1
COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL
Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations:
Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making
E LLE N C ROWE
AND
E . T ORY H IGGINS
Colu m bia Un iversity
A p ro m o tio n fo c u s is c o n c e rn e d w ith a d v a n c e m e n t,
g ro w th , a n d a c c o m p lis h m e n t, w h e re a s a p re v e n tio n
fo c u s is c o n c e rn e d w ith s e c u rity, s a fe ty, a n d re s p o n s ibility. We h y p o th e s ize d th a t th e p ro m o tio n fo c u s in c lin a tio n is to in s u re h its a n d in s u re a g a in s t e rro rs o f
o m is s io n , w h e re a s th e p re v e n tio n fo c u s in c lin a tio n is
to in s u re c o rre c t re je c tio n s a n d in s u re a g a in s t e rro rs o f
c o m m is s io n . Th is h y p o th e s is y ie ld e d th re e p re d ic tio n s :
(a ) w h e n in d iv id u a ls w o rk o n a d iffic u lt ta s k o r h a v e
ju s t e x p e rie n c e d fa ilu re , th o s e in a p ro m o tio n fo c u s
s h o u ld p e rfo rm be tte r, a n d th o s e in a p re v e n tio n fo c u s
s h o u ld qu it m o re re a d ily ; (b) w h e n in d iv id u a ls w o rk
o n a ta s k w h e re g e n e ra tin g a n y n u m be r o f a lte rn a tiv e s
is c o rre c t, th o s e in a p ro m o tio n fo c u s s h o u ld g e n e ra te
m o re d is tin c t a lte rn a tiv e s , a n d th o s e in a p re v e n tio n
fo c u s s h o u ld be m o re re p e titiv e ; a n d (c ) w h e n in d iv id u a ls w o rk o n a s ig n a l d e te c tio n ta s k th a t re qu ire s th e m
to d e c id e w h e th e r th e y d id o r d id n o t d e te c t a s ig n a l,
th o s e in a p ro m o tio n fo c u s s h o u ld h a v e a “ris k y ”
re s p o n s e bia s , a n d th o s e in a p re v e n tio n fo c u s s h o u ld
h a v e a “c o n s e rv a tiv e ” re s p o n s e bia s a n d ta k e m o re
tim e to re s p o n d . Th e s e p re d ic tio n s w e re s u p p o rte d in
tw o fra m in g s tu d ie s in w h ic h re g u la to ry fo c u s w a s
e x p e rim e n ta lly m a n ip u la te d in d e p e n d e n t o f v a le n c e . 䉷 1997 Ac a d e m ic P re s s
A st r a t egy r efer s t o a pa t t er n of decision s in t h e a cqu isit ion ,
r et en t ion , a n d u t iliza t ion of in for m a t ion t h a t ser ves t o m eet cer t a in object ives, i.e., t o in su r e cer t a in for m s of ou t com e a n d t o
in su r e a ga in st cer t a in ot h er s.
Br u n er, Goodn ow, & Au st in (1956, p. 54)
P r oba bly n o m ot iva t ion a l pr in ciple h a s r eceived m or e
a t t en t ion t h a n t h e h edon ic pr in ciple t h a t people a ppr oa ch plea su r e a n d a void pa in . Biologica l m odels h a ve
Th is a r t icle is ba sed on E llen Cr owe’s doct or a l disser t a t ion a t Colu m bia Un iver sit y a n d wa s su ppor t ed by Na t ion a l In st it u t e of Men t a l
H ea lt h Gr a n t MH 39429 t o E . Tor y H iggin s. We a r e gr a t efu l t o J a m es
Br a dley for h is h elp on St u dy 2.
Addr ess r epr in t r equ est s t o E . Tor y H iggin s, Depa r t m en t of
P sych ology, Sch er m er h or n H a ll, Colu m bia Un iver sit y, New Yor k,
NY 10027.
dist in gu ish ed bet ween t h e a ppet it ive syst em in volvin g
a ppr oa ch a n d t h e defen sive or a ver sive syst em in volvin g a voida n ce (e.g., Gr a y, 1982; Kon or ski, 1967; La n g,
1995). Models in per son a lit y a n d socia l psych ology h a ve
dist in gu ish ed bet ween t h e m ot ive t o m ove t owa r d desir ed en d-st a t es a n d t h e m ot ive t o m ove a wa y fr om
u n desir ed en d-st a t es (e.g., At kin son , 1964; Ba n du r a ,
1986; Ca r ver & Sch eier, 1981, 1990; Lewin , 1935, 1951;
McClella n d, At kin son , Cla r k, & Lowell, 1953; Rosem a n ,
1984; Rosem a n , Spin del, & J ose, 1990). Bu t it is n ot
on ly h edon ism t h a t u n der lies a ppr oa ch a n d a voida n ce
st r a t egies. Th e pr esen t pa per con sider s t h e a ppr oa ch
a n d a voida n ce st r a t egies t h a t der ive fr om a n in depen den t pr in ciple of m ot iva t ion , “r egu la t or y focu s,” a n d
exa m in es t h eir im plica t ion s for decision -m a kin g wh ile
pr oblem -solvin g.
A self-r egu la t or y syst em ca n h a ve eit h er a desir ed
or a n u n desir ed en d-st a t e fu n ct ion in g a s t h e r efer en ce
va lu e. Th e syst em a t t em pt s t o m ove t h e cu r r en t a ct u a lself st a t e a s close a s possible t o a desir ed en d-st a t e a n d
a s fa r a wa y a s possible fr om a n u n desir ed r efer en ce
poin t . Ca r ver a n d Sch eier (1981, 1990) r efer t o t h e for m er discr epa n cy-r edu cin g syst em a s a n a ppr oa ch syst em a n d t h e la t t er discr epa n cy-a m plifyin g syst em a s
a n a voida n ce syst em . Th ey a lso su ggest t h a t t h e discr epa n cy-r edu cin g syst em is m or e com m on t h a n t h e
discr epa n cy-a m plifyin g syst em . H iggin s, Ron ey, Cr owe,
a n d H ym es (1994) pr oposed t h a t t h er e a r e t wo a lt er n a t ive m ea n s or st r a t egies for a ccom plish in g discr epa n cy
r edu ct ion —a ppr oa ch a ct u a l self st a t es t h a t m a t ch t h e
desir ed en d-st a t e or a void a ct u a l self st a t es t h a t m ism a t ch t h e desir ed en d-st a t e. A per son wh o wa n t s t o
get a good gr a de on a qu iz (a desir ed en d-st a t e), for
exa m ple, cou ld eit h er st u dy h a r d a t t h e libr a r y t h e da y
befor e t h e qu iz (a ppr oa ch in g a m a t ch t o t h e desir ed
en d-st a t e) or t u r n down a n in vit a t ion t o go ou t dr in kin g
wit h fr ien ds t h e n igh t befor e t h e qu iz (a voidin g a m ism a t ch t o t h e desir ed en d-st a t e). Th u s, differ en t a ppr oa ch a n d a voida n ce st r a t egies ca n be u sed in t h e
ser vice of t h e sa m e gen er a l a ppr oa ch syst em . H iggin s
Published in: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL
et a l. (1994) pr oposed t h a t in dividu a ls’ ch r on ic self-r egu la t ion in r ela t ion t o differ en t t ypes of desir ed selves
exem plifies t h is st r a t egic dist in ct ion .
Self-discr epa n cy t h eor y (H iggin s, 1987) dist in gu ish es
bet ween t wo t ypes of desir ed en d-st a t es: (a ) idea l selfgu ides, wh ich a r e in dividu a ls’ r epr esen t a t ion s of som eon e’s (self or ot h er ) h opes, wish es, or a spir a t ion s for
t h em ; a n d (b) ou gh t self-gu ides, wh ich a r e in dividu a ls’
r epr esen t a t ion s of som eon e’s beliefs a bou t t h eir du t ies,
obliga t ion s, a n d r espon sibilit ies. Self-r egu la t ion in r ela t ion t o eit h er idea l or ou gh t self-gu ides is discr epa n cyr edu cin g a n d in volves a ppr oa ch a t t h e gen er a l syst em
level. H iggin s et a l. (1994) pr oposed, h owever, t h a t idea l
a n d ou gh t self-r egu la t ion differ in t h eir st r a t egic in clin a t ion .
Act u a l self con gr u en cies t o h opes, wish es, or a spir a t ion s r epr esen t t h e pr esen ce of posit ive ou t com es
wh er ea s discr epa n cies r epr esen t t h e a bsen ce of posit ive
ou t com es. Th u s, t h e psych ologica l sit u a t ion s in volved
in idea l self-r egu la t ion a r e t h e pr esen ce a n d a bsen ce of
posit ive ou t com es (see H iggin s, 1989). Un like h opes,
wish es, a n d a spir a t ion s t h a t fu n ct ion like m a xim a l
goa ls, du t ies, obliga t ion s, a n d r espon sibilit ies fu n ct ion
m or e like m in im a l goa ls (see Br en dl & H iggin s, 1996).
Th ese a r e goa ls t h a t a per son m u st a t t a in or st a n da r ds
t h a t m u st be m et . Wh en st r on g en ou gh , su ch a s biblica l
com m a n dm en t s, ou gh t s ca n even fu n ct ion like n ecessit ies. Discr epa n cies t o su ch m in im a l goa ls r epr esen t t h e
pr esen ce of n ega t ive ou t com es wh er ea s con gr u en cies
r epr esen t t h e a bsen ce of n ega t ive ou t com es (see Gou ld,
1939; Rot t er, 1982). Th u s, t h e psych ologica l sit u a t ion s
in volved in ou gh t self-r egu la t ion a r e t h e a bsen ce a n d
pr esen ce of n ega t ive ou t com es.
H iggin s et a l. (1994) pr oposed t h a t t h e con cer n of
idea l self-r egu la t ion wit h posit ive ou t com es (t h eir pr esen ce a n d a bsen ce) sh ou ld en gen der a n in clin a t ion t o
approach m atch es t o h opes a n d a spir a t ion s a s a st r a t egy for idea l self-r egu la t ion . In con t r a st , t h e con cer n
of ou gh t self-r egu la t ion wit h n ega t ive ou t com es (t h eir
a bsen ce a n d pr esen ce) sh ou ld en gen der a n in clin a t ion
t o avoid m ism atch es t o du t ies a n d obliga t ion s a s a st r a t egy for ou gh t self-r egu la t ion . In on e of t h eir st u dies,
H iggin s et a l. (1994) t est ed t h ese pr edict ion s by fir st
a skin g u n der gr a du a t es t o r epor t eit h er on h ow t h eir
h opes a n d a spir a t ion s h a ve ch a n ged over t im e (t o pr im e
or a ct iva t e idea l self-gu ides) or on h ow t h eir du t ies a n d
obliga t ion s h a ve ch a n ged over t im e (t o pr im e ou gh t
self-gu ides). Next , t h e pa r t icipa n t s r ea d a bou t sever a l
episodes t h a t occu r r ed over a few da ys in t h e life of
a n ot h er st u den t , com plet ed a filler t a sk, a n d t h en t r ied
t o r em em ber t h e episodes in a fr ee r eca ll t a sk. Th e
episodes a ll descr ibed t h e t a r get a s t r yin g t o exper ien ce
a desir ed en d-st a t e bu t va r ied in t h e st r a t egy u sed, a s
in t h e followin g exa m ples: (a ) “Beca u se I wa n t ed t o be
2
a t sch ool for t h e begin n in g of m y 8:30 psych ology cla ss
wh ich is u su a lly excellen t , I woke u p ea r ly t h is m or n in g.” [a ppr oa ch in g a m a t ch t o a desir ed en d-st a t e]; a n d
(b) “I wa n t ed t o t a ke a cla ss in ph ot ogr a ph y a t t h e
com m u n it y cen t er, so I didn ’t r egist er for a cla ss in
Spa n ish t h a t wa s sch edu led a t t h e sa m e t im e.”
[a voidin g a m ism a t ch t o a desir ed en d-st a t e]
As pr edict ed, t h e pa r t icipa n t s r em em ber ed episodes
t h a t exem plified a ppr oa ch in g m a t ch es t o desir ed en dst a t es sign ifica n t ly bet t er wh en idea l ver su s ou gh t selfr egu la t ion wa s a ct iva t ed, wh er ea s t h ey r em em ber ed
episodes t h a t exem plified a voidin g m ism a t ch es t o desir ed en d-st a t es sign ifica n t ly bet t er wh en ou gh t ver su s
idea l self-r egu la t ion wa s a ct iva t ed. A secon d st u dy
fou n d t h a t in dividu a ls wit h st r on g idea l self-r egu la t ion
ver su s st r on g ou gh t self-r egu la t ion select ed differ en t
t a ct ics wh en a sked a bou t t h eir st r a t egies for fr ien dsh ip,
wit h t h e for m er select in g t a ct ics t h a t in volved a ppr oa ch in g m a t ch es (e.g., “Be su ppor t ive t o you r fr ien ds.
Be em ot ion a lly su ppor t ive”) a n d t h e la t t er select in g t a ct ics t h a t in volved a voidin g m ism a t ch es (e.g., “St a y in
t ou ch . Don ’t lose con t a ct wit h fr ien ds”).
Th e r esu lt s of t h is a n d ot h er st u dies (see H iggin s et
a l., 1994; H iggin s & Tykocin ski, 1992) su ppor t ed t h e
pr oposa l t h a t idea l self-r egu la t ion in volved a con cer n
wit h posit ive ou t com es (pr esen ce a n d a bsen ce) a n d a
pr edilect ion for a ppr oa ch m ea n s t o obt a in desir ed en dst a t es, wh er ea s ou gh t self-r egu la t ion in volved a con cer n wit h n ega t ive ou t com es (a bsen ce a n d pr esen ce)
a n d a pr edilect ion for a voida n ce m ea n s t o obt a in desir ed
en d-st a t es. Bu t m or e gen er a lly, idea l a n d ou gh t selfr egu la t ion ca n be con sider ed a s in volvin g t wo t ypes of
regu latory focu s (see H iggin s, 1996a ). Idea l self-r egu la t ion h a s a prom otion focu s wh er ea s ou gh t self-r egu la t ion h a s a preven tion focu s. To a ppr ecia t e bet t er t h e
n a t u r e of t h ese t wo t ypes of r egu la t or y focu s, t h eir h ypot h esized in volvem en t in self-gu ide a cqu isit ion will be
descr ibed br iefly (for a fu ller discu ssion of socia liza t ion
pr ocesses, see H iggin s, 1996a ).
Th e ch ild exper ien ces t h e pr esen ce of posit ive ou t com es wh en ca r et a ker s, for exa m ple, en cou r a ge t h e
ch ild t o over com e difficu lt ies or set u p oppor t u n it ies for
t h e ch ild t o en ga ge in r ewa r din g a ct ivit ies, a n d t h e
ch ild exper ien ces t h e a bsen ce of posit ive ou t com es wh en
ca r et a ker s, for exa m ple, t a ke a wa y a t oy wh en t h e ch ild
r efu ses t o sh a r e it or st op a st or y wh en t h e ch ild is n ot
pa yin g a t t en t ion . Th e ca r et a ker ’s m essa ge t o t h e ch ild
in bot h ca ses is t h a t wh a t m a t t er s is a t t a in in g a ccom plish m en t s or fu lfillin g h opes a n d a spir a t ion s, bu t it is
com m u n ica t ed in r efer en ce t o eit h er a desir ed or a n
u n desir ed st a t e of t h e ch ild—eit h er “Th is is wh a t I
wou ld id eally like you t o do” or “Th is is n ot wh a t I wou ld
idea lly like you t o do”. Th e r egu la t or y focu s is on e of
COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL
prom otion , i.e., a con cer n wit h a dva n cem en t , gr owt h ,
a ccom plish m en t .
