Biomedical subjects

E T Higgins

Publications and source records attributed to E T Higgins.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

Promotion and prevention focus on alternative hypotheses: implications for attributional functions.

Five studies examined hypothesis generation and discounting in causal attribution from the perspective of regulatory focus theory (E. T. Higgins, 1997, 1998). According to this theory, a promotion focus is associated with generating more and simultaneously endorsing multiple hypotheses, whereas a prevention focus is associated with generating only a few hypotheses and selecting 1 hypothesis from a given set. Five studies confirmed these predictions for both situationally induced and chronic individual differences in regulatory focus. In Studies 1, 2, and 3, individuals in a promotion focus generated more hypotheses than individuals in a prevention focus. In Studies 4 and 5, individuals in a promotion focus discounted explanations in light of alternatives less than individuals in a prevention focus. Study 5 also found that in a promotion focus, person explanations were generalized across situations less than in a prevention focus.

Adult↗

PubMed2001

Regulatory concerns and appraisal efficiency: the general impact of promotion and prevention.

It was hypothesized that people's appraisals both of themselves and of other objects in the world are more efficient when the emotional dimension underlying their appraisals fits their regulatory concerns. Regulatory focus theory distinguishes 2 such fundamental concerns: promotion concerns with accomplishment that relate to cheerfulness- and dejection-related emotions, and prevention concerns with security that relate to quiescence- and agitation-related emotions. Five studies found that individuals with stronger promotion concerns were faster in appraising how cheerful or dejected the object made them feel, whereas individuals with stronger prevention concerns were faster in appraising how quiescent or agitated the object made them feel. These greater appraisal efficiencies were found for both chronic and situationally induced promotion and prevention concerns and were independent of both the valence and the extremity of the appraisals.

Affect↗

PubMed2000

To "do the right thing" or to "just do it": locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives.

An integrated series of studies investigated 2 functional dimensions of self-regulation referred to as assessment and locomotion (E. T. Higgins and A. W. Kruglanski, 1995). Assessment constitutes the comparative aspect of self-regulation that critically evaluates alternative goals or means to decide which are best to pursue and appraises performance. Locomotion constitutes the aspect of self-regulation concerned with movement from state to state, including commitment of psychological resources to initiate and maintain such movement. Two separate scales were developed to measure individual differences in these tendencies. Psychometric work attested to the scales' unidimensionality, internal consistency, and temporal stability. The authors found that (a) locomotion and assessment are relatively independent of each other, (b) both are needed for self-regulatory success, and (c) each relates to distinct task orientations and motivational emphases.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Pragmatic use of stereotyping in teamwork: social loafing and compensation as a function of inferred partner-situation fit.

Using 4 experiments, the authors examined how stereotypic information about teammates influences social loafing and compensation during collective tasks. In each experiment, participants performed better on cognitive tasks when there was a poor (vs. good) fit between the stereotypic strengths of their partner and the requirements of the task. This pattern occurred whether participants used gender stereotypes (Experiment 1) or occupational stereotypes (Experiments 2 to 4) and occurred even when participants only anticipated working on a collective task (Experiment 4). In Experiment 3, the pattern occurred only in the collective (not in the coactive) condition, providing direct evidence for social loafing. Together, these results suggest that people use stereotypes to tune their motivation to optimize the ratio of their own individual effort to the team's expected output.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Making a good decision: value from fit.

The classic answer to what makes a decision good concerns outcomes. A good decision has high outcome benefits (it is worthwhile) and low outcome costs (it is worth it). I propose that, independent of outcomes or value from worth, people experience a regulatory fit when they use goal pursuit means that fit their regulatory orientation, and this regulatory fit increases the value of what they are doing. The following postulates of this value from fit proposal are examined: (a) People will be more inclined toward goal means that have higher regulatory fit, (b) people's motivation during goal pursuit will be stronger when regulatory fit is higher, (c) people's (prospective) feelings about a choice they might make will be more positive for a desirable choice and more negative for an undesirable choice when regulatory fit is higher, (d) people's (retrospective) evaluations of past decisions or goal pursuits will be more positive when regulatory fit was higher, and (e) people will assign higher value to an object that was chosen with higher regulatory fit. Studies testing each of these postulates support the value-from-fit proposal. How value from fit can enhance or diminish the value of goal pursuits and the quality of life itself is discussed.

Decision Making↗

PubMed1999

Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change.

Two situations involving choice between stability and change were examined: task substitution, which deals with choosing between resuming an interrupted activity and doing a substitute activity, and endowment, which deals with choosing between a possessed object and an alternative object. Regulatory focus theory (E. T. Higgins, 1997, 1998) predicts that a promotion focus will be associated with openness to change, whereas a prevention focus will be associated with a preference for stability. Five studies confirmed this prediction with both situational induction of and chronic personality differences in regulatory focus. In Studies 1 and 2, individuals in a prevention focus were more inclined than individuals in a promotion focus to resume an interrupted task rather than do a substitute task. In Studies 3-5, individuals in a prevention focus, but not individuals in a promotion focus, exhibited a reluctance to exchange currently possessed objects (i.e., endowment) or previously possessed objects.

