Search results

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 paper is to propose that a more optimal regulatory focus in conflict reflects a mix of promotion and prevention considerations because conflict often elicits needs for promoting well-being as well as needs for preventing threats to security and interests. Two studies using distinct methodologies tested the hypothesis that social conflict is associated with better outcomes when the parties construe the conflict with a regulatory focus that reflects a combination of both promotion and prevention orientations.

Study 1 was an experiment that framed the same low-intensity conflict scenario as either prevention- or promotion-focused, or as both. In Study 2, we mouse-coded stream-of-thought accounts of participants’ actual ongoing high-intensity conflicts for time spent in both promotion and prevention focus.

In Study 1, the combined framing resulted in greater satisfaction with expected conflict outcomes and goal attainment than did either prevention or promotion framing alone. However, a promotion frame alone was associated with greater process and relationship satisfaction. These results were replicated in Study 2.

Prior research on regulatory focus has emphasized the benefits of a promotion focus over prevention when managing conflict. The present research offers new insight into how these seemingly opposing motives can operate in tandem to increase conflict satisfaction. Thus, this research illustrates the value of moving beyond dichotomized motivational distinctions in conflict research, to understand the dynamic interplay of how these distinctions may be navigated in concert for more effective conflict engagement. It also illustrates the value of mouse-coding methods for capturing the dynamic interplay of motives as they rise and fall in salience over time.

The purpose of this paper is to empirically test the effects of regulatory focus (RF) orientation (promotion/prevention) on decisions to purchase green products. The two experimental studies conducted aimed to test whether individuals in a prevention (promotion) state were more (or less) inclined to buy green products.

To test the effect of RF on green and non-green consumption, the authors carried out two experimental studies (one considering a service – car sharing – the other a physical product – a laundry detergent). The studies are 2 (RF: prevention vs promotion) × 2 (product type: green vs non-green) between factorial design involving 196 and 92 participants, respectively.

Promotion-focus has a powerful influence on green consumption. In both studies, individuals with a promotion focus seemed to be more inclined to buy green products as opposed to individuals in a prevention state.

The main limitations of this study first relate to the results of the two experiments. Even though both studies showed that promotion-focused rather than prevention-focused individuals are more inclined to buy green products, the differences between the two orientations in green condition are not statistically significant. As a result, the studies cannot determine whether to reject or accept the two main hypothesis.

This paper provides some preliminary indications that could be useful to encourage consumers to adopt “green” styles of consumption. Focusing on an individual’s RF is a useful strategy to induce them to change their consumption choices abruptly. Relying more on a “promotion” rather than a “prevention” focus, individuals would be compelled to take immediate responsible behavior.

This paper aims to fill the gap on the role of RF in green consumption. Contrary to the accepted idea that a prevention state is more compatible with consumer ethics than promotion state, the studies showed the controversial role assumed by a prevention state in green consumption.

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.

Regulatory focus theory has been studied in an in-store retailing context. Although an in-store retailing differs from an e-tailing in terms of the factors such as absence of products, physical human interactions and store atmospherics, the application of regulatory factors in an e-tailing context is limited. This study aims to examine the moderating role of regulatory focus orientations in consumer e-tailing activities.

A laboratory experiment with 297 participants was conducted to test the theoretical propositions. Statistical techniques such as t-test were used to analyse the data.

Results show that a consumer online purchase intentions, product review and spreading positive word of mouth vary from promotion-focused individuals to prevention-focused individuals. Results also show that there is no difference in spreading negative word of mouth between promotion-focused and prevention-focused individuals after encountering an unpleasant shopping experience. Finally, results show both the regulatory focus-oriented shoppers are encouraged by sales promotions.

Arguably, this is the first study to examine how consumers’ regulatory orientations moderate their e-tailing activities. The results of this study have implications for both academicians and managers.

This paper aims to investigate the direct and interactive effects of regulatory focus (promotion versus prevention), attribute type (search versus experience) and word of mouth valence (positive versus negative) on consumption decision for a service and a product.

Three empirical studies (two laboratories and a field experiment) using “university” and “mobile phone” as the research setting were used to test the key hypotheses.

Promotion (prevention)-focused subjects preferred experience (search) attributes over their counterparts while making consumption decision. This preference was further reinforced for both promotion and prevention-focused people under positive word of mouth. Under negative word of mouth, in comparison to their counterparts, promotion-focused people still retained their preference for experience attributes, whereas prevention-focused subjects reversed their preference and maintained status quo.

Future research may validate and extend authors’ findings by looking into the underlying process or studying additional word of mouth variables that may moderate the current findings.

The findings will help managers devise a range of marketing strategies in the areas of advertising and product positioning, especially for products/services that are showcased in terms of experience and search attributes.

The current research is novel as no prior research has proposed and tested the two-way interaction between regulatory focus and search/experience attributes, or its further moderation by word of mouth valence.

This study aims to examine how reward expectancy mediates the effect of abusive supervision on organizational citizenship behavior. Furthermore, drawing upon regulatory focus theory, this paper proposes and tests the moderating role of promotion focus in the proposed mediating effect.

Both hierarchical regression and PROCESS macro are conducted to analyze longitudinal data collected from 142 MBA students in different industries in the People’s Republic of China.

Results reveal that abusive supervision was negatively related to both organization-directed citizenship behavior (OCBO) and individual-directed citizenship behavior (OCBI) through undermining individual reward expectancies. Results also show that promotion focus moderated the negative effect of abusive supervision on reward expectancy, such that the relationship was stronger when promotion focus was higher. In addition, the indirect effect of abusive supervision on OCBO and OCBI carried through reward expectancy was also stronger among individuals with higher promotion focus.

It contributes to the literature on abusive supervision by offering a new perspective regarding the mechanism of abusive supervision influence on organizational citizenship behavior. The findings thus shed insights into cognitions and motivations that are associated with organizational citizenship behavior. In addition, it is the first to link abusive supervision with regulatory focus theory to examine the decrease of organizational citizenship behavior.

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 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 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.