• Nebyly nalezeny žádné výsledky


In document Regulatory Focus Theory: (Stránka 27-32)

Traditional methods of distinguishing between employees’ emotionality in-clude (a) the phenomenological approach that attempts to show, for example, how the internal experience of dejection differs from that of agitation (e.g., Fineman, 1993); and (b) the consequences approach, which examines whether different types and degrees of emotional experience give rise to varying work attitudes or behaviors (e.g., Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Regulatory focus the-ory provides yet another way to differentiate employees’ emotional experiences:

on the basis of their antecedent conditions (Salovey & Rodin, 1984). For exam-ple, both dejection and agitation are unpleasant emotions. Moreover, both occur in response to negative feedback. What differs is the engendering condition, i.e., being promotion focused in the case of dejection and prevention focused in the case of agitation.

Previous research on regulatory focus theory provides substantial evidence supporting the central tenet underlying the present analysis; namely that whether people are promotion focused or prevention focused influences the nature and magnitude of their emotional experience. We have attempted to demonstrate that people’s regulatory focus, as well as the relationship between their regulatory focus and emotionality, have important implications for their work attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction) and behaviors (e.g., motivation). Neverthe-less, much needs to be learned about the effects of employees’ regulatory focus on their emotions, attitudes, and behaviors.

A major purpose of this article is to encourage thought and dialogue among organizational psychologists about the implications of regulatory focus theory for their lines of inquiry. Given the wide range and types of dependent variables affected by people’s regulatory focus—emotions, to be sure, but also satisfaction, motivation, and decision making (Higgins, 1998)—the potential relevance of regulatory focus theory to organizational psychology is considerable.

Further research on the organizational implications of regulatory focus the-ory should take at least two different forms. First, the generalizability of regula-tory focus theory to organizational settings needs to be evaluated. The vast majority of prior research has consisted of laboratory experiments in which

college students took part in abstract tasks. Whether similar results would emerge in organizational settings in which employees are assessed in the context of their typical work assignments is an empirical question. Second, how organizational variables and regulatory focus processes relate to each other needs to be considered further.

Toward Greater Generalizability

A recent study by Kluger, Van-Dijk, Kass, Stein, and Lustig (1999) moves regulatory focus theory in the direction of greater face relevance to organiza-tional settings. The purpose of the study was to account for previously contradic-tory effects of feedback on employees’ subsequent motivation. More specifically, some studies have shown negative feedback to be more motivating than positive feedback, others find the reverse, and still others find no overall difference in the motivational consequences of negative versus positive feedback (Kluger &

DeNisi, 1996). Kluger et al. hypothesized that whether negative or positive feedback would be more motivating depends on people’s regulatory focus.

Participants consisted of employees drawn from a wide variety of organiza-tions who took part in a scenario study in which they indicated the degree to which their motivation would be altered by feedback from their supervisor.

Half were induced to have a prevention focus; they were asked to imagine that they had to keep their jobs or face the prospect of being left without income.

The other half were induced to have a promotion focus; they were asked to imagine that their job was one which they always wanted to have and that they wanted to develop and advance in that job. Feedback valence was manipu-lated by having half of the participants imagine that their supervisor had given them negative feedback, whereas the remaining half imagined that their supervisor had given them positive feedback. The results revealed no overall effect of feedback valence on motivation, but rather an interaction between participants’ regulatory focus and feedback valence. Promotion-focused individ-uals who received positive feedback and prevention-focused persons who re-ceived negative feedback reported that they would have become much more motivated than those in the remaining conditions. Kluger et al. (1999) did not include emotion as a dependent variable; however, it is entirely likely that promotion-focused persons who succeeded felt cheerful while the prevention-focused persons who failed felt agitated.

Although the Kluger et al. (1999) study is a useful start in showing the generalizability of regulatory focus theory to organizations, it is merely a sce-nario study. Even better would be to examine the effect of regulatory focus on employees’ emotions, attitudes, and behaviors in actual organizational settings.

As future research on the consequences of people’s regulatory focus moves into organizations, it is also quite important to delineate the relationship between employees’ emotions and their work attitudes and behaviors. Is it the case that employees’ regulatory focus simultaneously influences emotions and other attitudes and behaviors? Do their behaviors influence their emotions? Or do

employees’ emotional reactions mediate the relationship between their regula-tory focus and their work attitudes and behaviors?

Toward a Reciprocal Relationship between Regulatory Focus Theory and Organizational Psychology

In addition to evaluating the generalizability of regulatory focus theory to the organizational arena, future research needs to investigate how organization-related factors influence regulatory focus processes (e.g., see the preceding section on the organizational determinants of employees’ regulatory focus).

Another example stems from the fact that interactions between people in the workplace frequently take place over time. Often, there is a history to these interactions. Furthermore, there is the anticipation of future interaction. What effect do the historical or anticipated future aspects of organizational life (miss-ing from most laboratory sett(miss-ings) have on the relationship between people’s regulatory focus and their experience of emotion?

For example, in actual organizations people receive feedback on an ongoing basis, not simply at one point in time. What would happen, we wonder, if prevention-focused persons continued to receive negative feedback over time?

