Search results

The purpose of this paper is to address regulatory focus (promotion vs prevention) as a trait-level variable and a week-level variable linked to employee job crafting behaviors (i.e. seeking resources, seeking challenges and reducing demands). The authors hypothesized that while promotion focus relates positively to seeking resources and seeking challenges, prevention focus relates positively to reducing demands. Furthermore, the authors expected that the links between week-level regulatory focus and crafting would be stronger when the respective trait-level regulatory focus is high.

Two studies were conducted to address the aims, namely, a cross-sectional survey among 580 civil servants and a weekly survey among 81 employees of several occupations.

The hypothesized links between regulatory focus and job crafting were supported at the trait- and the week-level. Only the link between week-level prevention focus and reducing demands was stronger when trait-level prevention focus was high. Unexpectedly, seeking resources positively related to prevention focus at the week-level.

While prevention states may enhance reducing demands behaviors especially for prevention focussed employees, organizations and managers may use promotion states to enhance seeking resources and seeking challenges behaviors among all types of employees and, thereby, shape a strategy emphasizing the promotion values of growth and development.

The findings shed light to a diverse range of employee motivational orientations (i.e. approach vs avoidance and trait-like vs state-like) behind job crafting and, thus, shed light to individual correlates of job crafting.

The purpose of this study is to utilize consumers' regulatory focus as a segmentation variable to understand how and why consumers shift their tendency to prioritize certain apparel attributes.

Six hypotheses are developed and then tested via two experiments. Self-administered online questionnaire is used to collect data from a total of 1,178 participants recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk. The collected data is analyzed using series of Chi-square tests and ANOVAs.

Results show that promotion-focused (prevention-focused)) consumers are not only more likely to prioritize apparel attributes that ensure the attainment of satisfaction (avoidance of dissatisfaction) but also attach higher monetary value to apparel products bearing such attributes.

Previous studies of apparel attribute prioritization utilized static segmentation variables such as age or gender despite the dynamic nature of attribute prioritization tendency. This study extends the literature by demonstrating the significance of consumers' regulatory focus – a dynamic segmentation variable that has not been studied in the current context.

The purpose of this paper is to test whether the simple exposure to different types of products can trigger different motivational orientation on consumers (prevention vs promotion), which in turn would match message frame and increase persuasion.

Three experiments test whether exposure to product categories can trigger consumer’s regulatory focus orientation. Participants in the pilot study are students, while participants in the two other studies are consumers.

A first pilot study randomly exposed participants to a product that could trigger promotion orientation (e.g. orange juice) versus a product that could trigger prevention orientation (e.g. sunscreen). Participants exposed to promotion (prevention) product suggest more promotion (prevention) strategies to reach a particular goal (preparing for their final exam). Study 2 shows that gain (vs loss)-framed messages using health appeals have better evaluations when featuring promotion (vs prevention) products. Study 3 generalizes these results using another sample and different product categories.

The paper uses some product categories and including other categories would increase external validity.

The practical implication is to help marketers to choose the right health argument to match the product category they are trying to sell.

Theoretically, the results from three studies show that exposure to products can temporarily trigger a consumer’s regulatory focus and that messages using health arguments that are consistent with this regulatory focus are more persuasive than those that are not. Managerially, these results help managers to adapt the right message in function of the product category.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the independent and joint effects of regulatory focus (promotion and prevention) on the relationship between workplace resources (support and feedback) and employee resilience. It proposed that, at high levels of resource availability, a high promotion-high prevention profile would elicit the highest levels of employee resilience.

An online survey was completed by 162 white collar employees from four organisations. In addition to the main effects, two- and three-way interactions were examined to test hypotheses.

Promotion focus was positively associated with employee resilience, and though the relationship between prevention focus and resilience was non-significant, both regulatory foci buffered against the negative effects of low resources. Employees with high promotion-high prevention focus displayed the highest levels of resilience, especially at high levels of feedback. Conversely, the resilience of low promotion-low prevention individuals was susceptible to feedback availability.

Employee resilience development and demonstration are contingent not only on resources, but also on psychological processes, particularly regulatory focus. Organisations will develop resilience to the extent that they provide workplace resources, and, importantly, stimulate both promotion and prevention perspectives on resource management.

This study extends the research on regulatory focus theory by testing the joint effects of promotion and prevention foci on workplace resources, and the relationship between regulatory foci and employee resilience.

The aim of this study is to contribute to previous research by investigating the principle of regulatory congruence in two-sided advertising messages. Additionally, it addresses the underlying mechanisms of the congruence effect.

The study encompasses two experiments: a two-level between-subjects design, manipulating the message’s frame (prevention vs promotion), while measuring respondents’ chronic self-regulatory focus (prevention vs promotion), and a 2 × 2 between-subjects design, manipulating processing depth (central vs peripheral) and message frame (prevention- vs promotion-oriented), while measuring individuals’ chronic self-regulatory focus (prevention vs promotion).

Study 1 shows that in two-sided messages, the effect of regulatory congruence on attitudes toward the message depends on individuals’ self-regulatory focus: a congruence effect was only found in promotion-focused individuals. This congruence effect was driven by processing fluency. The second study builds on the first one by exploring the absence of a congruence effect found in prevention-focused individuals. Its results show that in prevention-focused individuals, processing depth influences regulatory congruence effects in two-sided messages. Under peripheral processing, prevention-focused individuals have more positive attitudes toward the issue when two-sided messages are congruent with their self-regulatory focus. Under central processing, on the other hand, a regulatory incongruence effect on attitudes occurs.

This study complements prior research by examining the validity of the regulatory congruence principle in the context of two-sided messages. Moreover, it addresses the underlying mechanisms driving regulatory (in)congruence effects. As such, our study contributes both to the existing research on two-sided messages and that on regulatory focus.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the mechanism through which stressors influence job crafting. Based on regulatory focus theory, this study explores the mediating role of work regulatory focus between the challenge-hindrance stressors and approach-avoidance job crafting and the moderating role of trait regulatory focus.

The authors collected survey data in a northwestern city of China from 578 employees working in the finance, real estate and IT industries. Results were analyzed using Mplus 7.

The results reveal that challenge stressors have a positive effect on both approach job crafting (i.e. increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources and increasing challenging job demands) and avoidance job crafting (i.e. decreasing hindering job demands) via work promotion focus. On the other hand, hindrance stressors have a positive effect on only avoidance job crafting via work prevention focus. In addition, trait promotion focus accentuates the influence of challenge-hindrance stressors on work regulatory focus, as well as the indirect effect of challenge-hindrance stressors on approach-avoidance job crafting respectively. Trait prevention focus only weakens the influence of challenge stressors on work promotion focus.

This study unfolds how stressors relate to job crafting. However, the cross-sectional design may limit the causal inferences.

This study provides new insight into the relationship between stressors and job crafting by explicating the motivational mechanism and boundary conditions.

This research aims to analyze whether the self-regulatory focus, a consumer variable, moderates the impact of incongruity on consumer evaluations. A congruity or typicality arises when a product (e.g. champagne) is consistently consumed in certain occasions or is used in conjunction with other specific products. This typicality may remind people of the product with regard to specific contexts but may limit the product’s overall versatility. In line with the moderate incongruity effect, there may be an opportunity to extend a product usage to situations associated with moderate incongruity or atypicality.

Study 1 is a 2 (self-regulatory focus: promotion/prevention) × 3 (atypicality of product usage context: typical/moderately atypical/highly atypical) between-subject experimental design. Study 2 replicated Study 1 with a sample of different age, three different champagne usage contexts and a manipulation of self-regulatory focus. Study 3 is a 2 (self-regulatory focus: promotion/prevention) × 3 (atypicality of product usage context: typical/moderately atypical/highly atypical) × 2 (product replicates: red wine/pearl jewelry) mixed design with self-regulatory focus and atypicality as between-subjects factors and product replicates as a within-subject variable.

Promotion-focus consumers’ product evaluations for the moderate incongruity or atypicality are higher than those for congruity and extreme incongruity. The relationship takes an inverted-U shape. Prevention-focus consumers’ product evaluations decrease monotonically as congruity decreases. Moreover, compared with prevention-focus individuals, promotion-focus ones evaluate moderate incongruity more favorably.

There are some limitations to this research. First, it only investigates the moderate incongruity effect with regard to product use occasions and complementary products. To increase the external validity of self-regulatory focus as a moderator of incongruity-evaluation relationships, it remains to future research to extend the research setting to products which have been tightly bonded to specific users, locations, seasons or times. Second, although the experimental designs are similar to previous ones, the scenarios are nevertheless imaginary. Therefore, participants’ involvement levels in all manipulated situations, as well as the quality of their answers, remain unknown.

First, brand managers should target only promotion-focus customers to obtain the moderate incongruity effect, but should maintain a consistent marketing strategy for prevention-focus customers. Second, because both promotion- and prevention-focus individuals have unfavorable evaluations of extreme incongruity, drastic changes in marketing strategies should be avoided. Third, people from a Western (Eastern) culture exhibit more promotion (prevention) focus orientation. Therefore, the type of culture can serve as an indicator of regulatory orientation. Fourth, a gain-framed appeal is recommended for realizing the moderate incongruity effect from promotion-focus consumers. Finally, promotion-focus (vs prevention-focus) consumers will welcome a moderately nonalignable than alignable product upgrade.

