Motivation and Emotion

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 338–348 | Cite as

Habitual self-regulatory orientation and ease-of-retrieval: Regulatory focus qualifies the impact of subjective experiences in judgment

Original Paper

Abstract

Eager strategies of self-regulation, known as promotion orientation, and cautious or vigilant strategies of self-regulation, known as prevention orientation, have been found to be associated with distinct patterns of goal attainment and information exploration. Building on these findings, we hypothesize that self-regulation in a promotion versus prevention focus triggers specific patterns of information use in judgment. Specifically, we predict that reliance on ease-of-retrieval—the feeling of ease or difficulty associated with accessing information—is particularly pronounced with a predominant promotion- compared to prevention-orientation. Two experiments that manipulate ease-of-retrieval and assess habitual differences in regulatory focus orientation support this prediction. The current contribution thus extends previous research by documenting that habitual tendencies of promotion-oriented as compared to prevention-oriented self-regulation are associated with reliance on distinct information sources in judgment.

Keywords

Regulatory focus Promotion Prevention Ease-of-retrieval Feelings Judgment 

References

  1. Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (1999). How often did I do it? Experienced ease of retrieval and frequency estimates of past behavior. Acta Psychologica, 103, 77–89. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00035-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219–235. doi:10.1177/1088868309341564.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumeister, R., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and application. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.388.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clore, G. L. (1992). Cognitive phenomenology: Feelings and the construction of judgment. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 133–163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Clore, G. L., Gasper, K., & Garvin, E. (2001). Affect as information. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp. 121–144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Dijksterhuis, A., Macrae, C. N., & Haddock, G. (1999). When recollective experiences matter: Subjective ease of retrieval and stereotyping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 760–768. doi:10.1177/0146167299025006010.Google Scholar
  9. Elster, J. (1999). Alchemies of the mind: Rationality and the emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Evans, L. M., & Petty, R. E. (2003). Self-guide framing and persuasion: Responsibly increasing message processing to ideal levels. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 313–324. doi:10.1177/0146167202250090.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Florack, A., Friese, M., & Scarabis, M. (2010). Regulatory focus and reliance on implicit preferences in consumption contexts. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 193–204. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2010.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Florack, A., & Zoabi, H. (2003). Risikoverhalten bei Aktiengeschäften: Wenn Anleger nachdenklich werden (Risk behavior in share transactions: When investors think about reasons). Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 34, 65–78. doi:10.1024//0044-3514.34.2.65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Förster, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16, 631–636. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01586.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Bianco, A. T. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 148–164. doi:10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00509-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2000). The effects of approach and avoidance motor actions on the elements of creative insight. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 477–492. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.477.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001–1013. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greifeneder, R., & Bless, H. (2007). Relying on accessible content versus accessibility experiences: The case of processing capacity. Social Cognition, 25, 853–881. doi:10.1521/soco.2007.25.6.853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greifeneder, R., & Bless, H. (2008). Depression and reliance on ease-of-retrieval experiences. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 213–230. doi:10.1002/ejsp.451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greifeneder, R., Bless, H., & Pham, M. T. (2011a). When do people rely on affective and cognitive feelings in judgment? A review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 107–141. doi:10.1177/1088868310367640.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greifeneder, R., Müller, P., Stahlberg, D., Van den Bos, K., & Bless, H. (2011b). Beyond procedure’s content: Cognitive subjective experiences in procedural justice judgments. Experimental Psychology, 58, 341–352. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haddock, G. (2002). It’s easy to like or dislike Tony Blair: Accessibility experiences and the favourability of attitude judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 257–267. doi:10.1348/000712602162571.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haddock, G., Rothman, A. J., Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Forming judgments of attitude certainty, intensity, and importance: The role of subjective experiences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 771–782. doi:10.1177/0146167299025007001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Halamish, V., Liberman, N., Higgins, E. T., & Idson, L. C. (2008). Regulatory focus effects on discounting over uncertainty for losses vs. gains. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 654–666. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2007.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haws, K. L., Dholakia, U. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2010). An assessment of chronic regulatory focus measures. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 967–982. doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.5.967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review, 113, 439–460. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.439.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. doi:10.1002/ejsp.27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Higgins, E. T., & Spiegel, S. (2004). Promotion and prevention strategies for self-regulation: A motivated cognition perspective. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 171–187). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ineichen, S., Florack, A., Keller, J., Leder, S., & Lockwood, P. (2010). How to measure general regulatory focus: Validation of a self-report measure. Unpublished manuscript, University of Ulm.Google Scholar
  31. Janssen, J., Müller, P., & Greifeneder, R. (2011). Cognitive processes in procedural justice judgments. The role of ease-of-retrieval, uncertainty, and experience. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 726–750. doi:10.1002/job.700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keller, J. (2008). Development and validation of a self-report scale assessing performance-related chronic self-regulatory concerns: The regulatory concerns questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Ulm, Germany.Google Scholar
  33. Keller, J., & Bless, H. (2008). When positive and negative expectancies disrupt performance: Regulatory focus as a catalyst. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 187–212. doi:10.1002/ejsp.452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koriat, A., & Levy-Sadot, R. (1999). Processes underlying metacognitive judgments: Information-based and experience-based monitoring of one’s own knowledge. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 483–502). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 205–218. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1122–1134. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, C. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1999). Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1135–1145. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 854–864. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Molden, D. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). How preferences for eager versus vigilant judgment strategies affect self-serving conclusions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1219–1228. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Molden, D. C., Lee, A. Y., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Motivations for promotion and prevention. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 169–187). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  41. Pham, M. T., & Avnet, T. (2004). Ideals and oughts and the reliance on affect versus substance in persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 503–518. doi:10.1086/380285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pham, M. T., & Avnet, T. (2009). Contingent reliance on the affect heuristic as a function of regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 267–278. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ruder, M., & Bless, H. (2003). Mood and the reliance on the ease of retrieval heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 20–32. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schwarz, N. (1998). Accessible content and accessibility experiences: The interplay of declarative and experiential information in judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 87–99. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0202_2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 332–348. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195–202. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2007). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 385–407). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  48. Schwarz, N., Song, H., & Xu, J. (2008). When thinking is difficult: Metacognitive experiences as information. In M. Wänke (Ed.), Social psychology of consumer behavior (pp. 201–223). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  49. Summerville, A., & Roese, N. J. (2008). Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 247–254. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.05.005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Uskul, A. K., Sherman, D. K., & Fitzgibbon, J. (2009). The cultural congruency effect: Culture, regulatory focus, and the effectiveness of gain- vs. loss-framed health messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 535–541. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wänke, M., Bless, H., & Biller, B. (1996). Subjective experience versus content of information in the construction of attitude judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1105–1113. doi:10.1177/01461672962211002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wänke, M., Bohner, G., & Jurkowitsch, A. (1997). There are many reasons to drive a BMW: Does imagined ease of argument generation influence attitudes? Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 170–177. doi:10.1086/209502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., & Belli, R. F. (1998). The role of ease of retrieval and attribution in memory judgements: Judging your memory as worse despite recalling more events. Psychological Science, 9, 124. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zanna, M. P., & Fazio, R. H. (1982). The attitude-behavior relation: Moving toward a third generation of research. In M. P. Zanna, E. T. Higgins, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Consistency in social behavior. The Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 283–301). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social SciencesUniversity of MannheimMannheimGermany
  2. 2.University of UlmUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations