Commitment to change from locomotion motivation during deliberation

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9239-4The factors that motivate commitment to behavioral change (e.g., quitting smoking) are important in understanding self-regulation processes. The current research examines how an individual’s motivational orientation during deliberation affects the likelihood that they will commit to change. Building on the insights of regulatory mode theory (Higgins et al. in Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press, New York, vol 35, pp 293–344, 2003), we propose that increased commitment to change can result from increased locomotion motivation in the deliberation phase. Three studies provide evidence that increased commitment to change is related to locomotion motivation arising either from a chronic orientation or from a movement-focused deliberation tactic that intensifies that orientation. Although locomotion motivation is typically associated with goal pursuit, the current work highlights the impact that locomotion motivation can have on commitment to change in the initial deliberation phase.National Institute of Mental Health [Grant 39429

Dodging Monsters and Dancing with Dreams: Success and Failure at Different Levels of Approach and Avoidance

To view the final version of this © The Authors, SAGE publication go here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1754073913477506Many models of motivation suggest that goals can be arranged in a hierarchy, ranging from higher-level goals that represent desired end-states to lower-level means that operate in the service of those goals. We present a hierarchical model that distinguishes between three levels—goals, strategies, and tactics—and between approach/avoidance and regulatory focus motivations at different levels. We focus our discussion on how this hierarchical framework sheds light on the different ways that success and failure are defined within the promotion and prevention systems outlined in regulatory focus theory. Specifically, we review research that demonstrates that differences in what “counts” as success versus failure in these systems have important implications for motivational strength, emotional responses, and risky behavior

A self-regulatory approach to understanding boredom proneness

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Cognition and Emotion on 2016-11-16, available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1064363We investigated the relationship between self-regulation and two types of boredom proneness (perceived lack of internal stimulation, perceived lack of external stimulation) using a variety of measures of self-regulation. These included a general measure of self-control, measures of both regulatory focus (i.e., promotion or a sensitivity to gains/non-gains vs. prevention or a sensitivity to losses/non-losses) and regulatory mode (i.e., assessment or the tendency to compare means and goals vs. locomotion or the tendency to initiate and maintain commitment to action), and measures of cognitive flexibility (i.e., a perceived sense of control and the tendency to seek alternative solutions). Results identified a unique set of factors related to each boredom proneness component. Trait self-control and prevention focus were associated with lower boredom propensity due to a lack of external stimulation. Locomotion and the tendency to seek alternatives were associated with lower boredom propensity due to a lack of internal stimulation. These findings suggest that effective goal pursuit is associated with reduced likelihood of experiencing boredom.NSERC Discovery [grant no. 261628

Inflating and deflating the self: Sustaining motivational concerns through self-evaluation

The final publication is available at Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.11.008 © 2014. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/The ways in which individuals think and feel about themselves play a significant role in guiding behavior across many domains in life. The current studies investigate how individuals may shift the positivity of self-evaluations in order to sustain their chronic or momentary motivational concerns. Specifically, we propose that more positive self-evaluations support eagerness that sustains promotion-focused concerns with advancement, whereas less positive self-evaluations support vigilance that sustains prevention-focused concerns with safety. The current studies provide evidence that self-evaluation inflation is associated with promotion concerns whereas self-evaluation deflation is associated with prevention concerns, whether regulatory focus is situationally manipulated (Studies 1, 2b, and 3) or measured as a chronic individual difference (Study 2a). Following regulatory focus primes, individuals in a promotion focus showed relatively greater accessibility of positive versus negative self-knowledge compared to individuals in a prevention focus (Study 1). In an ongoing performance situation, participants in a promotion focus reported higher self-esteem than participants in a prevention focus (Studies 2a and 2b). Finally, individuals in a promotion focus persisted longer on an anagram task when given an opportunity to focus on their strengths versus weaknesses, which was not the case for individuals in a prevention focus (Study 3). Across studies, the predicted interactions were consistently obtained, although sometimes the effects were stronger for promotion or prevention motivation. We discuss implications for existing models of the motives underlying self-evaluation.National Institute of Mental Health [grant 39429] to E. Tory HigginsSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Insight Grant to Abigail A. Schole

Value from adversity: How we deal with adversity matters

The final publication is available at Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.012 © 2012. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Participants in our study worked on an anagram task to win a prize while aversive noise played in the background. They were instructed to deal with the noise either by “opposing” it as an interference or by “coping” with the unpleasant feelings it created. The strength of attention to the opposing or coping response to adversity was measured by poorer recognition of the content of the background noise. For the “opposing” participants, it was predicted that the more they attended to opposing the interference, the stronger they would engage in solving the anagrams to win the prize, which would increase the prize's value. For the “coping” participants, it was predicted that the more they attended to coping with their unpleasant feelings, the weaker they would engage in solving the anagrams to win the prize, which would decrease the prize's value. The results supported both predictions.National Institute of Mental Health to E. Tory Higgins [Grant 39429