In con t r a st , t h e ch ild exper ien ces t h e a bsen ce of n ega t ive ou t com es wh en ca r et a ker s, for exa m ple, t r a in t h e
ch ild t o be a ler t t o pot en t ia l da n ger s or t ea ch t h e ch ild
t o “m in d you r m a n n er s,” a n d t h e ch ild exper ien ces t h e
pr esen ce of n ega t ive ou t com es wh en ca r et a ker s, for exa m ple, yell a t t h e ch ild wh en h e or sh e does n ot list en
or cr it icize t h e ch ild wh en h e or sh e m a kes a m ist a ke.
Th e ca r et a ker ’s m essa ge t o t h e ch ild in bot h ca ses is
t h a t wh a t m a t t er s is in su r in g sa fet y, bein g r espon sible,
a n d m eet in g obliga t ion s, bu t it is com m u n ica t ed in r efer en ce t o eit h er a desir ed or a n u n desir ed st a t e of t h e
ch ild—eit h er “Th is is wh a t I believe you ou gh t t o do”
or “Th is is n ot wh a t I believe you ou gh t t o do.” Th e
r egu la t or y focu s is on e of preven tion , i.e., a con cer n wit h
pr ot ect ion , sa fet y, r espon sibilit y.
Th ese ca r et a ker –ch ild in t er a ct ion s occu r over lon g
per iods a n d con sist of a ch ild’s sign ifica n t ot h er com m u n ica t in g a bou t t h e ch ild’s con t in gen cies in t h e wor ld.
Th e differ en t m essa ges en gen der idea l self-r egu la t ion
in volvin g a pr om ot ion focu s con cer n ed wit h a dva n cem en t , gr owt h , a ccom plish m en t or ou gh t self-r egu la t ion
in volvin g a pr even t ion focu s con cer n ed wit h pr ot ect ion ,
sa fet y, r espon sibilit y. Bu t r egu la t or y focu s sh ou ld n ot
be lim it ed t o su ch ch r on ic in dividu a l differ en ces. Aft er
a ll, m om en t a r y sit u a t ion s sh ou ld a lso be ca pa ble of t em por a r ily in du cin g eit h er a pr om ot ion focu s or a pr even t ion focu s. J u st a s t h e r espon ses of ca r et a ker s t o t h eir
ch ildr en ’s a ct ion s pr ovide feedba ck t o t h e ch ildr en
a bou t h ow t o a t t a in desir ed (r a t h er t h a n u n desir ed)
en d-st a t es, feedba ck fr om a boss or a t ea ch er com m u n ica t es t o a n em ployee or a st u den t , r espect ively, h ow t o
a t t a in desir ed en d-st a t es. An d su ch feedba ck ca n occu r
in a m om en t a r y sit u a t ion wit h ou t t h er e bein g a lon g
h ist or y or st r on g r ela t ion sh ip bet ween t h e in t er a ct a n t s.
Th u s, pr om ot ion or pr even t ion feed back , wh et h er it con cer n s a desir ed st a t e (posit ive feedba ck) or a n u n desir ed
st a t e (n ega t ive feedba ck), sh ou ld be ca pa ble of in du cin g
a t em por a r y st a t e of r egu la t or y focu s t h a t in flu en ces
m ot iva t ion .
Th is possibilit y wa s t est ed in a r ecen t st u dy by Ron ey,
H iggin s, a n d Sh a h (1995). Un der gr a du a t e pa r t icipa n t s
wor ked on a set of a n a gr a m s t h a t in clu ded bot h solva ble
a n a gr a m s a n d u n solva ble a n a gr a m s. Th e pa r t icipa n t s
wer e given 45 s t o solve ea ch a n a gr a m bu t t h ey cou ld
qu it befor e t h e t im e wa s u p. Su ccess or fa ilu r e feedba ck
wa s given a ft er ea ch pr oblem . H a lf of t h e pa r t icipa n t s
r eceived pr om ot ion focu s feedba ck, su ch a s “Righ t , you
got t h a t on e” (pr esen ce of posit ive) wh en t h ey solved
a n a n a gr a m or “You didn ’t get t h a t on e r igh t ” (a bsen ce
of posit ive) wh en t h ey did n ot solve a n a n a gr a m . Th e
ot h er h a lf of t h e pa r t icipa n t s r eceived pr even t ion focu s
feedba ck, su ch a s “No, you m issed t h a t on e” (pr esen ce
3
of n ega t ive) wh en t h ey did n ot solve a n a n a gr a m a n d
“You didn ’t m iss t h a t on e” (a bsen ce of n ega t ive) wh en
t h ey solved a n a n a gr a m . Aft er t h e fir st t r ia l in wh ich
feedba ck wa s given , t h e pa r t icipa n t s im m edia t ely per for m ed a secon d t r ia l wit h ou t feedba ck. Th e r esu lt s for
t h is t r ia l a r e of specia l in t er est beca u se t h er e wa s n o
lon ger feedba ck bu t a r egu la t or y focu s h a d been in du ced
fr om t h e fir st t r ia l. F or t h e u n solva ble a n a gr a m s, t h e
st u dy fou n d t h a t pa r t icipa n t s wit h a pr even t ion focu s
qu it befor e t h e t im e wa s u p on 19% of t h e pr oblem s,
wh er ea s pa r t icipa n t s wit h a pr om ot ion focu s qu it on
on ly 4% of t h e pr oblem s.
Th e r esu lt s of t h is st u dy su ggest t h a t feedba ck is
ca pa ble of in du cin g t em por a r ily eit h er a pr om ot ion focu s or a pr even t ion focu s, a n d t h is in t u r n ca n in flu en ce
m ot iva t ion t o per sist on a t a sk. Bu t feedba ck is n ot
t h e on ly sit u a t ion a l va r ia ble t h a t sh ou ld be ca pa ble of
in du cin g differ en t t ypes of r egu la t or y focu s. To u se
a ga in t h e a n a logy of ca r et a ker –ch ild in t er a ct ion s, it
sh ou ld be possible t o in du ce a r egu la t or y focu s wit h
in st r u ct ion s t h a t pr esen t a task con tin gen cy con cer n in g
wh ich a ct ion s pr odu ce wh ich con sequ en ces, i.e., h ow
t o a t t a in desir ed (ver su s u n desir ed) en d-st a t es. Th is
possibilit y wa s t est ed in a secon d st u dy by Ron ey et a l.
(1995) on m ot iva t ion a l per sist en ce.
Un der gr a du a t e pa r t icipa n t s wer e t old t h a t t h ey
wou ld per for m t wo t a sks. F or ever yon e t h e fir st t a sk
wa s a n a n a gr a m s t a sk t h a t in clu ded bot h ea sy a n a gr a m s pr et est ed t o be solva ble by ever yon e a n d u n solva ble a n a gr a m s. All of t h e pa r t icipa n t s wer e t old t h a t
t h e secon d t a sk wou ld be eit h er a com pu t er sim u la t ion
of t h e popu la r “Wh eel of F or t u n e” ga m e or a t a sk ca lled
“u n va r ied r epet it ion ” descr ibed in su ch a wa y a s t o
a ppea r ver y bor in g. Alt h ou gh t h e per for m a n ce con t in gen cy for pla yin g t h e fu n ga m e r a t h er t h a n t h e bor in g
ga m e a s t h e secon d t a sk wa s t h e sa m e for ever yon e, t h e
fr a m in g of t h e con t in gen cy wa s exper im en t a lly va r ied.
H a lf of t h e pa r t icipa n t s wer e given a pr om ot ion focu s
in wh ich t h ey wer e t old t h a t if t h ey solved 22 (or m or e)
ou t of t h e 25 a n a gr a m s t h ey wou ld get t o pla y t h e
“Wh eel of F or t u n e” ga m e, ot h er wise t h ey wou ld do t h e
“u n va r ied r epet it ion ” t a sk. Th e ot h er h a lf of t h e pa r t icipa n t s wer e given a pr even t ion focu s in wh ich t h ey wer e
t old t h a t if t h ey got fou r (or m or e) ou t of t h e 25 a n a gr a m s wr on g, t h ey wou ld do t h e “u n va r ied r epet it ion ”
t a sk, ot h er wise t h ey wou ld pla y t h e “Wh eel of F or t u n e”
ga m e. Th e t im e pa r t icipa n t s spen t wor kin g on t h e u n solva ble a n a gr a m s wa s r ecor ded. Con sist en t wit h t h e
r esu lt s of t h e fir st st u dy descr ibed ea r lier, t h is st u dy
fou n d t h a t pa r t icipa n t s wit h a pr om ot ion focu s per sist ed over on e-t h ir d lon ger on t h e u n solva ble a n a gr a m s t h a n pa r t icipa n t s wit h a pr even t ion focu s.
Th e r esu lt s of t h ese t wo r ecen t st u dies su ggest t h a t
COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL
r egu la t or y focu s ca n be in du ced sit u a t ion a lly a n d in flu en ce m ot iva t ion . Th u s, r egu la t or y focu s is n ot ju st a n
in dividu a l differ en ce va r ia ble r eleva n t t o ch r on ic per son a l pr edilect ion s. Ra t h er, it con cer n s differ en t selfr egu la t or y st a t es. In dividu a ls ca n be ch r on ica lly pr edisposed t o exper ien ce a pa r t icu la r st a t e or it ca n be in du ced in t h em t em por a r ily by pr oper t ies of t h e cu r r en t
sit u a t ion . In eit h er ca se, in dividu a ls in a pr om ot ion
focu s st a t e ver su s a pr even t ion focu s st a t e will h a ve
differ en t st r a t egic in clin a t ion s. Let u s r econ sider, t h en ,
t h e n a t u r e of t h is differ en ce in st r a t egic in clin a t ion s.
A pr om ot ion focu s is con cer n ed wit h a dva n cem en t ,
gr owt h , a ccom plish m en t . Goa ls a r e h opes a n d a spir a t ion s. Th e st r a t egic in clin a t ion is t o m a ke pr ogr ess by
a ppr oa ch in g m a t ch es t o t h e desir ed en d-st a t e. In con t r a st , a pr even t ion focu s is con cer n ed wit h secu r it y,
sa fet y, r espon sibilit y. Goa ls a r e du t ies a n d obliga t ion s
or even n ecessit ies. Th e st r a t egic in clin a t ion is t o be
pr u den t a n d pr eca u t ion a r y a n d a void m ism a t ch es t o
t h e desir ed en d-st a t e. Given t h ese differ en ces, on e
wou ld expect t h a t people’s self-r egu la t or y st a t es wou ld
be differ en t wh en t h eir focu s is pr om ot ion ver su s pr even t ion . Wit h a pr om ot ion focu s, t h e st a t e sh ou ld be
eagern ess t o a t t a in a dva n cem en t a n d ga in s. Wit h a pr even t ion focu s, t h e st a t e sh ou ld be vigilan ce t o a ssu r e
sa fet y a n d n on losses.
H ow m igh t a st a t e of ea ger n ess ver su s a st a t e of
vigila n ce im pa ct st r a t egic in clin a t ion s? In sign a l det ect ion t er m s (e.g., Ta n n er & Swet s, 1954; see a lso Tr ope &
Liber m a n , 1996), in dividu a ls in a st a t e of ea ger n ess
fr om a pr om ot ion focu s sh ou ld wa n t , especia lly, t o a ccom plish “h it s” a n d t o a void er r or s of om ission (i.e., a
loss of a ccom plish m en t ). In con t r a st , in dividu a ls in a
st a t e of vigila n ce fr om a pr even t ion focu s sh ou ld wa n t ,
especia lly, t o a t t a in cor r ect r eject ion s a n d a void er r or s
of com m ission (i.e., m a kin g a m ist a ke). Th u s, t o u se
Br u n er et a l.’s (1956) cla ssic t er m in ology cit ed ea r lier,
t h e pr om ot ion focu s in clin a t ion is t o in su r e h it s a n d
in su r e a ga in st er r or s of om ission , wh er ea s t h e pr even t ion focu s in clin a t ion is t o in su r e cor r ect r eject ion s a n d
in su r e a ga in st er r or s of com m ission .
H ow m igh t t h ese differ en t st r a t egic in clin a t ion im pa ct beh a vior on a n a n a gr a m t a sk a s u sed by Ron ey et
a l. (1995)? An a n a gr a m t a sk r equ ir es pa r t icipa n t s t o fin d
on e or m or e wor ds h idden in a let t er st r in g. Su ccess a t
fin din g a wor d wou ld be a cor r ect a ccept a n ce or “h it ”
wh er ea s fa ilu r e t o fin d a wor d wou ld be a n er r or of om ission . On t h is t a sk, t h en , t h e pr om ot ion focu s in dividu a ls
sh ou ld be ea ger t o fin d wor ds (“h it s”) a n d t o a void om it t in g a n y possible wor ds. Th is sh ou ld yield h igh per sist en ce a n d a st r on g desir e t o fin d wor ds followin g a fa ilu r e
t o fin d a n y. In con t r a st , t h e pr even t ion focu s in dividu a ls
sh ou ld be vigila n t a ga in st n on wor ds a n d wa n t t o a void
com m it t in g t h e er r or of pr odu cin g t h em . Wh en difficu lt y
4
is exper ien ced, t h is or ien t a t ion m igh t m ot iva t e qu it t in g
t o a void explicit ly com m it t in g a n er r or.
Th e fin din gs of Ron ey et a l. (1995) n eed t o be r econ sider ed in ligh t of t h is a n a lysis. Th e u n solva ble a n a gr a m s
in t h eir st u dies a ppea r ed a m on g t h e fir st few pr oblem s,
a n d t h u s t h e pa r t icipa n t s exper ien ced fa ilu r e ea r ly on
in t h e t a sks. Th is ea r ly fa ilu r e exper ien ce m igh t h a ve
been n ecessa r y t o pr odu ce t h e r egu la t or y focu s differ en ce t h a t wa s fou n d. On e of t h e a im s of ou r fir st st u dy
wa s t o exa m in e dir ect ly for t h e fir st t im e wh et h er a n a gr a m per for m a n ce on solva ble a n a gr a m s is bet t er wit h
a pr om ot ion focu s t h a n a pr even t ion focu s on ly wh en
pa r t icipa n t s a r e exper ien cin g difficu lt y. A n ew “em bedded figu r es” t a sk wa s a lso in clu ded in ou r fir st st u dy
in or der t o con sider t h is possibilit y m or e gen er a lly. It
wa s expect ed t h a t in dividu a ls in a pr even t ion focu s
wou ld qu it a n especia lly difficu lt h idden figu r e befor e
t h e t im e lim it wa s u p in or der t o a void com m it t in g a
m ist a ke, wh er ea s in dividu a ls in a pr om ot ion focu s
wou ld per sist lon ger t o pr olon g t h e oppor t u n it y for a
“h it .” To br oa den ou r exa m in a t ion of t h is issu e st ill
fu r t h er, a n a ddit ion a l cou n t in g ba ckwa r d t a sk wa s a lso
in clu ded t h a t h a d a n ea sy sequ en ce followed by a difficu lt sequ en ce. It wa s expect ed t h a t a per for m a n ce a dva n t a ge of t h e pr om ot ion focu s wou ld em er ge on ly du r in g t h e difficu lt sequ en ce.
A m or e cen t r a l pu r pose of ou r fir st st u dy (a s well a s
t h e secon d st u dy) wa s t o a ddr ess a lim it a t ion of t h e
Ron ey et a l. (1995) st u dies t h a t is eviden t in t h e gen er a l
lit er a t u r e a s well. In m a n ipu la t in g r egu la t or y focu s,
t h e fir st “feedba ck” st u dy con t r olled for va len ce by in clu din g bot h posit ive a n d n ega t ive feedba ck wit h in ea ch
r egu la t or y focu s con dit ion . Th e secon d “t a sk con t in gen cy” st u dy con fou n ded r egu la t or y focu s a n d va len ce
by fr a m in g t h e con t in gen cy posit ively for t h e pr om ot ion
focu s a n d n ega t ively for t h e pr even t ion focu s. To a ddr ess t h is lim it a t ion , t h e pr esen t st u dies u sed t h e “t a sk
con t in gen cy” pa r a digm a n d in depen den t ly m a n ipu la t ed both t h e r egu la t or y focu s an d t h e va len ce of t h e
con t in gen cy fr a m in g. Th u s in t h e con t ext of con t in gen cy
fr a m in g, t h e pr esen t st u dies exa m in e for t h e fir st t im e
h ow r egu la t or y focu s a s on e m ot iva t ion a l pr in ciple a n d
va len ce or h edon ic va lu e a s a sepa r a t e m ot iva t ion a l
pr in cipa l in flu en ce st r a t egic in clin a t ion s, bot h in depen den t ly a n d in com bin a t ion .