Most prior research on goal orientation has found that promotion-focus (vs. prevention-focus) individuals are more inclined to adopt new products, but both types of people are unlikely to purchase new products when the associated risks become salient, while the research related to schema incongruity has suggested that the moderate incongruity effect may not exist when consumers perceive high risks. By combining both schema congruity and self-regulatory focus theories, this research provides a more precise picture of how and why a person’s goal orientation influences the relative salience of risks and benefits with an increase in incongruity.

When a product fails out of negligence on the seller’s part, consumers can either retaliate against the seller, more so if a third party encourages them to do so, or forgive the seller should the seller express remorse. This paper aims to examine how the fit between the consumer’s promotion/prevention regulatory orientation and the promotion/prevention frame of a message of contrition (retaliation), such as an apology from a chief executive officer (CEO) (a class action suit threat by a lawyer), affects such forgiveness (retaliation) intentions in the form of product repurchase decisions.

In two laboratory experiments, this paper temporally induces a promotion or prevention orientation in the study participants and thereafter ask them to imagine experiencing a product failure and listening to (1) the CEO apologize for the harm (eliciting sympathy/encouraging repurchase); or (2) a lawyer inviting them to seek damages for the harm (eliciting anger/discouraging repurchase). This paper frames the messages from the CEO/lawyer such that they fit either with a promotion mindset or with a prevention mindset.

This paper finds that, following a message of apology, a frame-focus fit (compared to a frame-focus misfit) elicits sympathy and encourages repurchase universally across promotion and prevention-oriented consumers. However, following a message encouraging retaliation, the same fit elicits anger and discourages repurchase more among prevention-oriented than promotion-oriented consumers.

Although past research has investigated how regulatory fit affects forgiveness intentions, this paper fills three research gaps therein by (a) addressing both forgiveness and retaliation intentions, (b) deconstructing the fit-induced “just right feelings” by exploring their underlying emotions of sympathy and anger, and (c) showing that fit effects are not universal across promotion and prevention-oriented consumers. For practice, the results suggest that managers can lessen the fallout from product failures by putting consumers in a promotion mindset that strengthens the effect of a promotion-framed apology and inoculates them against all types of retaliatory messages.

The purpose of this study is to understand how regulatory focus influences informal learning behaviors. A growing body of research indicates that regulatory focus has significant consequences for goal pursuit in the workplace, yet it has not been readily studied or applied to the field of human resource management (Johnson et al., 2015). This is one of the few studies to examine the relationship between informal learning and regulatory focus theory that can be applied to the training and development field.

Using a qualitative research design, a semi-structured interview was used to increase the comparability of participant responses. Questions were asked in an open-ended manner, allowing for a structured approach for collecting information yet providing flexibility for the sake of gaining more in-depth responses. An interview guideline was used to standardize the questions and ensure similar kinds of information were obtained across participants. A typological analytic approach (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) was used to analyze the data.

In a sample of 16 working adults, (44% female and 56% male), participants who were identified as having either a promotion- or prevention-focus orientation were interviewed about types of informal learning strategies they used. The results revealed that performance success and failure have differential effects on learning behaviors for prevention and promotion-focus systems. Stress and errors motivate informal learning for the prevention-focus system, whereas positive affect motivates informal learning for the promotion-focus system. Prevention-focus participants articulated greater use of vicarious learning, reflective thinking and feedback-seeking as methods of informal learning. Promotion-focus participants articulated greater use of experimentation methods of informal learning.

This study provides an in-depth understanding of how regulatory focus influences informal learning. Few studies have considered how regulatory focus promotes distinct strategies and inclinations toward using informal learning. Performance success and failure have differential effects on informal learning behaviors for regulatory promotion and prevention systems. This has theoretical and practical implications in consideration of why employees engage in informal learning, and the tactics and strategies they use for learning.

The purpose of this paper is to test how team regulatory focus may relate to individual creativity and team innovation; and address the fit/misfit issue of team regulatory focus and team bureaucracy.

The authors collected data from 377 members and their leaders within 56 R&D teams in two Taiwanese companies.

A team promotion focus was positively related, whereas a team prevention focus was negatively related, to both team innovation and member creativity through team perspective taking and employee information elaboration, respectively. Furthermore, team bureaucracy played a moderating role that suppressed the indirect relationship between team regulatory focus and creativity.

This is one of first studies to explore an underlying mechanism linking team regulatory focus and both team innovation and member creativity. The authors provide a more complete view of the creative and innovation implications of team-level self-regulation.