Choice Behavior↗

PubMed1999

When do self-discrepancies have specific relations to emotions? The second-generation question of Tangney, Niedenthal, Covert, and Barlow (1998)

Self-discrepancy theory (E. T. Higgins, 1987) hypothesizes that actual-ideal discrepancies are uniquely related to dejection emotions, whereas actual-ought discrepancies are uniquely related to agitation emotions. A review of the literature testing this hypothesis supports an affirmative-answer to the question "Is there an effect?" However, as the results of J. P. Tangney, P. M. Niedenthal, M. V. Covert, and D. H. Barlow's (1998) study indicate, the predicted unique relations are not always found. Their article contributes to the development of self-discrepancy theory by shifting attention to the second-generation question "When is there an effect?" Four variables that moderate the likelihood of finding unique discrepancy-emotion relations are discussed in the present article: the magnitude of a self-discrepancy, the accessibility of a self-discrepancy, the applicability and relevance of a self-discrepancy in a current context, and the importance of a self-discrepancy to the person.

Affect↗

PubMed1998

Performance incentives and means: how regulatory focus influences goal attainment.

Study 1 demonstrated that as individuals' promotion-related ideal strength increases, performance on an anagram task is greater for a monetary task incentive framed in terms of gains and nongains (i.e., promotion framed) than one framed in terms of losses and nonlosses (i.e., prevention framed), whereas the reverse is true as individuals' prevention-related ought strength increases. Study 2 further demonstrated that with promotion-framed task incentives, individuals' ideal' strength increases motivation for promotion-related goal attainment means (gaining points), whereas with prevention-framed task incentives, individuals' ought strength increases motivation for prevention-related means (avoiding losing points). These results suggest that motivation and performance are greater when the regulatory focus of task incentives and means match (vs. mismatch) the chronic regulatory focus of the performers.

Achievement↗

PubMed1998

Approach and avoidance strength during goal attainment: regulatory focus and the "goal looms larger" effect.

Three studies tested the hypothesis that regulatory focus, both as a chronic person variable and as a manipulated situational variable, differentially affects the strength of participants' approach and avoidance strategic motivations as they get closer to the goal. In 2 studies, flexion and extension arm pressure were used as on-line measures of approach and avoidance intensity, respectively. As predicted, the approach gradient was steeper for participants with a promotion focus on aspirations and gains than for participants with a prevention focus on responsibilities and nonlosses, whereas the reverse was true for the avoidance gradient. In a third study, the same pattern of results was found on a persistence measure of motivational strength. Participants with a promotion focus worked longer on anagrams closer to the goal when they were approach means for goal attainment than when they were avoidance means, whereas the reverse was true for participants with a prevention focus.

Adult↗

PubMed1997

Beyond pleasure and pain.

People approach pleasure and avoid pain. To discover the true nature of approach-avoidance motivation, psychologists need to move beyond this hedonic principle to the principles that underlie the different ways that it operates. One such principle is regulatory focus, which distinguishes self-regulation with a promotion focus (accomplishments and aspirations) from self-regulation with a prevention focus (safety and responsibilities). This principle is used to reconsider the fundamental nature of approach-avoidance, expectancy-value relations, and emotional and evaluative sensitivities. Both types of regulatory focus are applied to phenomena that have been treated in terms of either promotion (e.g., well-being) or prevention (e.g., cognitive dissonance). Then, regulatory focus is distinguished from regulatory anticipation and regulatory reference, 2 other principles underlying the different ways that people approach pleasure and avoid pain.

Emotions↗

PubMed1997

Emotional responses to goal attainment: strength of regulatory focus as moderator.

Goals with a promotion focus versus a prevention focus are distinguished. Chronic ideal goals (hopes and aspirations) have a promotion focus, whereas ought goals (duties and responsibilities) have a prevention focus. The hypothesis that emotional responses to goal attainment vary as a function of promotion versus prevention goal strength (conceptualized as goal accessibility) was tested in correlational studies relating chronic goal attainment (self-congruencies or self-discrepancies) to emotional frequency and intensity (Studies 1-3) and in an experimental study relating immediate goal attainment (i.e., success or failure) to emotional intensity (Study 4). All studies found that goal attainment yielded greater cheerfulness-dejection responses when promotion focus was stronger and greater quiescence-agitation responses when prevention focus was stronger.

Affect↗

PubMed1997

Expectancy x value effects: regulatory focus as determinant of magnitude and direction.