Th e ot h er m a jor a im of t h e pr esen t st u dies wa s t o in vest iga t e a n a ddit ion a l im plica t ion of t h e h ypot h esized
st r a t egic in clin a t ion s t h a t h a s n ot pr eviou sly been exa m in ed. Specifica lly, on e wou ld expect differ en ces in t h e
st r a t egic m ot iva t ion t o gen er a t e a lt er n a t ives. Som e
t a sks a llow people t o pr odu ce few or m a n y a lt er n a t ives
wit h ou t pen a lt y. On a sor t in g t a sk, for exa m ple, in dividu a ls cou ld u se t h e sa m e cr it er ion , su ch a s color, t o sor t a
set of fr u it s a n d t o sor t a set of veget a bles or t h ey cou ld
5
COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL
u se differ en t cr it er ia , su ch a s color for t h e fr u it s a n d
sh a pe for t h e veget a bles. E it h er st r a t egy is con sider ed
cor r ect . Th e r equ ir em en t is on ly t h a t t h e sor t in g cr it er ion be con sist en t a cr oss a ll m em ber s of a ca t egor y. Th u s,
in dividu a ls ca n r edu ce t h e likelih ood of m a kin g a m ist a ke a n d st ill be cor r ect by sim plifyin g t h e t a sk, su ch a s
st ickin g t o on e cr it er ion for bot h ca t egor ies. In dividu a ls
in a vigila n t st a t e fr om a pr even t ion focu s wa n t t o a void
er r or s of com m ission a n d t h u s sh ou ld be in clin ed t o be
r epet it ive. In con t r a st , in dividu a ls in a n ea ger st a t e fr om
a pr om ot ion focu s wa n t t o a ccom plish “h it s” a n d t h u s
sh ou ld be in clin ed a ga in st a st r a t egy t h a t om it s a lt er n a t ives. Th u s, wh en t h e t a sk per m it s, on e wou ld expect
su ch in dividu a ls t o u se differ en t cr it er ia .
Th is h ypot h esized differ en ce in st r a t egic in clin a t ion s
for con sider in g a lt er n a t ives wa s t est ed in ou r fir st st u dy
by in clu din g t wo a ddit ion a l t a sks a m on g t h e in it ia l set
of t a sks. On e of t h ese t a sks wa s a sor t in g t a sk like t h e
on e ju st descr ibed. A secon d t a sk wa s a ch a r a ct er ist ic
list in g t a sk t h a t per m it t ed gen er a t in g m a n y differ en t
a lt er n a t ives. P a r t icipa n t s a r e pr esen t ed wit h t h e
n a m es of fu r n it u r e object s, su ch a s desk, cou ch , or bed,
a n d a r e a sked t o wr it e down a ll of t h e ch a r a ct er ist ics
t h ey ca n t h in k of for ea ch object . It wa s h ypot h esized
t h a t in dividu a ls wit h a pr om ot ion focu s, com pa r ed t o
in dividu a ls wit h a pr even t ion focu s, wou ld be m or e flu en t in list in g u n iqu e ch a r a ct er ist ics for t h e differ en t
m em ber s of a ca t egor y beca u se of t h eir st r on ger st r a t egic in clin a t ion t o gen er a t e m a n y differ en t a lt er n a t ives
wh en possible. In con t r a st , in dividu a ls wit h a pr even t ion focu s, wh o a r e in clin ed t o a void er r or s of com m ission , sh ou ld be m or e r epet it ive t h a n in dividu a ls wit h
a pr om ot ion focu s (con t r ollin g for flu en cy).
Th e fir st st u dy exa m in es per for m a n ce wh en exper ien cin g difficu lt y a n d gen er a t in g a lt er n a t ives. E a ch of
t h ese m ea su r es per m it s a t est of t h e pr oposa l t h a t in dividu a ls in a n ea ger st a t e fr om a pr om ot ion focu s a r e in clin ed t o in su r e h it s a n d in su r e a ga in st er r or s of om ission , wh er ea s in dividu a ls in a vigila n t st a t e fr om a
pr even t ion focu s a r e in clin ed t o in su r e cor r ect r eject ion s
a n d in su r e a ga in st er r or s of com m ission . Given t h a t t h is
pr oposa l wa s in spir ed by a sign a l det ect ion a n a lysis, it
wou ld be r ea son a ble t o t est it a s well wit h a sign a l det ect ion t a sk. Th is wa s t h e a im of ou r secon d st u dy wh ich
exa m in ed decision s on a r ecogn it ion m em or y t a sk.
S TU D Y 1
Me th o d
Participan ts
Colu m bia Un iver sit y u n der gr a du a t es wer e pa id t o
com plet e a ba t t er y of qu est ion n a ir es. Of t h ose wh o h a d
a ppr opr ia t ely filled ou t t h e cr it ica l qu est ion n a ir es for
t h e st u dy, 138 wer e r a n dom ly select ed a n d sch edu led
t o pa r t icipa t e a s pa id su bject s in t h e exper im en t t h a t
t ook pla ce a ppr oxim a t ely t wo m on t h s a ft er t h e ba t t er y.
M aterials
As pa r t of t h e ba t t er y com plet ed weeks befor e t h e
exper im en t , a ll pa r t icipa n t s filled ou t t h e Ta sk Ra t in g
Qu est ion n a ir e a n d t h e Selves Qu est ion n a ir e.
Task ratin g qu estion n aire. Th is qu est ion n a ir e a sks
r espon den t s t o r a t e 16 t a sks or a ct ivit ies on a
7-poin t Liker t sca le, fr om ⫺3 (Dislike Ver y Mu ch ) t o
⫹3 (Like Ver y Mu ch ). Th e t a sks in clu ded su ch a ct ivit ies
a s solit a ir e, a lph a bet izin g, pla yin g a video ga m e, pr oofr ea din g, t r a n scr ibin g a u diot a pes, a n d pla yin g bla ckja ck
(“21”). E a ch pa r t icipa n t ’s m ost liked t a sk a n d lea st liked
t a sk wer e select ed fr om t h eir r a t in gs t o be u sed a s pa r t
of t h e exper im en t a l fr a m in g t o be descr ibed la t er.
S elves qu estion n aire. Th is qu est ion n a ir e a sks r espon den t s t o list u p t o 8 or 10 a t t r ibu t es for ea ch of
t h r ee differ en t self-st a t es: (a ) t h eir a ct u a l self, t h e kin d
of per son t h ey believe t h ey a ct u a lly a r e; (b) t h eir idea l
self, t h e kin d of per son t h a t som eon e (self or ot h er )
wou ld idea lly like t h em t o be, som eon e’s h opes, wish es,
a n d a spir a t ion s for t h em ; a n d (c) t h eir ou gh t self, t h e
kin d of per son t h a t som eon e (self or ot h er ) believes
t h ey ou gh t t o be, som eon e’s beliefs a bou t t h eir du t ies,
obliga t ion s a n d r espon sibilit ies. Th e qu est ion n a ir e is
a dm in ist er ed in t wo sect ion s, t h e fir st in volvin g t h e
r espon den t ’s own st a n dpoin t a n d t h e secon d in volvin g
t h e st a n dpoin t s of t h e r espon den t ’s sign ifica n t ot h er s
(i.e., m ot h er a n d fa t h er ). Th e m a gn it u de of t h e selfdiscr epa n cy bet ween t h e a ct u a l self a n d ea ch of t h e
idea l a n d ou gh t self-st a t es is ca lcu la t ed by su m m in g
t h e t ot a l n u m ber of m ism a t ch es wit h t h e a ct u a l self,
t h en su bt r a ct in g t h e t ot a l n u m ber of m a t ch es wit h t h e
a ct u a l self (see H iggin s, Bon d, Klein , & St r a u m a n ,
1986). Beca u se t h e pr esen t st u dies wer e con cer n ed wit h
h ow sit u a t ion a lly-in du ced r egu la t or y focu s in flu en ces
st r a t egic in clin a t ion s, we wa n t ed t o con t r ol for t h e effect s of ch r on ic st r a t egic pr edisposit ion s. Th u s, t h e differ en t self-discr epa n cies wer e in clu ded a s cova r ia t es in
t h e m u lt iple r egr ession a n a lyses.
M ood qu estion n aire. Du r in g t h e exper im en t a l session , m ea su r es of pa r t icipa n t s’ m ood wer e t a ken t o
ch eck on wh et h er t h e exper im en t a l fr a m in g m a n ipu la t ion it self or t h e t a sks t h em selves h a d em ot ion a l effect s.
We did n ot expect t o pr odu ce ch a n ges in em ot ion s beca u se t h e pa r t icipa n t s wer e given n o feedba ck a bou t
t h eir level of per for m a n ce a n d, in deed, t h er e wa s n o
r igh t or wr on g a n swer on t wo of t h e five t a sks u sed.
St ill, we wer e con cer n ed a bou t t h is possibilit y beca u se
COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL
a n y ch a n ge in t h e pa r t icipa n t s’ m ood m igh t it self in flu en ce t h eir st r a t egic in clin a t ion s. Th e m ood m ea su r es
per m it t ed u s bot h t o ch eck on a n d t o con t r ol for t h is
possibilit y. Mood wa s a ssessed t h r ee t im es—on ce a t t h e
ver y begin n in g of t h e exper im en t a l session , on ce a bou t
h a lfwa y t h r ou gh t h e st u dy (i.e., a ft er t h e sor t in g t a sk),
a n d a ga in a t t h e ver y en d of t h e session .
Th e Mood Qu est ion n a ir e con t a in ed 16 differ en t m ood
t er m s. Beca u se idea l self-r egu la t ion pr odu ces
ch eer fu ln ess/deject ion -r ela t ed em ot ion s wh er ea s ou gh t
self-r egu la t ion pr odu ces qu iescen ce/a git a t ion -r ela t ed
em ot ion s (see H iggin s, 1996b), t h e m ood qu est ion n a ir e
wa s con st r u ct ed t o in clu de posit ive a n d n ega t ive it em s
fr om ea ch of t h ese t wo em ot ion a l dim en sion s: (a ) ch eer fu ln ess-r ela t ed feelin gs (h a ppy, u pbea t a n d sa t isfied);
(b) deject ion -r ela t ed feelin gs (discou r a ged, sa d, a n d disa ppoin t ed); (c) a git a t ion -r ela t ed feelin gs (u n ea sy, t en se,
a n d wor r ied); a n d (d) qu iescen ce-r ela t ed feelin gs (ca lm ,
secu r e, a n d r ela xed). Th e r em a in in g fou r m ood t er m s
wer e gen er a l feelin gs u n r ela t ed t o t h ese t wo em ot ion a l
dim en sion s. Most of t h e m ood t er m s wer e t a ken fr om
t wo m ood fa ct or s in t h e Sem a n t ic Differ en t ia l Mood
Sca le (Lor r a n d Wu n der lich , 1988)—Ch eer fu l–
Depr essed, a n d Rela xed–An xiou s. Som e m or e ext r em e
it em s (e.g., gloom y) wer e ch a n ged t o less ext r em e it em s
(e.g., discou r a ged). F or ea ch m ood t er m , t h e r espon den t s wer e a sked t o in dica t e wh ich ext en t r a t in g “best
descr ibes H OW YOU F E E L RIGH T NOW” on a 5-poin t
Liker t sca le t h a t r a n ged fr om 0 (Not a t a ll) t o 4 (Ver y).
All of t h e pa r t icipa n t s wor ked on t h e followin g five
t a sks in t h e or der list ed:
Ch aracteristic listin g. Th is t a sk wa s ba sed on a n
a t t r ibu t e list in g t a sk em ployed by Miku lin cer, Kedem ,
a n d P a z (1990). P a r t icipa n t s wer e pr esen t ed wit h t h e
n a m es of eigh t object s, ea ch on a sepa r a t e sh eet of pa per, a n d wer e t old t o wr it e down a ll of t h e ch a r a ct er ist ics t h ey cou ld t h in k of for ea ch object . P a r t icipa n t s
wer e given 1 1/2 m in per object . Th ey com plet ed t h e
pa ges in t h e or der pr esen t ed, a n d cou ld n ot look for wa r d
or ba ckwa r d a t pa ges ot h er t h a n t h e on e t h ey wer e
wor kin g on . Th e eigh t object s, on eigh t differ en t pa ges,
wer e (in or der of a ppea r a n ce): desk, cou ch , bookca se,
t a ble, ca bin et , bed, ch a ir, m ir r or. All object s wer e m em ber s of t h e su per or din a t e sem a n t ic ca t egor y of fu r n it u r e
a s det er m in ed by Rosch (1975).
Cou n tin g back w ard s. P a r t icipa n t s in t h is t a sk ver ba lly cou n t ed ba ckwa r ds fr om a given n u m ber by a n
a ssign ed decr em en t . Th ey wer e given 1 m in in wh ich
t o do so, a n d wer e t old t h a t t h e pu r pose of t h e t a sk wa s
t o see h ow m a n y n u m ber s t h ey cou ld get in a m in u t e.
Th ey per for m ed t h is t a sk t wo t im es. Th e fir st t r ia l in volved decr em en t s of 6, wh ich is r ela t ively ea sy, a n d
6
t h e secon d t r ia l in volved decr em en t s of 9, wh ich is r ela t ively difficu lt .
S ortin g. Th is t a sk wa s ba sed on a sor t in g t a sk em ployed by Miku lin cer, Kedem , a n d P a z (1990). P a r t icipa n t s wer e given a set of 12 m em ber s of a given ca t egor y, a n d wer e in st r u ct ed t o sor t or sepa r a t e t h is set of
it em s in t o su bgr ou ps a ccor din g t o a sin gle cr it er ion or
dim en sion wh ich m a de sen se t o t h em . Th ey fir st sor t ed
a list of fr u it s a n d t h en sor t ed a list of veget a bles. On ly
t h e n a m es of t h e it em s a ppea r ed on ea ch pa ge—n o pict u r es wer e in clu ded. Th e fr u it s a n d veget a bles list ed
wer e a ll m em ber s of t h e sem a n t ic ca t egor ies a s det er m in ed by Rosch (1975). Th e t welve fr u it s wer e [list ed
in or der ]: or a n ge, st r a wber r y, ba n a n a , pea r, lim e, pin ea pple, a pple, gr a pes, blu eber r y, r a spber r y, wa t er m elon ,
plu m . Th e t welve veget a bles wer e [list ed in or der ]: pea s,
cu cu m ber s, gr een bea n s, spin a ch , eggpla n t , cor n , let t u ce, beet s, celer y, ca r r ot s, gr een pepper s, br occoli.
Th er e wa s n o t im e lim it , a n d t h er e wer e n o r est r ict ion s
on t h e n u m ber of su bgr ou ps or t h e n u m ber of it em s per
su bgr ou p. Th e on ly st ipu la t ion wa s t h a t t h e su bgr ou ps
r epr esen t differ en t va lu es on t h e sa m e dim en sion (e.g.,
fr u it s of differ en t color s). Aft er com plet in g t h e secon d
pa ge in wh ich t h ey sor t ed veget a bles, t h e pa r t icipa n t s
wer e a sked on t h e t h ir d pa ge t o wr it e down a s m a n y
d ifferen t cr it er ia a s t h ey cou ld t h in k of, a s m a n y dim en sion s a s possible, for sepa r a t in g t h e sa m e set of 12
veget a bles in t o su bgr ou ps, exclu din g t h e dim en sion
t h ey h a d u sed t o sor t t h e veget a bles on t h e pr eviou s
pa ge. Th ey wer e a llowed a s m u ch t im e a s t h ey n eeded
t o com plet e t h is exer cise.