Workload, Risks, and Goal Framing as Antecedents of Shortcut Behaviors

The final publication is available at Springer via: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9450-0Purpose: Shortcut behaviors are methods of completing a task that require less time than typical or standard procedures. These behaviors carry the benefit of increasing efficiency, yet can also carry risks (e.g., of an accident). The purpose of this research is to understand the reasons individuals engage in shortcut behaviors, even when doing so is known to be risky. Design/Methodology/Approach: We present two laboratory studies (N = 121 and N = 144) in which participants performed an air traffic control simulation. Participants could improve efficiency by taking shortcuts; that is, by sending aircraft off the prescribed flight paths. This design allowed for direct and unobtrusive observation of shortcut behaviors. Findings: Individuals who were told that efficiency was an obligation tended to believe that shortcut behaviors had utility for managing high workloads, even when the risks associated with shortcuts were high. Downstream, utility perceptions were positively related to actual shortcut behavior. Implications: Although communicating risks may be used to help individuals balance the “pros” and “cons” of shortcut behaviors, goal framing is also important. Subtle cues indicating that efficiency is an obligation can lead to elevated perceptions of the utility of shortcut behaviors, even when knowing that engaging in shortcut behaviors is very risky. Originality/Value: Past research has provided limited insights into the reasons individuals sometimes engage in shortcut behaviors even when doing so is known to be risky. The current research speaks to this issue by identifying workload and obligation framing as antecedents of the decision to take shortcuts.Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Grant [SSHRC #435-2014-1263

New directions in self-regulation: the role of metamotivational beliefs

Research on self-regulation has primarily focused on how people exert control over their thoughts, emotions, and behavior. Less attention has been paid to the ways in which people manage their motivational states in the service of achieving valued goals. In the present paper, we explore an emerging line of research that focuses on people’s beliefs about their own motivation (i.e., their metamotivational knowledge), as well as the influence of these beliefs on their selection of regulatory strategies. In particular, we review evidence showing that people are often quite sensitive to the fact that distinct motivational states (e.g., eagerness vs. vigilance) are adaptive for different kinds of tasks. We also discuss how other metamotivational beliefs are inaccurate on average (e.g., beliefs about how rewards affect intrinsic motivation). Finally, we consider the implications of metamotivation research for the field of self-regulation and discuss future directions

Exploring the complexities of value creation: The role of engagement strength

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2009). Exploring the complexities of value creation: The role of engagement strength. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.02.007, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.02.007. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.Regulatory engagement theory (Higgins, 2006; Higgins & Scholer, 2009) proposes that engagement strength plays a critical role in the creation of value intensity. We discuss the ways in which engagement, in this model, can be distinguished from arousal, motivation to act, and experienced difficulty. We distinguish between the mechanisms and predictions made by regulatory engagement theory versus cognitive dissonance theory and a goal systems approach. We also describe the complexities and conditions under which some sources of engagement strength (e.g., regulatory fit) may relate to value creation. For instance, while regulatory fit has more typically been associated with increased engagement strength, regulatory nonfit may also sometimes increase engagement by serving as an obstacle to be overcome. We review existing evidence and highlight open questions related to the role of engagement strength in creating value

A Network Model of Goals Boosts Convergent Creativity Performance

To increase employee creativity is critical for organizational success, and yet we still know very little about what organizational contexts promote creative performance. Our research proposes that goal regulation in the workplace may have consequences for creativity. While there is an increasing trend for organizations and workers to visualize the structure of their goals (e.g., management hierarchy, concept-map, flowchart), prior research suggests the visualization approaches differ as one of the three types: hierarchical, network, and sequential models. Because a network model (vs. hierarchical and sequential models) highlights multiple connections between goals and reveals unobvious connections between them, we hypothesized that the use of a network goal model might increase people’s ability to integrate seemingly unrelated ideas, even on subsequent unrelated tasks, leading to higher (convergent) creative performance. To test the hypothesis, we conducted an experiment in 2017 manipulating participants’ goal models (hierarchical, network, sequential; N = 191, median age = 19) and measured their creativity. Results suggest that those in the network model condition performed better in the kind of creativity task that requires meaningful integration of unrelated ideas (i.e., convergent creativity); in contrast, there was no difference between goal model conditions on divergent creative performance. These findings thus illuminate how goal models may influence creativity, providing new insights into situational inductions that can boost creative performance. Theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and future directions of the work are discussed

When threat matters: Self-regulation, threat salience, and stereotyping

The final publication is available at Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.03.003 © 2015. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Four experiments examined whether information implying imminent threat to safety would interact with regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997) to affect the utilization of threat-relevant stereotypes. Because information suggesting imminent danger is more relevant to the safety goals of prevention-focused individuals than the advancement goals of promotion-focused individuals, utilization of threat-relevant stereotypes was expected to increase under such conditions only under prevention focus. Support for this prediction was obtained in four distinct and socially important domains. Using scenarios describing a violent crime committed by an African-American male (Experiment 1) or a petty crime committed by an undocumented immigrant (Experiment 2), prevention-focused individuals made judgments consistent with stereotypes when threat was perceived to be high rather than low. In studies that manipulated the stereotypicality of the target in a terrorism scenario (Experiments 3 & 4), prevention-focused individuals were more likely to endorse scrutinizing a stereotypical compared with a non-stereotypical target when terrorism was described as an increasing problem. Implications for models of stereotyping, self-regulation, and responding to threat are discussed.NSF Grant [1147779