No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Regulatory focus theory encompasses promotion focus, seeking success and prevention focus, avoiding failure. These mutually exclusive focuses, when matched with the appropriate goal pursuit strategy, promotion with eager and prevention with vigilant, create a state of regulatory fit. This state of regulatory fit leads to different outcomes which the current study has grouped into fit sensitivity and performance. Fit sensitivity is the sensitivity to fit effects with an absence of correctness while performance outcomes are based in correctness. The goal of the current study was to examine both fit sensitivity and performance in the same task to demonstrate a difference in fit sensitivity effects between types of fit while showing equal performance between promotion and prevention fit. An applicant hiring simulation was implemented. 24 applicant profiles for the position of police officer were generated, six with high risk/ variable reward elements meant to align with individuals in a state of promotion fit, six with low-risk/consistent-reward elements meant to align with individuals in a state of prevention fit, and six applicant profiles with a high probability of succeeding and finally six applicant profiles meant to have a low probability of succeeding. Participants rated the applicant profiles on their suitability and recommended 12 applicants to be hired. Initial results did not support the hypotheses, however exploratory analysis did demonstrate fit sensitivity for prevention fit. Additional exploratory analyses are discussed and possible explanations for the lack of results are examined. / Master of Science / Regulatory focus theory includes two types of motivational orientations, promotion focus which centers on seeking success and prevention focus which centers on avoiding failure. If the way an individual’s pursues a goal (goal pursuit strategy) matches his or her regulatory focus orientation then he or she is considered to be in a state of regulatory fit. This state leads to various outcomes different than if an individual is in a state of non-fit. In the current study I have grouped these consequences into two types: fit sensitivity and performance. Essentially fit sensitivity is when the consequences seen do not have a correctness component and may be difference depending on the type of regulatory fit (promotion and prevention). Performance is when there is a correct or incorrect component to the outcome. The goal of the current study was to show that although fit sensitivity outcomes may be different for promotion fit and prevention fit, both fit states can lead to the same performance. With the initial analysis hypotheses were not supported but exploratory analysis did lend some support for prevention fit sensitivity. Discussion includes possible explanations for the lack of fit effects found.

Regulatory focus theory is a motivational orientation theory encompassing two regulatory systems: promotion focus and prevention focus. Promotion focused individuals tend to seek success, implement risky tactics, and an eager goal pursuit. Prevention focused individuals tend to avoid failure, implement conservative tactics, and a vigilant goal pursuit. Scholer and Higgins (2011) propose an exception to the rule where individuals break the natural RF alignment, which individuals typically seek to maintain. Scholer and Higgins (2011) proposed that promotion (prevention) focused individuals in a state of gain (loss) become conservative (riskier) in their behavior while maintaining an eager (vigilant) goal pursuit. However, literature supporting this theory is between-subjects in methodology and does not measure GP strategy, only risk. The current study proposes two competing regulation patterns: 1) When individuals change in their risk, they maintain their GP strategy 2) when individuals change in their risk, their GP strategy also changes, becoming more eager with higher levels of risk and more vigilant with more conservative behavior. Therefore, the following study examined how tactics and GP strategies change within-person when experiencing loss and gain states. Specifically, examining change in risk and GP after positive and negative goal discrepancy feedback. In order to examine this self-regulation, participants who were primed to be in either a promotion or prevention focused state played three rounds of a simple risk-measuring game. Even though the RF prime did not produce the expected results, there was regulation occurring. After recategorizing the baseline risk and GP to create a high risk /eager GP and a low risk /vigilant GP groups, there was support for the idea that as behavior changes to be riskier, so too does GP change to become more eager. This finding is in contradiction to Scholer and Higgins' (2011) theory that there is a cognitive reappraisal of what it means to be risky, such that it can fit within the vigilant goal pursuit strategy. Additionally, latent profile analyses further supported the second of the competing regulation patterns, in that higher risk-taking corresponded with eager GP, and more conservative behaviors led to greater levels of vigilant GP. Future directions and limitations are discussed. / Doctor of Philosophy / Regulatory focus theory has two motivational orientations: promotion focus encompassing those who seek success and avoid the absence of success and prevention focus encompassing those who avoid failure and seek the absence of failure. Scholer and Higgins (2011) describe a level approach to regulatory focus where individuals typically seek alignment throughout these levels. However, they note an exception to the rule where individuals implement tactics incongruent with their current regulatory focus system. They propose that individuals maintain this incongruency by cognitively redefining the tactics to align with the current regulatory focus system. Drawing from this exception to the rule, and from Lord et al.'s (2010) self-regulation model, two competing self-regulation patterns were examined: 1) When individuals change in their risk behaviors, they maintain their current regulatory focus system 2) when individuals change in their risk behaviors, it causes bottom-up self-regulation and changes individuals' regulatory focus system to match the risk behavior. In order to test these competing regulation patterns, participants completed a writing task meant to place them in either a promotion or prevention regulatory focus state. They then played three rounds of a simple risk-measuring game. In addition, after each round of the game, the participants' goal pursuit strategies were measured to see if the general strategy changed as risk behaviors changed. In order to necessitate a change in in levels of risk, between rounds, participants were given negative and positive feedback (in a random order). Negative feedback was meant to cause individuals to be risky and positive feedback was meant to lead to more conservative behaviors from the participants. Results indicated the regulatory focus prime did not work, however, after examining exploratory analyses, there was some support for the idea that individuals implement self-regulation in order for their regulatory focus system to match their behaviors.