E m bed d ed figu res. Th is t a sk wa s developed by Wit kin , Olt m a n , Ra skin , a n d Ka r p (1971; see a lso Ru ebu sh ,
1960). As descr ibed by t h em , t h e pa r t icipa n t ’s “t a sk on
ea ch t r ia l is t o loca t e a pr eviou sly seen sim ple figu r e
wit h in a la r ger com plex figu r e wh ich h a s been so or ga n ized a s t o obscu r e or em bed t h e sou gh t -a ft er sim ple
figu r e (p. 3).” Th e sim ple a n d com plex figu r es wer e
geom et r ic sh a pes t h a t fit on 3⬙ ⫻ 5⬙ ca r ds. Th e sim ple
design wa s a lwa ys pr esen t in t h e com plex on e. Addit ion a lly, t h e sim ple figu r e wa s a lwa ys r igh t side u p
a n d h a d t h e sa m e size in side t h e com plex figu r e. Th r ee
m in u t es (180 s) wa s a llot t ed for ea ch figu r e. Given t h a t
t h e n or m s for college st u den t s fa ll in t h e r a n ge of 46
t o 70 s per figu r e for t h is t est (Wit kin et a l., 1971),
t h is wa s con sider ed t o be a n a m ple a m ou n t of t im e for
pa r t icipa n t s t o wor k on ea ch figu r e. Th e pa r t icipa n t s
wer e given seven em bedded figu r es. Six of t h e figu r es
wer e in color a n d on e wa s in bla ck a n d wh it e. P r et est in g
of t h e figu r es h a d in dica t ed t h a t t h e bla ck a n d wh it e
figu r e wa s clea r ly t h e m ost difficu lt . Th is difficu lt figu r e
COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL
per m it t ed a t est of per sist en ce by m ea su r in g t h e per cen t a ge of pa r t icipa n t s in ea ch con dit ion wh o qu it wor kin g on t h e figu r e.
An agram s. Th e pa r t icipa n t s wer e a sked t o com plet e fou r a n a gr a m s, on e per pa ge. Th e in st r u ct ion s
wer e t o com plet e t h e pa ges in or der, a n d t h e pa r t icipa n t s wer e n ot a llowed t o r et u r n t o a pa ge on ce t h ey
h a d com plet ed it . Th er e wa s n o t im e lim it per pa ge.
Th e fou r a n a gr a m s, in or der, wer e: “cleet s”, “t isr n p”,
“t oh ca ss” a n d “wder r a ”. Th e fir st t wo h a d t wo solu t ion s
ea ch , a n d t h e la st h a d fou r solu t ion s. Th e t h ir d a n a gr a m wa s u n solva ble. P a r t icipa n t s wer e t old t h a t ea ch
a n a gr a m cou ld h a ve m u lt iple solu t ion s or n o solu t ion .
Befor e begin n in g, t h e pa r t icipa n t s wer e given a pr a ct ice
a n a gr a m t h a t wa s ea sier t h a n t h e t a sk a n a gr a m s.
Proced u re
Upon a r r ivin g a t t h e exper im en t a l session , t h e pa r t icipa n t s wer e a sked t o com plet e t h e Mood Qu est ion n a ir e. Th ey wer e t old t h a t st u dies h a ve sh own t h a t
m ood ca n in flu en ce per for m a n ce a n d su ch effect s wou ld
in t er fer e wit h t h e a im s of ou r r esea r ch . Th u s, we wou ld
like t o det er m in e wh et h er m ood is in flu en cin g per for m a n ce on ou r st u dy so t h a t we ca n cor r ect for it if it is.
Usin g t h e pa r t icipa n t s’ ea r lier idiogr a ph ic r espon ses
t o t h e Ta sk Ra t in g Qu est ion n a ir e, on e a ct ivit y wa s select ed for t h e exper im en t t h a t a pa r t icipa n t clea r ly liked
a n d a n ot h er wa s select ed t h a t t h e pa r t icipa n t clea r ly
disliked. Aft er com plet in g t h e Mood Qu est ion n a ir e, t h e
pa r t icipa n t s wer e t old t h a t t h ey wou ld fir st per for m
a n in it ia l set of five exer cises [t h e exper im en t a l t a sks
descr ibed a bove] a n d t h en t h ey wou ld be a ssign ed a
fin a l t a sk. Th e liked a ct ivit y (e.g., pla yin g a video ga m e)
a n d t h e disliked a ct ivit y (e.g., pr oofr ea din g) wer e ea ch
fu lly descr ibed a s a n a lt er n a t ive fin a l t a sk t h a t a pa r t icipa n t m igh t per for m . P r ops r ela t ed t o a pa r t icipa n t ’s
a lt er n a t ive fin a l t a sk wer e a lso in clu ded (e.g., a deck
of ca r ds for solit a ir e) t o con vin ce pa r t icipa n t s t h a t eit h er of t h ese t a sks cou ld be t h eir fin a l t a sk. Th e debr iefin g a t t h e en d of t h e exper im en t a l session in dica t ed
t h a t t h e pa r t icipa n t s believed t h a t t h ey wou ld per for m
on e of t h ese t a sks du r in g t h e session .
F ou r of t h e exper im en t a l fr a m in g con dit ion s wer e
con tin gen cy con dit ion s in wh ich pa r t icipa n t s wer e t old
t h a t wh ich of t h e a lt er n a t ive fin a l t a sks t h ey wou ld
wor k on a t t h e en d of t h e session depen ded on t h eir
per for m a n ce on a n in it ia l set of five exer cises [t h e five
exper im en t a l t a sks pr ovidin g t h e depen den t m ea su r es]. Th e r ela t ion bet ween t h e in it ia l set of exer cises
a n d t h e fin a l t a sk wa s descr ibed a s con t in gen t for ever yon e, bu t t h e fr a m in g va r ied in differ en t con dit ion s a s
a fu n ct ion of bot h r egu la t or y focu s a n d va len ce. All
in st r u ct ion s bega n wit h , “We’r e n ow goin g t o h a ve you
7
com plet e a ser ies of differ en t a t t en t ion a n d pr oblem solvin g m ea su r es. You r per for m a n ce on t h ese t a sks will
det er m in e wh a t you r fin a l t a sk will be, a n d it will be
on e of 2 t h in gs, eit h er [pa r t icipa n t ’s liked t a sk] or [pa r t icipa n t ’s disliked t a sk].” Th e in st r u ct ion s t h en va r ied
a cr oss con dit ion s, a s follows:
(a ) P r om ot ion Wor kin g—“If you do well on t h e exer cises I’m a bou t t o give you , you will get t o do t h e [pa r t icipa n t ’s liked t a sk] in st ea d of t h e ot h er t a sk.”
(b) P r om ot ion Not Wor kin g—“If you don ’t do well
on t h e exer cises I’m a bou t t o give you , you won ’t get t o
do t h e [pa r t icipa n t ’s liked t a sk] bu t will do t h e ot h er
t a sk in st ea d.”
(c) P r even t ion Wor kin g—“As lon g a s you don ’t do
poor ly on t h e exer cises I’m a bou t t o give you , you won ’t
h a ve t o do t h e [pa r t icipa n t ’s disliked t a sk] bu t will do
t h e ot h er t a sk in st ea d.”
(d) P r even t ion Not Wor kin g—“If you do poor ly on
t h e exer cises I’m a bou t t o give you , you will h a ve t o do
t h e [pa r t icipa n t ’s disliked t a sk] in st ea d of t h e ot h er
t a sk.”
In a ddit ion t o t h ese fou r con tin gen t fr a m in g con dit ion s, t h er e wa s a lso on e exper im en t a l n on con tin gen t
fr a m in g con dit ion . H er e t h e r ela t ion bet ween t h e in it ia l
set of exer cises a n d t h e fin a l t a sk wa s descr ibed a s
n on con t in gen t . Th e t wo a lt er n a t ive fin a l t a sks wer e
descr ibed a n d t h e pa r t icipa n t s wer e t old t h a t on e of
t h ese t a sks wou ld be ran d om ly a ssign ed t o t h em , a s
follows: “We’r e n ow goin g t o h a ve you com plet e a ser ies
of differ en t a t t en t ion a n d pr oblem -solvin g m ea su r es.
Aft er you h a ve com plet ed t h ese t a sks, you r fin al task
w ill be ran d om ly assign ed to you , a n d it will be on e of
t wo t h in gs, eit h er [pa r t icipa n t ’s liked t a sk] or [pa r t icipa n t ’s disliked t a sk].” By in clu din g a n on con t in gen t
fr a m in g con dit ion , it wa s possible t o exa m in e h ow t h e
va r ia ble of con t in gen cy per se in flu en ced st r a t egic in clin a t ion s.
Th e pa r t icipa n t s wer e r a n dom ly a ssign ed t o on e of
t h e a bove five fr a m in g con dit ion s u pon a r r iva l a t t h e
exper im en t . Th er e wer e 28 pa r t icipa n t s in t h e “P r om ot ion Not Wor kin g” con dit ion a n d 29 in t h e “P r even t ion
Wor kin g” con dit ion . Th er e wer e 27 pa r t icipa n t s in ea ch
of t h e r em a in in g t h r ee con dit ion s. E a ch pa r t icipa n t r em a in ed in on e of t h ese five con dit ion s wh ile wor kin g
on a ll of t h e in it ia l set of exer cises. Th e pa r t icipa n t s
wer e r em in ded of t h eir specific con t in gen cy or n on con t in gen cy con dit ion h a lfwa y t h r ou gh t h e in it ia l set of
t a sks (i.e., a ft er t h e sor t in g t a sk), a n d t h ey filled ou t t h e
Mood Qu est ion n a ir e for t h e secon d t im e a t t h is poin t .
Aft er fin ish in g t h e An a gr a m s t a sk, t h e pa r t icipa n t s
filled ou t t h e Mood Qu est ion n a ir e for a t h ir d t im e. At
t h is poin t , t h e exper im en t wa s over. All pa r t icipa n t s
wer e t old t h a t t h ey h a d don e well on t h e exer cises. Th ey
wer e t h en t h a n ked a n d fu lly debr iefed.
COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL
Re s u lts a n d D is c u s s io n
M eth od s of An alysis
Mu lt iple r egr ession a n a lyses wer e per for m ed on t h e
depen den t va r ia bles t o a ssess t h e in depen den t effect s
of ea ch fr a m in g va r ia ble wh ile con t r ollin g for a ll t h e
ot h er va r ia bles. Differ en ces a m on g t h e fou r con t in gen cy
fr a m in g con dit ion s wer e exa m in ed by in clu din g t wo
differ en t fr a m in g va r ia bles in t h e a n a lysis. Th e fir st
fr a m in g va r ia ble wa s R egu latory Focu s, dist in gu ish in g
bet ween pr om ot ion focu s con dit ion s (P r om ot ion Wor kin g; P r om ot ion Not Wor kin g) a n d pr even t ion focu s con dit ion s (P r even t ion Wor kin g; P r even t ion Not Wor kin g).
Th e secon d fr a m in g va r ia ble wa s Valen ce, dist in gu ish in g bet ween plea sa n t or posit ive va len ce con dit ion s
(P r om ot ion Wor kin g; P r even t ion Wor kin g) a n d pa in fu l
or n ega t ive va len ce con dit ion s (P r om ot ion Not Wor kin g;
P r even t ion Not Wor kin g).
Differ en ces bet ween t h e fou r con t in gen cy fr a m in g
con dit ion s com bin ed a n d t h e n on con t in gen cy fr a m in g
con dit ion wer e a lso a n a lysed a s a Con tin gen cy va r ia ble
(Con t in gen cy F r a m in g; Non con t in gen cy F r a m in g).
Two- a n d t h r ee-wa y in t er a ct ion t er m s wer e a lso in clu ded in t h e m u lt iple r egr ession t o det er m in e wh et h er
a n y in t er a ct ion effect s occu r r ed a m on g Regu la t or y
F ocu s, Va len ce, a n d Con t in gen cy. F in a lly, ea ch r egr ession a n a lysis in clu ded pa r t icipa n t s’idea l a n d ou gh t discr epa n cy scor es a s cova r ia t es. (P ossible in t er a ct ion s bet ween self-discr epa n cies a n d t h e ot h er va r ia bles wer e
a lso in vest iga t ed bu t n on e wer e sign ifica n t .)
M otivation al R espon se to Difficu lty
It wa s pr oposed ea r lier t h a t t h e pr om ot ion focu s in clin a t ion is t o in su r e h it s a n d in su r e a ga in st er r or s of
om ission , wh er ea s t h e pr even t ion focu s in clin a t ion is
t o in su r e cor r ect r eject ion s a n d in su r e a ga in st er r or s
of com m ission . Wh en a t a sk becom es difficu lt , or ju st
followin g fa ilu r e, pr om ot ion focu s in dividu a ls sh ou ld be
ea ger t o fin d “h it s” a n d in su r e a ga in st om it t in g a n y
possible “h it s,” wh er ea s pr even t ion focu s in dividu a ls
sh ou ld be vigila n t a ga in st m ist a kes a n d in su r e a ga in st
com m it t in g t h e er r or of pr odu cin g t h em . Wh en a t a sk
becom es difficu lt , t h en , on e wou ld expect pr om ot ion
focu s in dividu a ls t o per for m bet t er a n d pr even t ion focu s
in dividu a ls t o qu it m or e r ea dily. Th e r esu lt s on t h r ee
of t h e t a sks a r e r eleva n t t o t h is h ypot h esis.
An agram s. Th e pa r t icipa n t s com plet ed t wo solva ble a n a gr a m s befor e en cou n t er in g t h e u n solva ble a n a gr a m . Th ey wer e given a s m u ch t im e a s t h ey wa n t ed
t o wor k on ea ch of t h e a n a gr a m s a n d t im e spen t wor kin g on t h e a n a gr a m s wa s in clu ded a s a cova r ia t e. A
r egr ession a n a lysis on t h e n u m ber of solu t ion s fou n d for
t h e fir st t wo solva ble a n a gr a m s r evea led n o sign ifica n t
8
effect s (a ll F’s ⬍ 1). In con t r a st , a r egr ession a n a lysis on
t h e n u m ber of solu t ion s fou n d for t h e solva ble a n a gr a m
t h a t follow ed t h e u n solva ble a n a gr a m (con t r ollin g for
solu t ion s t o t h e a n a gr a m s pr ecedin g t h e u n solva ble
a n a gr a m a n d t im e spen t on t h e u n solva ble a n a gr a m )
r evea led a sign ifica n t effect of r egu la t or y focu s, F(1,115)
⫽ 4.6, p ⬍ .05. As pr edict ed, pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr om ot ion focu s con dit ion fou n d m or e solu t ion s (M ⫽ 1.5; wit h
a m a xim u m of 4) t h a n pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr even t ion
focu s con dit ion (M ⫽ 1.0). Th er e wer e n o ot h er sign ifica n t effect s.
E m bed d ed figu res. As discu ssed ea r lier, t h e em bedded figu r es t a sk per m it t ed a n a ddit ion a l t est of t h e
effect s of t a sk difficu lt y on per sist en ce beca u se it in clu ded on e especia lly difficu lt pr oblem . Th e pa r t icipa n t s wer e given t h e opt ion of qu it t in g a n y em bedded
figu r e a n d m ovin g on t o t h e n ext on e if t h ey wa n t ed;
t h a t is, t h ey wer e t old t h a t a t a n y t im e t h ey cou ld st op
sea r ch in g for a n y sim ple figu r e t h ey h a d n ot yet fou n d.