At first they may feel agitated and try harder for a while, but if those renewed efforts still meet with failure they ultimately may give up (Wortman & Brehm, 1975). Moreover, upon giving up they are likely to feel dejected (the negative emotion typically associated with being promotion focused) rather than agi-tated. In other words, the temporal dynamics present in organizational settings (but not in laboratory experiments) may help to explain shifts in people’s regulatory foci.

More generally, as future researchers examine how aspects of organizational life influence regulatory focus processes, they may illustrate the reciprocal relationship between regulatory focus theory and organizational psychology.

Just as regulatory focus theory has much to say about employees’ emotions, work attitudes, and behaviors, so may the study of the antecedents and conse-quences of people’s tendencies to be promotion versus prevention focused in work settings refine and extend our understanding of regulatory focus theory.


Amabile, T. (1987). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L.

Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–167). Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Behling, O., & Starke, F. A. (1973). The postulates of expectancy theory. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 373–388.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Chatman, J. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person–

organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333–349.

Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 117–132.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.

New York: Plenum.

Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object–evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength:

Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247–282). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Feather, N. T. (1988). Values, valences, and course enrollment: Testing the role of personal values within an expectancy-value framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 381–391.

Feather, N. T., & O’Brien, G. E. (1987). Looking for employment: An expectancy-valence analysis of job-seeking behavior among young people. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 251–272.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Fineman, S. (1993). Emotion in organizations. London: Sage.

Forster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Idson, L. C. (1998). Approach and avoidance strength during goal attainment: Regulatory focus and the “goal looms larger” effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1115–1131.

Friedman, R. S. (1999). The phenomenological correlates and consequences of distinct self-regulatory systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York, N.Y.

Friedman, R. S., & Forster, J. (in press). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1996). Motivational agendas in the workplace: The effects of feelings on focus of attention and work motivation. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 75–109). Greebwich, CT: JAI Press.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy theory: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340.

Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer?

In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 93–136). New York: Academic Press.

Higgins, E. T. (1991). Development of self-regulatory and self-evaluative processes: Costs, benefits, and tradeoffs. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Stroufe (Eds.), Self processes and development: The Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 125–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.

Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1–46). New York:

Academic Press.

Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217–1230.

Higgins, E. T. (2001). Promotion and prevention experiences: Relating emotions to nonemotional motivational states. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp. 186–211).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Higgins, E. T., Bond, R. N., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1986). Self-discrepancies and emotional vulnerability: How magnitude, accessibility, and type of discrepancy influence affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 5–15.

Higgins, E. T., & Loeb, I. (in press). Development of regulatory focus: Promotion and prevention as ways of living. In J. Heckhausen & C.S. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulation across the life span. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as a moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 515–525.

Higgins, E. T., Simon, M., & Wells, R. S. (1988). A model of evaluative processes and “job satisfac-tion”: When differences in standards make a difference. In R. Cardy, J. Newman, & S. M. Puffer (Eds.), Advances in information processing in organizations (Vol 3, pp. 81–105). Greenwich, CT.:

JAI Press.

Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from non-losses and losses from non-gains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of Experi-mental Social Psychology, 36, 252–274.

James, W. (1948). Psychology. New York: The World Publishing Company [Original publication, 1890]

Jick, T. (1994). Managing change. In E. G. Collins & M. A. DeVanna (Eds.), The new portable MBA (pp. 340–368). New York: Wiley.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Economet-rica, 47, 263–291.

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: Historical review, a meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.

Kluger, A. N., Van-Dijk, D., Kass, R., Stein, E. Z., & Lustig, H. (1999). Positive (negative) feedback:

Encouragement or discouragement? Manuscript under editorial review.

Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. London: Collier–Macmillan Ltd.

Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, S. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1999). Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77.

Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157–189.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. (1990). A theory of goal-setting and task performance. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Maslow, A. (1955). Deficiency motivation and growth motivation. In M. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 3, pp. 1–30). Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press.

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. (1989). The expression of emotion in organizational life. In B. M. Staw &

L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 11, pp. 1–42). Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press.

Rogers, C. R. (1960). A therapist’s views of personal goals. Wallingford: Pendle Hill.

Roney, C. J. R., Higgins, E. T., & Shah, J. (1995). Goals and framing: How outcome focus influences motivation and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1151–1160.

Russell, J. A. (1978). Evidence of convergent validity on the dimensions of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1152–1168.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.

Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1984). Some antecedents and consequences of social-comparison jealousy.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 780–792.

Shah, J., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Expectancy X value effects: Regulatory focus as determinant of magnitude and direction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 447–458.

Shah, J., Higgins, E. T., & Friedman, R. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 285–293.

Staw, B. M., & Barsade, S. G. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: A test of the sadder-but-wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 304–331.

Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 56–77.

Strauman, T. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1987). Automatic activation of self-discrepancies and emotional syndromes: When cognitive structures influence affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 53, 1004–1014.

Strauman, T. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self-discrepancies as predictors of vulnerability to distinct syndromes of chronic emotional distress. Journal of Personality, 56, 685–707.

Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 39–60.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

Weiner, B. (1986). Cognition, emotion, and action. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 281–312). New York:

Guilford Press.

Weiss, H., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the struc-ture, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wortman, C. B., & Brehm, J. W. (1975). Responses to uncontrollable outcomes: An integration of reactance theory and the learned helplessness model. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 277–336). New York: Academic Press.

Received June 15, 2001

In document Regulatory Focus Theory: (Stránka 27-32)