Search results

This study aims to investigate the fit of a promotion (prevention) focus with malicious (benign) envy and how this fit influences positive and negative behaviours, depending on the context.

Four empirical studies (two laboratory and two online experiments) were used to test key hypotheses. Study 1 manipulated regulatory focus and envy in a job application setting with university students. Study 2 engaged similar manipulations in a social media setting. Studies 3 and 4 extended the regulatory focus and envy manipulations to the general population in pay-what-you-want (PWYW) and pay-it-forward (PIF) restaurant contexts.

The findings showed that a promotion (prevention) focus fits with the emotion of malicious (benign) envy. In the social media context, promotion and prevention foci demonstrated negative behaviour, including unfollowing the envied person, when combined with malicious and benign envy. In the PWYW and PIF contexts, combining envy with a specific type of regulatory focus encouraged both positive and negative behaviours through influencing payments.

Future research could validate and extend this study’s findings with different product/service categories, cross-cultural samples and research methods such as field experiments.

The four studies’ findings will assist managers in formulating marketing strategies to enhance their positioning of target products/services, possibly leading to higher prices for PWYW and PIF businesses.

The conceptual model is novel as, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no prior research has proposed and tested the fit between envy type and regulatory foci.

The purpose of the present study is twofold. First, the authors examine the potential mediating role of promotion focus in terms of the relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement. Second, the authors set out to examine whether the indirect effect of transformational leadership and follower work engagement through promotion focus is stronger when followers' public service motivations are higher versus lower.

The present study examines the association between transformational leadership behavior and employees' work engagement. Data included measures of transformational leadership behavior and promotion focus as well as public service motivation and work engagement. Utilizing a field sample of 316 employees, the study tested the proposed relationships with robust data analytic techniques. Results were consistent with the hypothesized theoretical framework, in that promotion focus mediated the relationship between transformational leadership behavior and work engagement stronger when public service motivation was high and weaker when public service motivation was low. Based on the findings, the study concludes that the connection between transformational leadership behavior and work engagements partially mediated by promotion focus and this mediated connection is stronger when employees' public service motivation is high and weak when employees' public service motivation is low—thereby yielding a pattern of moderated mediation.

The study findings suggest five main conclusions. First, consistent with previous studies (Aryee et al., 2012; Bui et al., 2017; Hetland et al., 2018; Li et al., 2021; Ng, 2017; Tims et al., 2011; Zhu et al., 2009), the study found a positive relationship between transformational leadership and employees' work engagement. Second, along the same lines of previous research (Brockner and Higgins, 2001; Hetland et al., 2018; Johnson et al., 2017; Kark et al., 2018; Tung, 2016), this study found a positive association between transformational leadership and employees' promotion focus. Third, as hypnotized, the study found a positive association between employees' promotion focus and their work engagement. Fourth, as hypothesized using regulatory focus theory, promotion focus positively mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and employees' work engagement. This result elucidates the underlying mechanism that enables leadership to influence employees' work engagement, particularly, through the self-regulatory promotion focus. The result demonstrates that leadership relates to and affects basic motivations of the promotion systems, which have been known as a basic human need for development and growth. The study demonstrates that leaders may be able to promote followers' motivations by provoking a promotion focus frame and this motivational frame further shapes followers' outcomes in terms of employees' work engagement. Hence, this finding support previous research claiming that promotion focus acts as a mediating mechanism in the relationship between transformational leadership and various outcomes(e.g. Johnson et al., 2017; Kark et al., 2018). However, this study adds significantly to existing research by being the first study to empirically test and pay attention to the promotion focus frame as the underlying psychological mechanism through which transformational leaders motivate followers to higher levels of work engagement. Finally, consistent with the study hypothesis, public service motivation has a moderating effect on the promotion focus-work engagement association. In addition, as the study hypothesized, public service motivation has a moderating effect on the mediating relationships between transformational leadership and employees' work engagement through promotion focus in public sector organizations. It appears that the relationship between transformational leadership and followers' work engagement through promotion focus is enhanced by the role of employees' PSM. In other words, the employees' public service motivation increases employee engagement further for employees with high situational promotion focus than for employees with a low situational promotion focus, which could be explained by the fact that more public service motivation is more meaningful to followers with promotion focus motivational framework to be more engaged. That is, public servants who are predisposed to respond to motives grounded primarily or exclusively in public institutions and organizations are more engaged at work due to their self-regulatory promotion focus spirit. This result is in congruence with findings that indicate that PSM is an important driver of organizational performance and has a positive impact on organizational behavior (Ritz et al., 2016). This finding does provide support to Bakker's (2015) proposition that PSM may strengthen the positive relationship between personal resources (e.g. optimism and self-efficacy) and work engagement because public servants with high levels of enduring PSM find their work important and meaningful. Therefore, they are likely to invest their resources in public service work, be engaged in their work and perform well.