Th e pa r t icipa n t s r a r ely qu it sea r ch in g for m or e t h a n
on e of t h e em bedded figu r es a n d, a s expect ed, t h e figu r e
t h a t t h ey t ypica lly qu it wa s t h e m ost difficu lt on e. (It
wa s t h e fift h pr oblem in t h e sequ en ce of seven pr oblem s.) A logist ic r egr ession a n a lysis on qu it t in g t h is
difficu lt figu r e r evea led a bor der lin e sign ifica n t effect
of r egu la t or y focu s, Wa ld ⫽ 3.37, p ⬍ .07. As expect ed,
t h e pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr even t ion focu s con dit ion wer e
m or e likely t o qu it t h is difficu lt figu r e (54%) t h a n t h e
pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr om ot ion focu s con dit ion (35%).
Cou n tin g back w ard s. Th is t a sk in clu ded bot h r ela t ively ea sy a n d r ela t ively difficu lt t r ia ls of cou n t in g
ba ckwa r ds. It wa s h ypot h esized t h a t h igh er m ot iva t ion
a n d per for m a n ce wit h a pr om ot ion t h a n a pr even t ion
focu s wou ld a ppea r wh en t h e t a sk beca m e difficu lt . Th e
pa r t icipa n t s wer e given t wo t r ia ls of cou n t in g ba ckwa r ds, cou n t in g fir st by a n in t er va l of 6 a n d t h en by a
in t er va l of 9. As expect ed, t h e pa r t icipa n t s fou n d t h e
fir st t r ia l ea sier a s r eflect ed in t h eir cou n t in g m a r kedly
fa st er on t h e fir st t r ia l (M ⫽ 21.7 n u m ber s/m in ) t h a n
on t h e secon d t r ia l (M ⫽ 14.8 n u m ber s/m in ), F(1,117)
⫽ 10.9, p ⬍ .0001.
A r egr ession a n a lysis fir st r evea led a sign ifica n t effect of con t in gen cy on cou n t in g speed du r in g t h e fir st
t r ia l, F(1,118) ⫽ 7.9, p ⬍ .01, r eflect in g t h e fa ct t h a t on
t h e fir st t r ia l pa r t icipa n t s in t h e con t in gen cy con dit ion
cou n t ed m or e qu ickly (M ⫽ 22.4 n u m ber s/m in ) t h a n
pa r t icipa n t s in t h e n on con t in gen cy con dit ion (M ⫽ 18.7
n u m ber s/m in ). Th e effect wa s in t h e sa m e dir ect ion on
t h e secon d t r ia l bu t it wa s n on sign ifica n t . Th er e wer e
n o ot h er m a in effect s bu t t h er e wa s a sign ifica n t Regu la t or y F ocu s ⫻ Tr ia l Or der in t er a ct ion , F(1,117) ⫽ 3.9,
p ⫽ .05. Con sist en t wit h ou r pr edict ion , on t h e ea sier
COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL
fir st t r ia l t h e pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr even t ion focu s con dit ion wer e som ewh a t fa st er (M ⫽ 22.9 n u m ber s/m in )
t h a n pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr om ot ion focu s con dit ion (M
⫽ 21.9 n u m ber s/m in ), wh er ea s on t h e m or e difficu lt
secon d t r ia l t h e pr even t ion focu s pa r t icipa n t s wer e
som ewh a t slower (M ⫽ 14.7 n u m ber s/m in ) t h a n t h e
pr om ot ion focu s pa r t icipa n t s (M ⫽ 15.3 n u m ber s/m in ).
It sh ou ld be n ot ed, m or eover, t h a t t h e slower speed of
t h e pr even t ion focu s pa r t icipa n t s on t h e secon d t r ia l
wa s n ot in t h e ser vice of r edu cin g er r or s beca u se, if
a n yt h in g, t h ey a lso h a d m or e er r or s on t h e secon d t r ia l
(M ⫽ 1.3) t h a n t h e pr om ot ion focu s pa r t icipa n t s
(M ⫽ 0.9).
Gen eratin g Altern atives
It wa s pr oposed ea r lier t h a t , given a t a sk wh er e gen er a t in g a n y n u m ber of a lt er n a t ives is cor r ect , in dividu a ls in a pr even t ion focu s st a t e wou ld t en d t o be r ela t ively r epet it ive a n d gen er a t e less a lt er n a t ives t h a n
in dividu a ls in a pr om ot ion focu s st a t e. We pr oposed
t h a t in dividu a ls in a vigila n t st a t e fr om a pr even t ion
focu s wa n t t o a void er r or s of com m ission a n d t h u s
sh ou ld be in clin ed t o u se t h e st r a t egy of st ickin g t o a s
few a lt er n a t ives a s possible a n d r epea t in g on es a lr ea dy
u sed. On t h e ot h er h a n d, st ickin g t o a s few a lt er n a t ives
a s possible m ea n s t h a t som e possibilit ies will be om it t ed
du r in g t h e t a sk. We pr oposed t h a t in dividu a ls in a n
ea ger st a t e fr om a pr om ot ion focu s wa n t t o a ccom plish
“h it s” a n d t h u s sh ou ld n ot be in clin ed t o u se t h is st r a t egy. In deed, in a t a sk wh er e m a n y differ en t a lt er n a t ives
cou ld be pr odu ced, we pr oposed t h a t t h ese in dividu a ls
wou ld be in clin ed t o gen er a t e m a n y differ en t a lt er n a t ives. Bot h t h e ch a r a ct er ist ic list in g t a sk a n d t h e sor t in g t a sk dir ect ly t est ed t h is h ypot h esis.
Ch aracteristic listin g. Wh en cou n t in g t h e n u m ber
of ch a r a ct er ist ics list ed for ea ch it em , a ll r epet it ion s,
in clu din g syn on ym s, wer e exclu ded. Th e a ver a ge n u m ber of ch a r a ct er ist ics t h a t pa r t icipa n t s list ed per it em
on t h is t a sk is a m ea su r e of t h eir flu en cy in gen er a t in g
u n iqu e a spect s of t h ese differ en t m em ber s of t h e fu r n it u r e ca t egor y. Th e m u lt iple r egr ession a n a lysis on t h is
flu en cy m ea su r e r evea led a bor der lin e sign ifica n t effect
of r egu la t or y focu s, F(1,117) ⫽ 3.7, p ⬍ .06. As pr edict ed,
pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr om ot ion focu s con dit ion displa yed
m or e flu en cy (M ⫽ 10.0) t h a n pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr even t ion focu s con dit ion (M ⫽ 9.0). No ot h er effect s wer e
sign ifica n t . As a n ot h er in dica t or of ch a r a ct er ist ic list in g st yle, t h e a ver a ge n u m ber of t im es a su bject repeated t er m s or wor ds wh en descr ibin g m or e t h a n on e
it em wa s ca lcu la t ed. Th e n u m ber of possible r epet it ion s
for a n y specific t er m va r ied fr om 2 t o 8. A m u lt iple
r egr ession a n a lysis on t h e m ea n n u m ber of t er m r epet it ion s a cr oss a ll it em s (con t r ollin g for flu en cy) r evea led
9
a bor der lin e sign ifica n t effect of r egu la t or y focu s,
F(1,116) ⫽ 3.7, p ⬍ .06. As pr edict ed, pa r t icipa n t s in
t h e pr even t ion focu s con dit ion h a d h igh er r epet it ion
scor es (M ⫽ 2.8) t h a n pa r t icipa n t s in pr om ot ion focu s
con dit ion (M ⫽ 2.5). Th er e wer e n o ot h er sign ifica n t effect s.
S ortin g. Th e fir st m ea su r e wa s t h e t ot a l n u m ber of
su bgr ou ps t h a t pa r t icipa n t s gen er a t ed in bot h t h e fr u it
a n d veget a ble sor t in gs t oget h er. Th er e wa s n o t im e
lim it on t h e sor t in g t a sk a n d pa r t icipa n t s va r ied in
h ow m u ch t im e t h ey spen t . Alt h ou gh t h e con dit ion s
t h em selves did n ot differ in t im e spen t sor t in g, t im e
spen t wa s in clu ded a s a cova r ia t e in t h e a n a lysis. Mu lt iple r egr ession on t h is m ea su r e of t ot a l n u m ber of su bgr ou ps gen er a t ed r evea led bot h a bor der lin e sign ifica n t
effect of r egu la t or y focu s, F(1,117) ⫽ 3.2, p ⬍ .07, a n d
a sign ifica n t effect of va len ce, F(1,117) ⫽ 4.4, p ⬍ .05. As
pr edict ed, pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr om ot ion focu s con dit ion
sor t ed t h e it em s in t o m or e su bgr ou ps (M ⫽ 6.3) t h a n
pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr even t ion focu s con dit ion (M ⫽
5.7). In a ddit ion , pa r t icipa n t s in t h e posit ive va len ce
con dit ion pr odu ced m or e su bgr ou ps (M ⫽ 6.4) t h a n pa r t icipa n t s in t h e n ega t ive va len ce con dit ion (M ⫽ 5.7).
Th er e wer e n o ot h er sign ifica n t effect s.
Th e t wo m a in effect s m ea n t t h a t pa r t icipa n t s in t h e
P r even t ion Not Wor kin g con dit ion pr odu ced a n especia lly low n u m ber of su bgr ou ps (M ⫽ 5.5), wh er ea s
pa r t icipa n t s in t h e P r om ot ion Wor kin g con dit ion pr odu ced a n especia lly h igh n u m ber of su bgr ou ps (M ⫽
6.7). On e possible expla n a t ion for t h is differ en ce is t h a t
pa r t icipa n t s in t h ese con dit ion s select ed differ en t ca t egor ies t h a t n a t u r a lly va r ied in t h eir su bgr ou pin g pot en t ia l, su ch a s t h e ca t egor y “H a s seeds [Yes; No]” ver su s
“color ” [gr een , r ed, yellow, et c.]. A r eview of t h e ca t egor ies select ed in t h e differ en t con dit ion s in dica t ed t h a t
t h is wa s n ot t h e ca se. In st ea d, t h e differ en ce wa s du e
m or e t o pa r t icipa n t s in t h e P r even t ion Not Wor kin g
con dit ion em ployin g t h e st r a t egy of ch oosin g on e su bgr ou p, “X,” a s a r efer en ce poin t a n d cr ea t in g t h e t wo
su bgr ou ps, “X” a n d “n ot X.” F or exa m ple, a pa r t icipa n t
m igh t ch oose t o sor t veget a bles in t o “gr een ” a n d “n ot
gr een ”.
To elim in a t e a n y possibilit y t h a t differ en ces in su bgr ou p pr odu ct ion wa s du e t o ch oice of ca t egor y for
gr ou pin g, a n a n a lysis wa s per for m ed on ju st t h e n u m ber of su bgr ou ps u sed wh en sor t in g veget a bles by
“color.” Th e ca t egor y of “color ” wa s select ed beca u se it
wa s t h e m ost fr equ en t ly em ployed ca t egor y for sor t in g
bot h fr u it s a n d veget a bles, a n d t h e a n a lysis wa s per for m ed on veget a bles beca u se color wa s m or e fr equ en t ly
u sed in sor t in g veget a bles t h a n in sor t in g fr u it . Th e
fr a m in g con dit ion s did n ot differ in h ow oft en pa r t icipa n t s u sed color a s t h eir sor t in g ca t egor y. Th e logist ic
COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL
r egr ession a n a lysis r evea led a sign ifica n t effect of r egu la t or y focu s, Wa ld ⫽ 5.2, p ⫽ .02. As expect ed, pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr even t ion focu s con dit ion wer e m or e likely
t o u se a n “X”/n ot “X” color sor t in g st r a t egy (58%) t h a n
pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr om ot ion focu s con dit ion (41%).
Th er e wer e n o ot h er sign ifica n t effect s.
Most of t h e cr it er ia t h a t wer e em ployed by pa r t icipa n t s in t h e sor t in g t a sk, su ch a s “color,” “size,” or
“t a st e,” cou ld h a ve been u sed t o sor t bot h t h e fr u it s a n d
t h e veget a bles list ed. Som e cr it er ia , su ch a s “cit r u s/
n on cit r u s” for fr u it s, cou ld be a pplied t o on ly on e list .
Th e pa r t icipa n t s wer e given n o in st r u ct ion s r ega r din g
wh et h er or n ot t h ey cou ld r epea t t h e cr it er ion em ployed
for sor t in g t h e fr u it s wh en sor t in g t h e veget a bles, a n d
it wa s cer t a in ly cor r ect t o do so. A logist ic r egr ession
a n a lysis on repeatin g t h e sor t in g ca t egor y wit h veget a bles t h a t h a d been pr eviou sly u sed wit h fr u it s (con t r ollin g for t h e n u m ber of su bgr ou ps pr odu ced) r evea led
a sign ifica n t effect of r egu la t or y focu s, Wa ld ⫽ 5.8,
p ⬍ .02. As expect ed, t h e pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr even t ion
focu s con dit ion wer e m or e likely t o r epea t t h eir sor t in g
cr it er ia wit h bot h fr u it s a n d veget a bles (28%) t h a n pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr om ot ion focu s con dit ion (14%). Th er e
wer e n o ot h er sign ifica n t effect s.
Aft er t h e pa r t icipa n t s h a d sor t ed bot h t h e set of fr u it s
a n d t h en t h e set of veget a bles, t h ey wer e a sked t o list
a s m a n y a ddit ion a l cr it er ia or dim en sion s a s t h ey cou ld
t h in k of for sor t in g t h e sa m e set of veget a bles (i.e., exclu din g t h e cr it er ia t h ey h a d ju st em ployed wh en sor t in g
t h e veget a bles.) A r egr ession a n a lysis of t h e n u m ber of
differ en t sor t in g cr it er ia pa r t icipa n t s pr odu ced (con t r ollin g for t im e spen t ) r evea led a bor der lin e sign ifica n t effect of r egu la t or y focu s, F(1,116) ⫽ 3.0, p ⬍ .09. As expect ed, t h e pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr om ot ion focu s con dit ion
pr odu ced m or e differ en t sor t in g cr it er ia (M ⫽ 8.7) t h a n
pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr even t ion focu s con dit ion (M ⫽ 7.6).
Th er e wer e n o ot h er sign ifica n t effect s.
M ood
On e possible wa y t h a t t h e differ en t fr a m in g con dit ion s m igh t in flu en ce per for m a n ce wa s t h a t t h ey cou ld
in flu en ce t h e pa r t icipa n t s’ m ood a n d t h eir m ood cou ld
in flu en ce t h eir per for m a n ce. Alt h ou gh t h is m igh t be
in t er est in g in it s own r igh t , we wer e m or e in t er est ed
in t h e st r a t egic effect s of ou r fr a m in g va r ia bles, in depen den t of a n y m ood effect s. Th u s, we n eeded bot h t o
ch eck for a n d con t r ol for m ood effect s.
Th er e wer e t h r ee em ot ion s ea ch for ch eer fu ln ess, deject ion , qu iescen ce, a n d a git a t ion a s t h e fou r gen er a l
t ypes of em ot ion . Th u s, beca u se ea ch sca le m ea su r in g
cu r r en t feelin gs wa s fr om 0 (Not a t a ll) t o 4 (Ver y), ea ch
of t h ese fou r gen er a l t ypes of em ot ion h a d a t ot a l scor e
t h a t r a n ged fr om 0 t o 12, wit h 6 bein g t h e m idpoin t of
10
t h e sca le. At ea ch of t h e t h r ee m ea su r em en t t im es, bot h
t h e deject ion -r ela t ed a n d a git a t ion -r ela t ed em ot ion s
h a d scor es below 3.5, i.e., sligh t ly deject ed a n d sligh t ly
a git a t ed. At ea ch of t h e t h r ee m ea su r em en t t im es, bot h
t h e ch eer fu ln ess-r ela t ed a n d t h e qu iescen ce-r ela t ed
em ot ion s h a d scor es a bove 5.5, i.e., m oder a t ely ch eer fu l
a n d m oder a t ely qu iescen t .