This study extended previous research by applying Higgins (2007) theory of Regulatory Fit to the context of performance feedback. Participants worked on an in-basket task in two 30 minute segments. Following the first 30 minutes segment, they were given recommendations for improving their performance framed in a manner that either did or did not fit their motivational orientation. Hypotheses predicted that compared to instances of non-fit, conditions of regulatory fit between recommendation frame (Eager vs. Vigilant) and motivational orientation (Promotion vs. Prevention) would have a significantly greater, positive impact on the following three outcomes: 1) Variety and Frequency of Feedback Use, 2) Feedback Recall, and 3) Attitudes Following Feedback. Overall results supported this assertion. Participants in condition of regulatory fit engaged in a significantly greater variety of behaviors and did so more frequently than those assigned to non-fit conditions. And while the effect of regulatory fit on feedback recall was not significant, it did approach significance (p = .07) and produced a pattern of results consistent with the predictions of regulatory fit. Counter to previous research, regulatory fit did not have significant impact on Attitudes Following Feedback in the current study. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed. / Ph. D.

調焦焦點理論將人的特質區分成促進型目標定向( Promotion focus)與防禦型目標定向( Prevention focus)。促進型目標定向經理人的動機在於推動正面結果的產生，因此對於公司的成長與業績較為敏感；防禦型目標定向的經理人則是為了防止發生負面結果而兢兢業業，對於公司的經營偏好維持現狀。本篇研究假設促進型目標定向的經理人因為較為關注正面結果的出現與否，因而使得公司能夠有較佳的經營結果。故本篇研究假設借款公司的經理人若偏向促進型目標定向，可從銀行得到較低的聯貸利差，借款金額較高以及較長的借款期間，需要提供擔保品的機率則較低。樣本來自於S&P1500，並排除金融業及保險業；經理人的調節焦點則是藉由分析經理人所寫的致股東信所衡量。研究結果顯示擁有促進型目標定向經理人的借款公司，與聯貸利差呈現負相關，顯示這類型的公司可以得到較優惠的利率。至於非利率條件，包含借款金額、借款期間以及提供擔保品的機率，本研究並未發現擁有促進型目標定向經理人的借款公司與較優惠的非利率條件之間具有關聯性。 / This study investigates the relationship between CEO regulatory focus and syndicated features. Regulatory focus theory divides people into promotion and prevention focus. Promotion-focused people are demonstrated to pay more attention to accomplishments and growth, while prevention-focused people are more concerned about safety and security. Based on the assumption that CEOs who are more inclined to be promotion-focused are more concerned about the presence and absence of positive outcomes, the operating results would be better compared to that of the prevention-focused CEOs’. Therefore, I hypothesize that borrowing firms with CEOs who are more inclined to be promotion-focused would have lower syndicate spread, larger loan amount, longer maturity and lower possibility of providing security. The sample consists of S&P 1500 non-financial firms, and CEO regulatory focus is captured by conducting content analysis of the letters that CEOs write to shareholders. The results suggest that borrowers with CEOs that are more inclined to be promotion-focused are associated with lower loan spreads, after controlling for several firm-specific and loan-specific controls. However, I do not find evidence that CEO regulatory focus is related to non-pricing loan contract terms, including loan amount, loan maturity and the possibility of providing security.