The authors propose that a promotion focus involves construal of achievement goals as aspirations whose attainment brings accomplishment. Commitment to these accomplishment goals is characterized by attempts to attain the highest expected utility. In contrast, a prevention focus involves construal of achievement goals as responsibilities whose attainment brings security. Commitment to these security goals is characterized by doing what is necessary. The different nature of commitment to accomplishment goals versus security goals is predicted to influence the interactive effect of goal expectancy and goal value on goal commitment, as evident in both task performance and decision making. Four studies found that the classic positive interactive effect of expectancy and value on goal commitment increases with a promotion focus and decreases with a prevention focus.

Decision Making↗

PubMed1996

The "self digest": self-knowledge serving self-regulatory functions.

Self-knowledge is conceptualized as a self digest that summarizes one's relations to the world and the personal consequences of these relations. It is a handy sourcebook that serves self-regulatory functions. It is distinguished from the classic notion that self-knowledge contains one descriptive actual self. The self digest contains information about three kinds of actual selves that differ in self-regulatory function: (a) an instrumental self, (b) an expectant self, and (c) a monitored self. It represents not only the actual self but desired (and undesired) selves that reflect different kinds of self-regulatory focus (i.e., promotion or prevention). It represents not only one's own standpoint but also the standpoint of others whose beliefs one is motivated to take into account. This self-regulatory perspective is used to reconsider self-esteem, self-enhancement, self-consistency, self-presentation, and cross-cultural differences in the self.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1995

When combining intrinsic motivations undermines interest: a test of activity engagement theory.

Three studies with elementary school children demonstrated that combining reading with coloring pictures can undermine children's later interest in reading, while also reducing their interest in coloring. Undermining is maximized when an activity is identified as secondary during the initial engagement, but other conditions must also be met as specified by activity engagement theory (Higgins & Trope, 1990): (a) the multiple input activities must be separately identified and considered simultaneously as alternatives, (b) the activity identified as primary during initial engagement must not be perceived as very attractive, and (c) the responses connected to an identified activity during the initial engagement must be activated subsequently. Conditions for enhancing interest in an activity are also considered.

Child↗

PubMed1995

Sensitivity to varying gains and losses: the role of self-discrepancies and event framing.

Three studies psychophysically measured people's discrimination among different sizes of monetary net gains or net losses. Participants imagined either gains or nonlosses (i.e., net gains) or losses or nongains (i.e., net losses). Participants discriminated more when the identical event was framed as the presence (gains and losses) versus the absence (nonlosses and nongains) of an outcome, presumably because the latter is harder to represent. Discrimination was enhanced when the motivational features of the imagined event were either both the same as or both different from a person's self-discrepancy. Discrimination was reduced when only one of the motivational features was different. A model of excitations, inhibitions, and disinhibitions between mental representation is suggested to account for these findings.

Adult↗

PubMed1994

Memory errors from a change of standard: a lack of awareness or of understanding?

Memory errors occur when the context standard that is used when judging target behaviors is different from the category norm standard that is available later when the behaviors are recalled. Is insufficient awareness the reason for this change-of-standard effect? Two kinds of awareness were maximized in each of two studies: (a) awareness of the relation between the judgment and the context--telling subjects to be sure to use the non-target persons for comparison when judging the target person (salience); and (b) awareness at recall of the earlier judgmental context--asking subjects to recall the non-target persons before recalling the target person (reinstatement). Context reinstatement reduced memory errors. But when context reinstatement and salience were combined, the memory errors reappeared. In Study 2, an attempt at debiasing failed. The change-of-standard effect is explained in terms of a "natural" tendency to use the current categorical meaning of a judgment to reconstruct the referent of its past contextualized meaning.

Awareness↗

PubMed1994

Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance: distinct self-regulatory systems.

Two studies using different paradigms activated either ideal self-guides (a person's hopes or wishes) or ought self-guides (a person's sense of duty and responsibility) and measured Ss' concern with different forms of self-regulation: approaching matches to desired end states or mismatches to undesired end states and avoiding mismatches to desired end states or matches to undesired end states. A 3rd study asked ideal versus ought discrepant Ss to select among alternative strategies for friendship. The results suggest that a concern with approach is greater for ideal than ought self-regulation, whereas a concern with avoidance is greater for ought than ideal self-regulation.

Adult↗

PubMed1994

Developmental changes in achievement evaluation: motivational implications of self-other differences.

In order to explore the development of self-evaluative biases, children at 3 age levels (5-6, 7-8, 9-10) evaluated themselves or another child when given social or temporal comparison feedback. Evaluative biases were indicated by higher evaluations for the self than another, especially after failure. Children at different ages were not differentially responsive to temporal vs. social comparison information. However, evaluative bias in response to the type of evaluation differed by age; there was greater bias for general ability evaluations by older children and greater bias for specific performance evaluations by younger children. Alternative explanations for these self-other differences were minimized, as differences in visual orientation were held constant and differences in knowledge of effort were controlled statistically. Other aspects of the design as well as sex differences support a motivational interpretation of these biases. How these biases are manifested is related to children's level of understanding and concerns at different ages.

Affect↗