A r epea t ed m ea su r es a n a lysis by fr a m in g con dit ion
wa s con du ct ed for ea ch m ood t ype a cr oss t h e t h r ee m ea su r em en t t im es. Th er e wer e n o sign ifica n t m ood effect s
a s a fu n ct ion of fr a m in g con dit ion . E qu a lly im por t a n t ,
ea ch of t h e sign ifica n t fin din gs r epor t ed ea r lier on t h e
differ en t t a sk m ea su r es r em a in ed sign ifica n t wh en t h e
fou r t ypes of em ot ion s a t t h e differ en t m ea su r em en t
t im es, a n d t h e ch a n ges in em ot ion s bet ween m ea su r em en t t im es, wer e in clu ded in t h e r egr ession a n a lyses.
Th e r esu lt s of St u dy 1 pr ovide su ppor t for t h e h ypot h esized differ en ce in st r a t egic in clin a t ion s bet ween in dividu a ls in a pr om ot ion focu s a n d in dividu a ls in a pr even t ion focu s. We h a d pr oposed ea r lier t h a t t h e
pr om ot ion focu s in clin a t ion is t o in su r e h it s a n d in su r e
a ga in st er r or s of om ission , wh er ea s t h e pr even t ion focu s in clin a t ion is t o in su r e cor r ect r eject ion s a n d in su r e
a ga in st er r or s of com m ission . On e im plica t ion of t h is
differ en ce wa s t h a t pr om ot ion focu s in dividu a ls sh ou ld
be ea ger t o fin d “h it s” a n d in su r e a ga in st om it t in g a n y
possible “h it s”, wh er ea s pr even t ion focu s in dividu a ls
sh ou ld be vigila n t a ga in st m ist a kes a n d in su r e a ga in st
com m it t in g t h e er r or of pr odu cin g t h em . Th u s, wh en a
t a sk becom es difficu lt , in dividu a ls in a pr om ot ion focu s
sh ou ld per for m bet t er t h a n in dividu a ls in a pr even t ion
focu s, a n d t h e la t t er sh ou ld qu it m or e r ea dily. Th is
im plica t ion wa s su ppor t ed by t h e r esu lt s on t h e a n a gr a m t a sk (pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr om ot ion focu s con dit ion fou n d m or e solu t ion s for t h e solva ble a n a gr a m s
t h a n pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr even t ion focu s con dit ion followin g t h e difficu lt , u n solva ble a n a gr a m ), t h e r esu lt s
on t h e em bedded figu r es t a sk (m or e pa r t icipa n t s in t h e
pr even t ion focu s con dit ion t h a n in t h e pr om ot ion focu s
con dit ion qu it t h e difficu lt figu r e), a n d t h e r esu lt s on t h e
cou n t in g ba ckwa r ds t a sk (pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr om ot ion
focu s con dit ion wer e fa st er t h a n pa r t icipa n t s in t h e
pr even t ion focu s con dit ion on t h e m or e difficu lt secon d
t r ia l bu t n ot on t h e ea sier fir st t r ia l). We believe t h a t
t h ese r esu lt s for t h e t h r ee t a sks t a ken t oget h er pr ovide
st r on g su ppor t for t h e fir st im plica t ion .
An ot h er im plica t ion of t h e pr oposed differ en ce in
st r a t egic in clin a t ion s wa s t h a t , given a t a sk wh er e gen er a t in g a n y n u m ber of a lt er n a t ive ca t egor ies is a ccept a ble, in dividu a ls in a vigila n t st a t e fr om a pr even t ion
focu s sh ou ld t en d t o be r ela t ively r epet it ive a n d gen er a t e few a lt er n a t ives in or der t o a void er r or s of com m ission , wh er ea s in dividu a ls in a n ea ger st a t e fr om a pr om ot ion focu s wa n t t o a ccom plish “h it s” a n d t h u s sh ou ld
1
COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL
be in clin ed t o gen er a t e m or e a lt er n a t ives. Th is im plica t ion wa s su ppor t ed by t h e r esu lt s on t h e ch a r a ct er list in g t a sk (pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr om ot ion focu s con dit ion
wer e m or e flu en t in gen er a t in g a lt er n a t ives t h a n pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr even t ion focu s con dit ion , a n d, in depen den t of t h is effect , pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr even t ion focu s
con dit ion r epea t ed t er m s or wor ds m or e a cr oss it em s
t h a n pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr om ot ion focu s con dit ion ), a n d
t h e r esu lt s on t h e sor t in g t a sk (pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr om ot ion focu s con dit ion gen er a t ed m or e su bgr ou ps t h a n
pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr even t ion focu s con dit ion , wit h t h e
la t t er bein g m u ch m or e likely t o u se a sim ple “X”/n ot
“X” sor t in g st r a t egy, a n d, in depen den t of t h e n u m ber
of su bgr ou ps gen er a t ed, pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr even t ion
focu s con dit ion wer e m or e likely t h a n pa r t icipa n t s in
t h e pr om ot ion focu s con dit ion t o r epea t t h eir sor t in g
st r a t egy a cr oss object ca t egor ies). We believe t h a t t h ese
r esu lt s t a ken t oget h er pr ovide st r on g su ppor t for t h e
secon d im plica t ion .
In su m , t h e r esu lt s of St u dy 1 su ppor t ou r pr oposa l
t h a t in dividu a ls in a n ea ger st a t e fr om a pr om ot ion
focu s a r e in clin ed t o in su r e h it s a n d in su r e a ga in st
er r or s of om ission , wh er ea s in dividu a ls in a vigila n t
st a t e fr om a pr even t ion focu s a r e in clin ed t o in su r e
cor r ect r eject ion s a n d in su r e a ga in st er r or s of com m ission . Th is pr oposed differ en ce in st r a t egic in clin a t ion s
wa s in spir ed by a sign a l det ect ion a n a lysis (e.g., Ta n n er & Swet s, 1954; see a lso Tr ope & Liber m a n , 1996).
It wou ld be u sefu l, t h en , t o u se a sign a l det ect ion t a sk
t o t est m or e dir ect ly t h e h ypot h esized differ en ces in
st r a t egic in clin a t ion s or r espon se bia ses. A r ecogn it ion
m em or y t a sk wa s select ed for ou r secon d st u dy t o a ccom plish t h is a im .
St u dy 2 u sed t h e sa m e ba sic pa r a digm a s St u dy 1.
Un der gr a du a t e pa r t icipa n t s filled ou t a qu est ion n a ir e
wh er e t h ey expr essed t h eir likin g for differ en t kin ds of
a ct ivit ies du r in g a la r ge su r vey h eld weeks befor e t h e
exper im en t . E a ch pa r t icipa n t ’s r espon ses wer e u sed idiogr a ph ica lly t o select on e a ct ivit y t h a t t h e pa r t icipa n t
clea r ly liked a n d a n ot h er h e or sh e clea r ly disliked.
Wh en t h e pa r t icipa n t s a r r ived for t h e st u dy, t h ey wer e
t old t h a t t h ey wou ld fir st per for m a r ecogn it ion m em or y
t a sk a n d t h en wou ld be a ssign ed a secon d t a sk. Th e
liked a n d t h e disliked a ct ivit y pr eviou sly select ed wer e
ea ch descr ibed a s a n a lt er n a t ive secon d t a sk.
Th e r ecogn it ion m em or y t a sk is a sign a l det ect ion
t a sk t h a t r equ ir es pa r t icipa n t s t o m a ke decision s. In
sign a l det ect ion t a sks, a sign a l is eit h er pr esen t ed or
n ot pr esen t ed, a n d a r espon den t sa ys eit h er “yes” (t h ey
det ect ed a sign a l) or “n o” (n o sign a l wa s det ect ed). Th er e
a r e fou r possible ou t com es for a sign a l det ect ion t r ia l:
(a ) a “H it ”—sa yin g “yes” wh en a sign a l wa s pr esen t ed;
(b) a “Miss”—sa yin g “n o” wh en a sign a l wa s pr esen t ed;
(c) a “F a lse Ala r m ”—sa yin g “yes” wh en t h er e wa s n o
sign a l; a n d (d) a “Cor r ect Reject ion ”—sa yin g “n o” wh en
t h er e wa s n o sign a l. Th e decision a l cr it er ion em ployed
by a per son is a ssu m ed t o depen d u pon t h e weigh t s
or pa yoffs t h a t t h e per son a ssign s t o t h ese possible
ou t com es. If t h e ga in for get t in g a H it is gr ea t er t h a n t h e
ga in for a Cor r ect Reject ion a n d t h e cost for “Missin g” a
sign a l is gr ea t er t h a n t h e cost of get t in g a F a lse Ala r m ,
t h en t h e per son will be in clin ed (or h a ve a bia s) t o
sa y “yes.” In con t r a st , if t h e ga in for get t in g a Cor r ect
Reject ion is gr ea t er t h a n t h e ga in for a H it a n d t h e cost
for get t in g a F a lse Ala r m is gr ea t er t h a n t h e cost of
Missin g a sign a l, t h en t h e per son will be in clin ed (or
h a ve a bia s) t o sa y “n o.”
Sign a l det ect ion t h eor y per se is silen t on m ot iva t ion a l det er m in a n t s of a per son ’s pa yoff m a t r ix. Th e
pr in ciple of r egu la t or y focu s, h owever, does m a ke a pr edict ion . P a r t icipa n t s wit h a pr om ot ion focu s a r e in a
st a t e of ea ger n ess. Th is st a t e sh ou ld in du ce a dva n cem en t t a ct ics, a n in clin a t ion t o a ppr oa ch a ccom plish m en t s. Th ey wa n t t o in su r e h it s a n d in su r e a ga in st
er r or s of om ission . Th ese pa r t icipa n t s, t h en , sh ou ld
wa n t t o in su r e H it s (su ccessfu lly r ecogn izin g a t r u e
t a r get ) a n d in su r e a ga in st Misses (om it t in g a t r u e t a r get ). Th a t is, t h ese pa r t icipa n t s sh ou ld t r y t o r ecogn ize
a s m a n y it em s a s possible, pr odu cin g a n in clin a t ion t o
sa y “yes” (i.e., a r isky bia s).
In con t r a st , pa r t icipa n t s wit h a pr even t ion focu s a r e
in a st a t e of vigila n ce. Th is st a t e sh ou ld in du ce pr eca u t ion a r y t a ct ics, a n in clin a t ion t o a void m ist a kes. Th ey
wa n t t o in su r e cor r ect r eject ion s a n d in su r e a ga in st
er r or s of com m ission . Th ese pa r t icipa n t s, t h en , sh ou ld
wa n t t o in su r e Cor r ect Reject ion s (i.e., su ccessfu lly
a voidin g a fa lse dist r a ct or ) a n d in su r e a ga in st F a lse
Ala r m s (fa ilin g t o a void a fa lse dist r a ct or ). Th a t is,
t h ese pa r t icipa n t s sh ou ld t r y n ot t o com m it m ist a kes,
pr odu cin g a n in clin a t ion t o sa y “n o” (i.e., a con ser va t ive
bia s). In a ddit ion , beca u se of t h eir vigila n ce a ga in st
er r or s of com m ission , t h ese in dividu a ls sh ou ld t a ke
m or e t im e t o r espon d. Th u s, we a lso pr edict ed t h a t t h e
r espon se la t en cies wou ld be lon ger for pa r t icipa n t s in
t h e pr even t ion focu s con dit ion t h a n t h ose in t h e pr om ot ion focu s con dit ion .
S TU D Y 2
Me th o d
Participan ts
Colu m bia Un iver sit y u n der gr a du a t es wer e pa id t o
com plet e a ba t t er y of qu est ion n a ir es. Of t h ose wh o h a d
a ppr opr ia t ely filled ou t t h e cr it ica l qu est ion n a ir es for
t h e st u dy, 65 wer e r a n dom ly select ed a n d sch edu led t o
pa r t icipa t e a s pa id su bject s in t h e exper im en t t h a t t ook
pla ce a ppr oxim a t ely 1 m on t h a ft er t h e ba t t er y. Th er e
12
COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL
wer e 13 pa r t icipa n t s r a n dom ly a ssign ed t o ea ch of t h e
five fr a m in g con dit ion s.
M aterials
Th e Ta sk Ra t in g Qu est ion n a ir e, Selves Qu est ion n a ir e, a n d Mood Qu est ion n a ir e wer e t h e sa m e a s t h ose
u sed in St u dy 1. Th e r ecogn it ion m em or y t a sk t h a t wa s
u sed wa s pa r t of a soft wa r e syst em developed by E u gen e
Ga la n t er a t Colu m bia Un iver sit y. It wa s developed for
t h e Ma cin t osh com pu t er a n d wa s design ed t o a llow u n der gr a du a t e psych ology st u den t s t o r u n t h eir own exper im en t s. No m odifica t ion s of t h e soft wa r e wer e n ecessa r y in or der t o u se it in t h is exper im en t . Th e pr ogr a m
it self r a n dom ly gen er a t ed t h e n on sen se wor ds u sed t o
a ssess su bject s’ r ecogn it ion m em or y.
Proced u re
Th e in it ia l pr ocedu r e wh en pa r t icipa n t s a r r ived a t
t h e exper im en t a l session wa s ba sica lly t h e sa m e a s in
St u dy 1. Th e pa r t icipa n t s wer e t old t h a t t h eir m ood
wou ld be m ea su r ed du r in g t h e session t o cor r ect for a n y
possible in flu en ce it m igh t h a ve on t h eir per for m a n ce.
Aft er com plet in g t h e fir st Mood Qu est ion n a ir e, t h e pa r t icipa n t s wer e t old t h a t t h ey wou ld fir st per for m a n
in it ia l r ecogn it ion m em or y t a sk [t h e exper im en t a l t a sks
descr ibed a bove] a n d t h en t h ey wou ld be a ssign ed a
secon d, fin a l t a sk. Th e pa r t icipa n t s’ ea r lier idiogr a ph ic
r espon ses t o t h e Ta sk Ra t in g Qu est ion n a ir e wer e u sed
t o select on e liked a ct ivit y a n d on e disliked a ct ivit y.
Th e liked a ct ivit y (e.g., pla yin g a video ga m e) a n d t h e
disliked a ct ivit y (e.g., pr oofr ea din g) wer e ea ch fu lly descr ibed a s a n a lt er n a t ive secon d t a sk t h a t a pa r t icipa n t
m igh t per for m . P r ops r ela t ed t o a pa r t icipa n t ’s a lt er n a t ive secon d t a sk wer e a ga in in clu ded, a n d t h e debr iefin g
a t t h e en d of t h e exper im en t a l session in dica t ed t h a t
t h e pa r t icipa n t s believed t h a t t h ey wou ld per for m on e
of t h ese t a sks du r in g t h e session .
As in St u dy 1, fou r of t h e exper im en t a l fr a m in g con dit ion s wer e con tin gen cy con dit ion s in wh ich pa r t icipa n t s
wer e t old t h a t wh ich of t h e a lt er n a t ive fin a l t a sks t h ey
wou ld wor k on a t t h e en d of t h e session depen ded on
t h eir per for m a n ce on t h e in it ia l r ecogn it ion m em or y
t a sk. Th e r ela t ion bet ween t h e in it ia l m em or y t a sk a n d
t h e secon d, fin a l t a sk wa s descr ibed a s con t in gen t for
ever yon e, bu t t h e fr a m in g va r ied in differ en t con dit ion s
a s a fu n ct ion of bot h r egu la t or y focu s a n d va len ce. All
t h e pa r t icipa n t s wer e t old t h a t t h ey wou ld fir st be given
a wor d r ecogn it ion m em or y t a sk. Th e in st r u ct ion s t h en
va r ied a cr oss con dit ion s, a s follows:
(a ) P r om ot ion Wor kin g—“If you do well on t h e wor d
r ecogn it ion m em or y t a sk, you will get t o do t h e [pa r t icipa n t ’s liked t a sk] in st ea d of t h e ot h er t a sk.”
(b) P r om ot ion Not Wor kin g—“If you don ’t do well
on t h e wor d r ecogn it ion m em or y t a sk, you won ’t get t o
do t h e [pa r t icipa n t ’s liked t a sk] bu t will h a ve t o do t h e
ot h er t a sk in st ea d.”
