focus recipients, while the opposite is true for a vigilant [[nonverbal]] style.

There are various aspects, which may contribute to whether or not a [[message]]'s [[persuasive]] element is successful. One aspect is the effect of [[nonverbal]] cues and their association with [[persuasive]] appeals based on the [[message]] recipient's [[motivation]]al regulatory orientation. This determines the recipient's impression of the source during [[impression formation]].

Research has found that [[nonverbal]] cues are an essential element of most [[persuasive]] appeals. RFT creates the background that allows a [[prediction]] for when and for whom a [[nonverbal]] cue can have an effect on [[persuasion]]. When [[nonverbal]] cues and signals are used appropriately, they increase the effectiveness of [[persuasion]].<ref name="Cesario 2008"/>{{rp|415}}

===Moral judgment===
RFT has also been applied within [[moral psychology]] to the topic of moral judgment, contrasting the notions of "oughts" and "ideals."<ref name="Cornwell2015RGP">{{cite journal |last1=Cornwell |first1=James F. M. |last2=Higgins |first2=E. Tory |title=The "Ought" Premise of Moral Psychology and the Importance of the Ethical "Ideal" |journal=Review of General Psychology |date=September 2015 |volume=19 |issue=3 |pages=311–328 |doi=10.1037/gpr0000044|s2cid=146170745 }}</ref><ref name="Cornwell2015PAID">{{cite journal |last1=Cornwell |first1=James F.M. |last2=Higgins |first2=E. Tory |title=Approach and avoidance in moral psychology: Evidence for three distinct motivational levels |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |date=November 2015 |volume=86 |pages=139–149 |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.012|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Cornwell2016">{{cite journal |last1=Cornwell |first1=James F. M. |last2=Higgins |first2=E. Tory |title=Eager feelings and vigilant reasons: Regulatory focus differences in judging moral wrongs. |journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology: General |date=March 2016 |volume=145 |issue=3 |pages=338–355 |doi=10.1037/xge0000136|s2cid=20920447 |pmc=4755905 }}</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Sources==
*Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. (2003, September). Locomotion, assessment, and regulatory fit: Value transfer from "how" to "what". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(5), 525. Retrieved April 10, 2009, {{doi|10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00027-1}}
*Cesario, J., Higgins, E. (2008 May) Making Message Recipients "Feel Right": How Nonverbal Cues Can Increase Persuasion. Psychological Science, 19(5), 415–420, [http://www.ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=4E7CA1348DBC518AFA47]
*Cesario, J., Higgins, E., & Scholer, A. (2008, January). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Basic principles and remaining questions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 444–463. Retrieved April 10, 2009, from PsycINFO database
*Higgins, E. (1997, December). Beyond pleasure and pain. ''American Psychologist'', 52(12), 1280–1300. Retrieved April 10, 2009, {{doi|10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280}}
*Higgins, E. (2000, November). Making a good decision: Value from fit. ''American Psychologist'', 55(11), 1217–1230. Retrieved April 10, 2009, {{doi|10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217}}
*Higgins, E. "Value From Regulatory Fit." American Psychological Society 14 (2005): 209–13.
*Higgins, E., Friedman, R., Harlow, R., Idson, L., Ayduk, O., & Taylor, A. (2001, January). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 3–23. Retrieved April 10, 2009, from Academic Search Elite database.
*Higgins, E., Idson, L., Freitas, A., Spiegel, S., & Molden, D. (2003, June). Transfer of value from fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1140–1153. Retrieved April 10, 2009, {{doi|10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1140}}
*Spiegel, S., Grant-Pillow, H., & Higgins, E.(2004, January). How regulatory fit enhances motivational strength during goal pursuit. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(1), 39–54. Retrieved April 10, 2009, .
*Vaughn, Leigh Ann, Sarah J. Hesse, Zhivka Petkova, and Lindsay Trudeau. ""This story is right on": The impact of regulatory fit on narrative engagement and persuasion." 4 Oct. 2008. Wiley InterScience. Journals. [[University of Oklahoma|University of Oklahoma Library]], Norman. 9 Apr. 2009 [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121415907/PDFSTART]{{dead link|date=August 2020|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}

==External links and further reading==
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20160402210735/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/higgins/research.html HigginsLab]: An overview, with additional reading suggestions, for E. Tory Higgins' theories
*[http://journals.ama.org/doi/abs/10.1509/jmkr.43.1.15?journalCode=jmkr Understanding Regulatory Fit]: A look from a marketing perspective
*[http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm06136.pdf Counterfactual thinking and regulatory focus and fit]: Application of Regulatory Focus and Regulatory Fit to Counterfactual Thinking
*[https://ssrn.com/abstract=735184 Recasting Goal Setting in Negotiation]: A Regulatory Focus Perspective

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Regulatory Focus Theory}}
[[Category:Communication]]
[[Category:Communication theory| ]]
[[Category:Nonverbal communication]]
[[Category:Motivation]]
[[Category:Motivational theories]]
[[Category:Psychological theories]]
[[Category:Attitude change]]