First, it examines the extent to which transformational leadership contributes to employee work engagement. That is, the current study adds to the literature by using promotion focus attributes to probe the underlying mechanism through which transformational leaders enhance employee engagement in the workplace (Kark and van Dijk, 2019). Second, by combining insights obtained from the literature on the self-regulatory theory (Higgins, 1997) and the PSM theory (Perry and Wise, 1990), this study adds to work engagement literature by showing the importance of PSM as an institutional factor in work engagement. Lastly, the study expands the transformational leadership literature by using a moderated mediating model that recognizes PSM as a situational variable in the mediating relationship between transformational leadership and employee engagement.

The results have several implications for practice. Findings reveal that transformational leaders can enhance follower work engagement by inducing their promotion focus orientation. Managers can, therefore, display more transformational behaviors, such as providing a compelling vision, communicating high expectations, promoting new ideas and giving personal attention to each employee in the workplace. In addition, managers may develop a promotion-focus orientation among their followers by appealing more to their ideals and aspirations than to their duties and responsibilities (Brockner and Higgins, 2001). Organizations, on the other hand, could offer leadership training and development programs designed to enhance transformational leadership Behaviors. As for employees' PSM, public organizations have to be more creative in attracting, selecting and retaining employees with high levels of public service motives (Kim, 2021). Public organizations can also train their employees on public service values and enhance their incentives structures to align their motivational predispositions with the organization mission and values.

The present study adds to the existing theory in two ways. First, despite significant progress in exploring the process and boundary conditions for transformational leadership with beneficial work behaviors, the study findings paid attention to the underlying psychological mechanism, precisely the self-regulatory promotion focus frame through which transformational leaders motivate followers to higher levels of work engagement. A second theoretical contribution of the present study is that it adds to the long line of research supporting a more concerted effort to understand both the moderating and mediating mechanisms that link transformational leadership to follower outcomes. By using the moderated mediating model, this study shows that transformational leaders can induce a promotion focus within followers who have developed a public service motivation profile to be more willing to engage in their organizations. The current study also has several practical implications that can be drawn from the study findings. First, organizations should become more sensitive to their employees' (promotional and preventive) self-regulatory foci. Managers should be trained to be strategically oriented toward people's growth and development. Second, by serving as role models, managers can shape their subordinates' regulatory foci. The more managers' actions suggest that they are focused on promotion, the more likely it is that their subordinates will follow suit. Third, managers may emphasize the use of positive feedback, such as praise, by giving it when employees succeed and withholding it when they fail. This feedback style is more likely to elicit a promotion focus, especially if the praise for success focuses on what the employee was able to accomplish (e.g. “You aided in the advancement of an important task!”) rather than negative occurrences that the employee was able to avoid (e.g. “You were extremely cautious and as a result, you avoided making the wrong judgment.”) (Brockner and Higgins, 2001). Moreover, the moderating role of public service motivation in the effects of transformational leadership on work engagement through a promotion focus mechanism suggests that managers should not assume all employees would engage in their work similarly to their transformational leadership behaviors. Managers may find that followers who have values that are consistent with public service are more inclined to their promotion focus frame and thus are likely to internalize both motivations, which ultimately leads to more work engagement. As a result, managers should help employees, for example, feel a sense of accomplishment and recognize that they are contributing to society as an intrinsic reward. Finally, human resource managers must be mindful of their selection and placement decisions. Ensure that members are highly motivated to serve in the public sector and have the desired regulatory focus.

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.