(c) P r even t ion Wor kin g—“As lon g a s you don ’t do
poor ly on t h e wor d r ecogn it ion m em or y t a sk, you won ’t
h a ve t o do t h e [pa r t icipa n t ’s disliked t a sk] a n d will do
t h e ot h er t a sk in st ea d.”
(d) P r even t ion Not Wor kin g—“If you do poor ly on
t h e wor d r ecogn it ion m em or y t a sk, you will h a ve t o do
t h e [pa r t icipa n t ’s disliked t a sk] in st ea d of t h e ot h er
t a sk.”
In a ddit ion t o t h ese fou r con tin gen t fr a m in g con dit ion s, t h er e wa s a lso t h e exper im en t a l n on con tin gen t
fr a m in g con dit ion . As in St u dy 1, t h e r ela t ion bet ween
t h e in it ia l r ecogn it ion m em or y t a sk a n d t h e secon d,
fin a l t a sk wa s descr ibed a s n on con t in gen t . Th e t wo a lt er n a t ive fin a l t a sks wer e descr ibed a n d t h e pa r t icipa n t s wer e t old t h a t on e of t h ese t a sks wou ld be ran d om ly a ssign ed t o t h em a ft er t h ey h a d com plet ed t h e
r ecogn it ion m em or y t a sk.
F or t h e r ecogn it ion m em or y t a sk, t h e pa r t icipa n t s
com plet ed t h r ee t r ia ls. (Th e com pu t er pr ogr a m a u t om a t ica lly com bin ed t h e r esu lt s for t h e t h r ee t r ia ls.) In
t h e fir st pa r t of ea ch t r ia l, t h ey wer e sh own 20 n on sen se
wor ds, on e a t a t im e for 2 s. E a ch n on sen se wor d con sist ed of five let t er s in wh ich t h e fir st , t h ir d, a n d fift h
let t er s wer e con son a n t s a n d t h e secon d a n d fou r t h let t er s wer e vowels. Th e pa r t icipa n t s t h en per for m ed a
vowel–con son a n t filler t a sk in wh ich t h ey iden t ified
let t er s a s eit h er vowels or con son a n t s for 20 s. Next ,
t h ey wer e sh own a n ot h er set of 40 n on sen se wor ds a n d
a sked wh et h er or n ot t h ey h a d seen t h em befor e. Of
t h ese 40 n on sen se wor ds, 20 wer e n on sen se wor ds t h a t
t h ey h a d seen befor e in t h e t r ia l, a n d t h e ot h er 20 wer e
n ew n on sen se wor ds t h a t t h ey h a d n ot seen in t h e t r ia l
(or in a n y ea r lier t r ia l). P a r t icipa n t s fir st r a n t h r ou gh
a pr a ct ice t r ia l. Aft er t h e pr a ct ice t r ia l, t h ey per for m ed
t h e t h r ee con secu t ive exper im en t a l t r ia ls, wit h a pa u se
of 30 s bet ween ea ch . Th er e wa s n o t im e lim it for t h e
la st r ecogn it ion ph a se of t h e t r ia l. Th e exper im en t er
r ecor ded t h e du r a t ion of t h is r ecogn it ion ph a se for ea ch
t r ia l. Aft er a ll t h e t r ia ls wer e com plet ed, t h e pa r t icipa n t s filled ou t t h e Mood Qu est ion n a ir e for a secon d
a n d fin a l t im e.
Re s u lts a n d D is c u s s io n
M eth od s of An alysis
As in St u dy 1, m u lt iple r egr ession a n a lyses wer e per for m ed on t h e depen den t va r ia bles t o a ssess t h e in depen den t effect s of ea ch fr a m in g va r ia ble wh ile con t r ollin g for a ll t h e ot h er va r ia bles.
13
COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL
R espon se B ias
Th e st a t ist ics for sign a l det ect ion pa r a m et er s a r e
ba sed on t h e st a n da r dized fr equ en cy dist r ibu t ion s of
t h e “n oise” a lon e dist r ibu t ion a n d t h e “sign a l plu s n oise”
dist r ibu t ion , plu s t h e loca t ion of a per son ’s decision cr it er ion in r ela t ion t o t h ese t wo dist r ibu t ion s. Th is cr it er ion lin e, wh ich is a lso in st a n da r d scor es, is r efer en ced
wit h r espect t o t h e n oise dist r ibu t ion (Ga la n t er, 1994,
p. 142). F or t h is st u dy, t h e r espon se bia s st a t ist ic bet a
(b), wh ich is ba sed on t h e cr it er ion st a t ist ic, wa s u sed
t o r epr esen t ea ch pa r t icipa n t s’s decision cr it er ion poin t
for givin g a “yes” or “n o” a n swer. Bet a is ca lcu la t ed
by t a kin g t h e or din a t e va lu e of t h e sign a l plu s n oise
dist r ibu t ion a t t h e cr it er ion lin e (in dica t in g t h e pr opor t ion of H it s) a n d dividin g it by t h e or din a t e va lu e of
t h e n oise dist r ibu t ion a t t h e cr it er ion lin e (in dica t in g
t h e pr opor t ion of F a lse Ala r m s) [b ⫽ f (H )/f (FA), wh er e
f is t h e h eigh t of t h e or din a t e, a lso kn own a s t h e den sit y
fu n ct ion ]. A bet a va lu e of 1 in dica t es n o bia s, wh er ea s
bet a ⬎ 1 in dica t es a bia s t owa r d sa yin g “n o” a n d bet a
⬍ 1 in dica t es a bia s t owa r d sa yin g “yes”.
A r egr ession a n a lysis on t h e bet a va lu es r evea led a
sign ifica n t effect of r egu la t or y focu s, F(1,60) ⫽ 6.9,
p ⫽ .01. As pr edict ed, pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr om ot ion
focu s con dit ion h a d a r isky bia s t o sa y “yes” a s in dica t ed
in scor es lower t h a n on e (M ⫽ 0.92), a n d pa r t icipa n t s
in t h e pr even t ion focu s con dit ion h a d a con ser va t ive
bia s t o sa y “n o” a s in dica t ed by scor es gr ea t er t h a n on e
(M ⫽ 1.13). Th er e wer e n o ot h er sign ifica n t effect s.
R espon se L aten cy
Th e r espon se la t en cy of ea ch pa r t icipa n t wa s t h e
n u m ber of secon ds wa it ed on a ver a ge befor e sa yin g
“yes” or “n o” t o a pr esen t ed n on sen se wor d. A r egr ession
a n a lysis on t h e r espon se la t en cies r evea led a sign ifica n t
effect of r egu la t or y focu s, F(1,60) ⫽ 6.2, p ⬍ .02, r eflect in g t h e fa ct t h a t , a s pr edict ed, pa r t icipa n t s in t h e
pr even t ion focu s con dit ion wa it ed lon ger on a ver a ge t o
r espon d (M ⫽ 1.40 s) t h a n pa r t icipa n t s in t h e pr om ot ion
focu s con dit ion (M ⫽ 1.23 s). Respon se la t en cy wa s
u n cor r ela t ed wit h bet a in t h is st u dy, bu t t o m a ke cer t a in
t h e t wo wer e in depen den t t h e m u lt iple r egr ession wa s
r epea t ed wit h bet a in clu ded a s a cova r ia t e. Th e effect
of r egu la t or y focu s r em a in ed sign ifica n t . Th er e wer e n o
ot h er sign ifica n t effect s.
R ecogn ition Accu racy
Th e pa r t icipa n t s’ r ecogn it ion m em or y a ccu r a cy is
t h eir a ccu r a cy r a t e in det ect in g t h e pr esen ce a n d a bsen ce of sign a ls, a st a n da r dized scor e kn own a s d ⬘
(“d pr im e”). Th is m ea su r e wa s ca lcu la t ed wit h r efer en ce
t o t h e t wo dist r ibu t ion s of n oise a lon e a n d sign a l plu s
n oise. Th e d ⬘ m ea su r e is t h e dist a n ce in st a n da r d scor es
bet ween t h e t wo dist r ibu t ion s, a n d is ca lcu la t ed u sin g
t h e for m u la , d ⬘ ⫽ Z (FA) ⫺ Z (H ) (i.e., t h e z-scor e for
F a lse Ala r m s m in u s t h e z-scor e for H it s) (Ga la n t er,
1994, pg. 141). A la r ger d ⬘ va lu e in dica t es gr ea t er sen sit ivit y t o t h e sign a ls, or a gr ea t er a bilit y t o dist in gu ish
bet ween n oise a lon e a n d sign a l plu s n oise.
A r egr ession a n a lysis on t h e a ccu r a cy scor es r evea led
a sign ifica n t effect of va len ce, F(1,60) ⫽ 4.6, p ⬍ .04,
r eflect in g t h e fa ct t h a t pa r t icipa n t s in t h e n ega t ive va len ce con dit ion h a d a h igh er r ecogn it ion a ccu r a cy scor e
(M ⫽ 1.58) t h a n pa r t icipa n t s in t h e posit ive va len ce
con dit ion (M ⫽ 1.40). Th is effect wa s du e m ost ly t o t h e
ver y h igh r ecogn it ion a ccu r a cy scor es of pa r t icipa n t s in
t h e P r even t ion Not Wor kin g con dit ion (M ⫽ 1.72). Th is
con dit ion differ ed sign ifica n t ly fr om a ll ot h er con dit ion s
com bin ed (M ⫽ 1.40), F(1,60) ⫽ 4.4, p ⬍ .05), wh er ea s
t h e ot h er con dit ion s did n ot differ sign ifica n t ly fr om
ea ch ot h er. Th e pa r t icipa n t s’ r ecogn it ion a ccu r a cy
scor es wer e n ot cor r ela t ed wit h eit h er t h eir bet a va lu es
or t h eir r espon se t im es in t h is st u dy, bu t t o m a ke cer t a in
t h e a ccu r a cy scor es wer e in depen den t t h e m u lt iple r egr ession wa s r epea t ed wit h bet a a n d r espon se t im e in clu ded a s cova r ia t es. Th e effect of va len ce a n d t h e differ en ce bet ween P r even t ion Not Wor kin g a n d a ll t h e ot h er
con dit ion s com bin ed r em a in ed sign ifica n t . Th er e wer e
n o ot h er sign ifica n t effect s.
M ood
As in St u dy 1, we wer e in t er est ed in t h e st r a t egic
effect s of ou r fr a m in g va r ia bles, in depen den t of a n y
m ood effect s. Th u s, we n eeded bot h t o ch eck for a n d
con t r ol for m ood effect s. Aga in , t h e fou r gen er a l t ypes of
em ot ion wer e ch eer fu ln ess, deject ion , qu iescen ce, a n d
a git a t ion , a n d ea ch of t h ese fou r gen er a l t ypes of em ot ion h a d a t ot a l scor e t h a t r a n ged fr om 0 t o 12, wit h 6
bein g t h e m idpoin t of t h e sca le. At ea ch of t h e t wo
m ea su r em en t t im es, bot h t h e deject ion -r ela t ed a n d a git a t ion -r ela t ed em ot ion s h a d scor es below 4.0 a n d m ost ly
below 3.0, i.e., sligh t ly deject ed a n d sligh t ly a git a t ed.
At ea ch of t h e t h r ee m ea su r em en t t im es, bot h t h e ch eer fu ln ess-r ela t ed a n d t h e qu iescen ce-r ela t ed em ot ion s
h a d scor es a bove 5.0 a n d m ost ly a bove 6.0, i.e., m oder a t ely ch eer fu l a n d m oder a t ely qu iescen t .
A r epea t ed m ea su r es a n a lysis by fr a m in g con dit ion
wa s con du ct ed for ea ch m ood t ype a cr oss t h e t wo m ea su r em en t t im es. Th er e wer e n o sign ifica n t m ood effect s
a s a fu n ct ion of fr a m in g con dit ion . E qu a lly im por t a n t ,
ea ch of t h e sign ifica n t fin din gs r epor t ed ea r lier r em a in ed sign ifica n t wh en t h e fou r t ypes of em ot ion s a t
t h e differ en t m ea su r em en t t im es, a n d t h e ch a n ges in
em ot ion s bet ween m ea su r em en t t im es, wer e in clu ded
in t h e r egr ession a n a lyses.
COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL
GEN ERAL S U MMARY AN D CON CLU S ION S
A pr om ot ion focu s is con cer n ed wit h a dva n cem en t ,
gr owt h , a n d a ccom plish m en t a n d t h e st r a t egic in clin a t ion is t o m a ke pr ogr ess by a ppr oa ch in g m a t ch es t o t h e
desir ed en d-st a t e. In con t r a st , a pr even t ion focu s is
con cer n ed wit h secu r it y, sa fet y, r espon sibilit y a n d t h e
st r a t egic in clin a t ion is t o be pr u den t a n d pr eca u t ion a r y
a n d a void m ism a t ch es t o t h e desir ed en d-st a t e. A pr om ot ion focu s, t h en , wou ld in volve a st a t e of ea ger n ess
t o a t t a in a dva n cem en t a n d ga in s wh er ea s a pr even t ion
focu s wou ld in volve a st a t e of vigila n ce t o a ssu r e sa fet y
a n d n on -losses. Given t h ese differ en ces, we h ypot h esized t h a t t h e pr om ot ion focu s in clin a t ion is t o in su r e
h it s a n d in su r e a ga in st er r or s of om ission , wh er ea s t h e
pr even t ion focu s in clin a t ion is t o in su r e cor r ect r eject ion s a n d in su r e a ga in st er r or s of com m ission .
Th is gen er a l h ypot h esis yielded t h r ee ba sic pr edict ion s. On e pr edict ion wa s t h a t wh en in dividu a ls wor k
on a difficu lt t a sk or h a ve ju st exper ien ced fa ilu r e, t h ose
in a pr om ot ion focu s sh ou ld be ea ger t o fin d h it s a n d
in su r e a ga in st om it t in g a n y possible h it s, wh er ea s
t h ose in a pr even t ion focu s sh ou ld be vigila n t a ga in st
m ist a kes a n d in su r e a ga in st com m it t in g t h e er r or of
pr odu cin g t h em . Un der t h ese cir cu m st a n ces, t h en , in dividu a ls in a pr om ot ion focu s sh ou ld per for m bet t er t h a n
in dividu a ls in a pr even t ion focu s a n d t h e la t t er sh ou ld
qu it m or e r ea dily.
Ta ken t oget h er, t h e r esu lt s of St u dy 1 on t h e a n a gr a m s t a sk, t h e em bedded figu r es t a sk, a n d t h e cou n t in g ba ckwa r ds t a sk st r on gly su ppor t t h is pr edict ion .
P a r t icipa n t s in t h e pr om ot ion focu s con dit ion , com pa r ed t o t h ose in t h e pr even t ion focu s con dit ion , fou n d
m or e solu t ion s on t h e a n a gr a m followin g t h eir fa ilu r e
on t h e u n solva ble a n a gr a m , a n d cou n t ed ba ckwa r ds
m or e qu ickly on t h e difficu lt sequ en ce. P a r t icipa n t s in
t h e pr even t ion focu s, com pa r ed t o t h ose in t h e pr om ot ion focu s, wer e m or e likely t o qu it t h e difficu lt em bedded figu r e.
Th e secon d pr edict ion wa s t h a t wh en in dividu a ls
wor k on a t a sk wh er e gen er a t in g a n y n u m ber of a lt er n a t ives is cor r ect , t h ose in a pr even t ion focu s sh ou ld
wa n t t o a void er r or s of com m ission by st ickin g t o a s
few a lt er n a t ives a s possible a n d r epea t in g on es a lr ea dy
u sed, a n d t h ose in a pr om ot ion focu s sh ou ld wa n t t o
a ccom plish h it s a n d in su r e a ga in st om it t in g possible
a lt er n a t ives. Un der t h ese cir cu m st a n ces, t h en , in dividu a ls in a pr even t ion focu s sh ou ld be m or e r epet it ive
t h a n in dividu a ls in a pr om ot ion focu s a n d t h e la t t er
sh ou ld gen er a t e m or e dist in ct a lt er n a t ives.
