Motivation and Emotion

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 316–324 | Cite as

Feeling right or being right: When strong assessment yields strong correction

Original Paper

Abstract

Negotiators in regulatory fit report feeling right about an upcoming negotiation more than those in non-fit, and this intensifies their responses to negotiation preparation (Appelt et al. in Soc Cogn 27(3), 365–384, 2009). High assessors emphasize critical evaluation and being right (Higgins et al. in Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol 35, pp 293–344, 2003). This emphasis should motivate them to engage in correction processes when they only feel right—so strongly as to produce elimination, and perhaps even overcorrection, of the fit effects found previously. We found that low assessors replicated regulatory fit effects on negotiation preparation measures of anticipated performance and perceived assessment competence. For high assessors, however, these fit effects were eliminated and even reversed to some extent. This is consistent with the prediction that high assessors correct because they want to be right, and not just feel right, and correcting can result in overcorrection. Implications for understanding the trade-offs of a strong assessment orientation are discussed.

Keywords

Assessment orientation Correction Overcorrection Regulatory fit Regulatory focus 

References

  1. Appelt, K. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2010). My way: How strategic preferences vary by negotiator role and regulatory focus. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, in press.Google Scholar
  2. Appelt, K. C., Zou, X., Arora, P., & Higgins, E. T. (2009). Regulatory fit in negotiation: Effects of “prevention-buyer” and “promotion-seller” fit. Social Cognition, 27(3), 365–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2003). Locomotion, assessment and regulatory fit: Value transfer from “How” to “What”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 525–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benjamin, L., & Flynn, F. J. (2006). Leadership style and regulatory mode: Value from fit? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 216–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brodscholl, J. C., Kober, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2007). Strategies of self-regulation in goal attainment versus goal maintenance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 628–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Camacho, C. J., Higgins, E. T., & Luger, L. (2003). Moral value transfer from regulatory fit: What feels right is right and what feels wrong is wrong. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 498–510.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “feeling right”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 388–404.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cesario, J., Higgins, E. T., & Scholer, A. A. (2007). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Basic principles and remaining questions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 444–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 53–92). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  11. Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2003). Optimism, promotion pride, and prevention pride as predictors of quality of life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1521–1532.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents and cognitive functioning in motivational versus volitional states of mind. Motivation and Emotion, 11, 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  14. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217–1230.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Higgins, E. T. (2005). Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 209–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review, 113, 439–460.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Higgins, E. T. (2008). Culture and personality: Variability across universal motives as the missing link. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Higgins, E. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Pierro, A. (2003). Regulatory mode: Locomotion and assessment as distinct orientations. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 293–344). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Higgins, E. T., Pierro, A., & Kruglanski, A. W. (in press). Re-thinking culture and personality: How self-regulatory universals create cross-cultural differences. In R. M. Sorrentino and S. Yamaguchi (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition across cultures. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jarvis, W. B. G., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 172–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koenig, A. M., Cesario, J., Molden, D. C., Kosloff, S., & Higgins, E. T. (2009). Incidental experiences of regulatory fit and the processing of persuasive appeals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1342–1355.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., & Higgins, E. T. (2007a). Regulatory mode and preferred leadership styles: How fit increases job satisfaction. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(2), 137–149.Google Scholar
  25. Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., Higgins, E. T., & Capozza, D. (2007b). “On the move” Or “Staying put”: Locomotion, need for closure, and reactions to organizational change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(6), 1305–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., Higgins, E. T., Atash, M. N., Pierro, A., Shah, J. Y., et al. (2000). To “Do the right thing” or to “Just do it”: Locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 793–815.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuhl, J. (1985). Volitional mediation of cognition-behavior consistency: Self-regulatory processes and action versus state orientation. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 101–128). Berlin: Sprinter-Verlag.Google Scholar
  28. Kumashiro, M., Rusbult, C. E., Finkenauer, C., & Stocker, S. L. (2007). To think or to do: The impact of assessment and locomotion orientation on the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(4), 591–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L., & Sears, P. S. (1944). Level of aspiration. In J. McHunt (Ed.), Personality and the behavior disorders (Vol. 1, pp. 333–378). New York: Ronal Press.Google Scholar
  30. Martin, L. L. (1986). Set/reset: Use and disuse of concepts in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 493–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Murphy, S. T., & Zajonc, R. B. (1993). Affect, cognition, and awareness: Affective priming with optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 723–739.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & White, P. H. (1998). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: Implications for persuasion. Social Cognition, 16(1), 93–113.Google Scholar
  34. Pierro, A., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2006a). Progress takes work: Effects of the locomotion dimension on job involvement, effort investment, and task performance in organizations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(7), 1723–1743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pierro, A., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2006b). Regulatory mode and the joys of doing: Effects of ‘locomotion’ and ‘assessment’ on intrinsic and extrinsic task motivation. European Journal of Personality, 20, 355–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pierro, A., Leder, S., Manneti, L., Higgins, E. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Aiello, A. (2008). Regulatory mode effects on counterfactual thinking and regret. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1992a). Assimilation and contrast effects in attitude measurement: An inclusion/exclusion model. Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 72–77.Google Scholar
  38. Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1992b). Constructing reality and its alternatives: An inclusion/exclusion model of assimilation and contrast effects in social judgment. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgments. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220–247.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Thompson, M. M., Naccarato, M. E., & Parker, K. E. (1989, June). Assessing cognitive need: The development of the personal need for structure and personal fear of invalidity scales. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.Google Scholar
  42. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgments under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: The role of naive theories in corrections for perceived bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 36–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naive theories of bias in bias correction. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 141–208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirstin C. Appelt
    • 1
  • Xi Zou
    • 2
    • 3
  • E. Tory Higgins
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of ManagementColumbia Business SchoolNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Organizational BehaviorLondon Business SchoolLondonUK

Personalised recommendations