Ta ken t oget h er, t h e r esu lt s of St u dy 1 on t h e ch a r a ct er ist ic list in g t a sk a n d t h e sor t in g t a sk st r on gly su ppor t t h is pr edict ion . P a r t icipa n t s in t h e pr om ot ion con dit ion , com pa r ed t o t h ose in t h e pr even t ion focu s
14
con dit ion , wer e m or e flu en t in gen er a t in g u n iqu e ch a r a ct er ist ics of differ en t m em ber s of a ca t egor y, sor t ed
differ en t m em ber s of a ca t egor y in t o m or e su bgr ou ps,
a n d u sed a gr ea t er n u m ber of differ en t sor t in g cr it er ia
a cr oss ca t egor ies. P a r t icipa n t s in t h e pr even t ion con dit ion , com pa r ed t o t h ose in t h e pr om ot ion con dit ion , r epea t ed m or e ch a r a ct er ist ics a cr oss ca t egor y m em ber s
(con t r ollin g for flu en cy) a n d r epea t ed t h e sa m e sor t in g
cr it er ia m or e a cr oss ca t egor ies (con t r ollin g for t h e n u m ber of su bgr ou ps pr odu ced in ea ch ca t egor y).
Th e t h ir d pr edict ion wa s t h a t wh en in dividu a ls wor k
on a sign a l det ect ion t a sk t h a t r equ ir es t h em t o decide
wh et h er t h ey did or did n ot det ect a sign a l, t h ose in a
pr om ot ion focu s sh ou ld wa n t t o in su r e h it s a n d in su r e
a ga in st er r or s of om ission by decidin g t h a t a sign a l wa s
pr esen t ed, wh er ea s t h ose in a pr even t ion focu s sh ou ld
wa n t t o in su r e cor r ect r eject ion s a n d in su r e a ga in st
er r or s of com m ission by decidin g t h a t a sign a l wa s n ot
pr esen t ed. In a r ecogn it ion m em or y t a sk, t h en , in dividu a ls in a pr om ot ion focu s sh ou ld be in clin ed t o r ecogn ize
a s m a n y it em s a s possible a n d t h u s t o r espon d “yes”
(a r isky r espon se bia s), wh er ea s in dividu a ls in a pr even t ion focu s sh ou ld be in clin ed t o t r y n ot t o com m it m ist a kes a n d t h u s t o r espon d “n o” (a con ser va t ive r espon se
bia s). Mor eover, in dividu a ls in a pr even t ion focu s vigila n t a ga in st er r or s of com m ission sh ou ld t a ke m or e
t im e t o r espon d t h a n in dividu a ls in a pr om ot ion focu s
ea ger for h it s. Th e r esu lt s of St u dy 2 for r espon se bia s
a n d for r espon se la t en cy (con t r ollin g for r espon se bia s)
su ppor t ed t h ese pr edict ion s.
An ot h er m a jor object ive of t h e pr esen t st u dies wa s
t o exa m in e for t h e fir st t im e h ow r egu la t or y focu s a s
on e m ot iva t ion a l pr in ciple a n d va len ce or h edon ic va lu e
a s a sepa r a t e m ot iva t ion a l pr in cipa l in flu en ce st r a t egic
in clin a t ion s, bot h in depen den t ly a n d in com bin a t ion .
Ou r st u dies con sider ed t h is issu e in t h e con t ext of fr a m in g m a n ipu la t ion s t h a t cr ea t ed con t in gen cies bet ween
per for m a n ce on t h e t a r get t a sks a n d a ssign m en t of a
fin a l t a sk. Th er e wer e t wo a lt er n a t ive fin a l t a sks, on e
liked a n d on e disliked by ea ch pa r t icipa n t . Th e sa m e
object ive con t in gen cy wa s fr a m ed in r ela t ion t o a posit ive or a n ega t ive ou t com e (va len ce) a n d, or t h ogon a lly,
in r ela t ion t o a pr om ot ion or a pr even t ion focu s (r egu la t or y focu s). In a ddit ion , t h ese con t in gen t con dit ion s
wer e com pa r ed t o a n on con t in gen t con dit ion in wh ich
t h e fin a l t a sk wa s r a n dom ly a ssign ed, u n r ela t ed t o pr eviou s per for m a n ce.
As su m m a r ized ea r lier, r egu la t or y focu s fr a m in g h a d
m a n y sign ifica n t effect s. In con t r a st , con t in gen cy h a d
on ly on e sign ifica n t effect a n d va len ce fr a m in g h a d ju st
t wo effect s. Th e con t in gen cy effect wa s sim ply t h a t on
t h e fir st t r ia l of t h e cou n t in g ba ckwa r ds t a sk, pa r t icipa n t s in t h e con t in gen cy con dit ion cou n t ed m or e
COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL
qu ickly t h a n pa r t icipa n t s in t h e n on con t in gen cy con dit ion . Th is m igh t h a ve r eflect ed gr ea t er m ot iva t ion in
t h e con t in gen cy t h a n t h e n on con t in gen cy con dit ion , bu t
t h er e wa s lit t le eviden ce for t h is con clu sion on t h e ot h er
t a sks. It sh ou ld a lso be n ot ed t h a t t h e effect s of va len ce
fr a m in g seem ed t o be dr iven by specific con dit ion s t h a t
in volved r egu la t or y focu s a s well. Specifica lly, t h e va len ce differ en ce in pr odu cin g su bgr ou ps on t h e sor t in g
t a sk r eflect ed m ost ly t h e fa ct t h a t pa r t icipa n t s in t h e
P r even t ion Not Wor kin g con dit ion pr odu ced a n especia lly low n u m ber of su bgr ou ps wh er ea s pa r t icipa n t s
in t h e P r om ot ion Wor kin g con dit ion pr odu ced a n especia lly h igh n u m ber of su bgr ou ps. An d t h e va len ce differ en ce in r ecogn it ion a ccu r a cy r eflect ed m ost ly t h e fa ct
t h a t pa r t icipa n t s in t h e P r even t ion Not Wor kin g con dit ion h a d ver y h igh r ecogn it ion a ccu r a cy scor es. Th is
su ggest s t h a t in dividu a ls focu sin g on pr even t ion n ot
wor kin g m igh t be especia lly vigila n t u n der cer t a in cir cu m st a n ces, a n d vigila n ce m igh t be a n a dva n t a ge in
cer t a in t a sks su ch a s r ecogn it ion m em or y.
Over a ll, t h e pr esen t st u dies clea r ly in dica t e t h a t r egu la t or y focu s, in depen den t of va len ce, ca n in flu en ce
st r a t egies or decision pa t t er n s in t a sk per for m a n ce a n d
pr oblem -solvin g. Th e r esu lt s su ppor t t h e gen er a l h ypot h esis t h a t t h e pr om ot ion focu s in clin a t ion is t o in su r e h it s a n d in su r e a ga in st er r or s of om ission , wh er ea s
t h e pr even t ion focu s in clin a t ion is t o in su r e cor r ect r eject ion s a n d in su r e a ga in st er r or s of com m ission . Ou r
st u dies fou n d t h a t r egu la t or y focu s ca n be in du ced u sin g a con t in gen cy fr a m in g m a n ipu la t ion . Th is m a n ipu la t ion wa s in spir ed by r egu la t or y focu s differ en ces in
t h e m essa ges t h a t ca r et a ker s give t o t h eir ch ildr en
wh en t h ey r espon d t o t h em con t in gen t ly. Bu t su ch con t in gen cy m essa ges a r e n ot r est r ict ed t o ca r et a ker –ch ild
in t er a ct ion s. As n ot ed ea r lier, t ea ch er –pu pil a n d em ployer –em ployee in t er a ct ion s a lso com m u n ica t e con t in gen cies. Mor e gen er a lly, or ga n iza t ion s a n d in st it u t ion s
com m u n ica t e con t in gen cies t h r ou gh t h e kin ds of for m a l
in cen t ives a n d feedba ck t h a t t h ey u se. An in t er est in g
qu est ion for fu t u r e r esea r ch is h ow differ en t kin ds of
for m a l in cen t ives a n d feedba ck r ela t e t o r egu la t or y focu s a n d t h er eby in flu en ce m ot iva t ion a n d per for m a n ce.
REF EREN CES
At kin son , J . W. (1964). An in trod u ction to m otivation . P r in cet on , NJ :
Va n Nost r a n d.
Ba n du r a , A. (1986). S ocial fou n d ation s of th ou gh t an d action : A social
cogn itive th eory. E n glewood Cliffs, NJ : P r en t ice–H a ll.
Br en dl, C. M., & H iggin s, E . T. (1996). P r in ciples of ju dgin g va len ce:
Wh a t m a kes even t s posit ive or n ega t ive? In M. P. Za n n a (E d.),
Ad van ces in experim en tal social psych ology (Vol. 28, pp. 95–160).
New Yor k: Aca dem ic P r ess.
Br u n er, J . S., Goodn ow, J . J ., & Au st in , G. A. (1956). A stu d y of
th in k in g. New Yor k: Wiley.
1
Ca r ver, C. S., & Sch eier, M. F. (1981). Atten tion an d self- regu lation :
A con trol-th eory approach to h u m an beh avior. New Yor k:
Spr in ger-Ver la g.
Ca r ver, C. S., & Sch eier, M. F. (1990). P r in ciples of self- r egu la t ion :
Act ion a n d em ot ion . In E . T. H iggin s a n d R. M. Sor r en t in o (E ds.),
H an d book of m otivation an d cogn ition : Fou n d ation s of social beh avior. (Vol. 2, pp. 3–52). New Yor k: Gu ilfor d.
Ga la n t er, E . (1994). Psych Tech N otes. Version 2.1. New Yor k: Ada m s,
Ba n n ist er, Cox.
Gr a y, J . A. (1982). T h e n eu ropsych ology of an xiety: An en qu iry in to
th e fu n ction s of th e septoh ippocam pal system . New Yor k: Oxfor d
Un iver sit y P r ess.
H iggin s, E . T. (1987). Self-discr epa n cy: A t h eor y r ela t in g self a n d
a ffect . Psych ological R eview. 94, 319–340.
H iggin s, E . T. (1989). Con t in u it ies a n d discon t in u it ies in self-r egu la t or y a n d self-eva lu a t ive pr ocesses: A developm en t a l t h eor y r ela t in g
self a n d a ffect . J ou rn al of Person ality, 57, 407–444.
H iggin s, E . T. (1996a ). Th e “self digest ”: Self-kn owledge ser vin g selfr egu la t or y fu n ct ion s. J ou rn al of Person ality an d S ocial Psych ology,
71, 1062–1083.
H iggin s, E . T. (1996b). E m ot ion a l exper ien ces: Th e pa in s a n d plea su r es of dist in ct r egu la t or y syst em s. In R. D. Ka va n a u gh , B. Zim m er ber g, a n d S. F ein (E ds.), E m otion : In terd isciplin ary perspectives
(pp. 203–241). Ma h wa h , NJ : E r lba u m .
H iggin s, E . T., Bon d, R. N., Klein , R., & St r a u m a n , T. (1986). Selfdiscr epa n cies a n d em ot ion a l vu ln er a bilit y: H ow m a gn it u de, a ccessibilit y, a n d t ype of discr epa n cy in flu en ce a ffect . J ou rn al of Person ality an d S ocial Psych ology, 51, 5–15.
H iggin s, E . T., Ron ey, C., Cr owe, E ., & H ym es, C. (1994). Idea l ver su s
ou gh t pr edilect ion s for a ppr oa ch a n d a voida n ce: Dist in ct self-r egu la t or y syst em s. J ou rn al of Person ality an d S ocial Psych ology, 66,
276–286.
H iggin s, E . T., & Tykocin ski, O. (1992). Self-discr epa n cies a n d biogr a ph ica l m em or y: P er son a lit y a n d cogn it ion a t t h e level of psych ologica l sit u a t ion . Person ality an d S ocial Psych ology B u lletin , 18,
527–535.
Kon or ski, J . (1967). In tegrative activity of th e brain : An in terd isciplin ary approach . Ch ica go: Un iv. of Ch ica go P r ess.
La n g, P. J . (1995). Th e em ot ion pr obe: St u dies of m ot iva t ion a n d
a t t en t ion . Am erican Psych ologist, 50, 372–385.
Lewin , K. (1935). A d yn am ic th eory of person ality. New Yor k:
McGr a w–H ill.
Lewin , K. (1951). Field th eory in social scien ce. New Yor k: H a r per.
Lewin , K., Dem bo, T., F est in ger, L., & Sea r s, P. S. (1944). Level
of a spir a t ion . In J . McH u n t (E d.), Person ality an d th e beh avior
d isord ers (Vol. 1, pp. 333–378). New Yor k: Ron a ld P r ess.
Lor r, M., & Wu n der lich , R. A. (1988). A sem a n t ic differ en t ia l m ood
sca le. J ou rn al of Clin ical Psych ology, 44, 33–36.
McClella n d, D. C., At kin son , J . W., Cla r k, R. A., & Lowell, E . L.
(1953). T h e ach ievem en t m otive. New Yor k: Applet on –Cen t u r y–
Cr oft s.
Miku lin cer, M., Kedem , P., & P a z, D. (1990). Th e im pa ct of t r a it
a n xiet y a n d sit u a t ion a l st r ess on t h e ca t egor iza t ion of n a t u r a l object s. An xiety R esearch , 2, 85–101.
Ron ey, C. J . R., H iggin s, E . T., & Sh a h , J . (1995). Goa ls a n d fr a m in g:
H ow ou t com e focu s in flu en ces m ot iva t ion a n d em ot ion . Person ality
an d S ocial Psych ology B u lletin , 21, 1151–1160.
Rosch , E . (1975). Cogn it ive r epr esen t a t ion s of sem a n t ic ca t egor ies.
J ou rn al of E xperim en tal Psych ology: Gen eral, 104, 192–233.
Rosem a n , I. J . (1984). Cogn it ive det er m in a n t s of em ot ion : A st r u ct u r a l t h eor y. R eview of Person ality an d S ocial Psych ology, 5, 11–36.
COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL
Rosem a n , I. J ., Spin del, M. S., & J ose, P. E . (1990). Appr a isa ls of
em ot ion -elicit in g even t s: Test in g a t h eor y of discr et e em ot ion s.
J ou rn al of Person ality an d S ocial Psych ology, 59, 899–915.
Rot t er, J . B. (1982). Som e im plica t ion s of a socia l lea r n in g t h eor y for
t h e pr a ct ice of psych ot h er a py. In J . B. Rot t er (E d.), T h e d evelopm en t
an d application s of social learn in g th eory (pp. 237–262). New Yor k:
CBS E du ca t ion a l a n d P r ofession a l P u blish in g.
Ru ebu sh , B. K. (1960). In t er fer in g a n d fa cilit a t in g effect s of t est
a n xiet y. J ou rn al of Abn orm al an d S ocial Psych ology, 60, 205–212.
Received: Au gu st 7, 1996
16
Ta n n er, W. P. J r., & Swet s, J . A. (1954). A decision -m a kin g t h eor y of
visu a l det ect ion . Psych ological R eview, 61, 401–409.
Tr ope, Y., & Liber m a n , A. (1996). Socia l h ypot h esis t est in g: Cogn it ive
a n d m ot iva t ion a l m ech a n ism s. In E . T. H iggin s a n d A. W. Kr u gla n ski (E ds.), S ocial psych ology: H an d book of basic prin ciples (pp.
239–270). New Yor k: Gu ilfor d.
Wit kin , H . A., Olt m a n , P. K., Ra skin , E ., & Ka r p, S. A. (1971). A
m an u al for th e em bed d ed figu res test. P a lo Alt o, CA: Con su lt in g
P sych ologist s P r ess.