No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

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.

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.

Team psychological safety fosters interpersonal risk-taking and constructive debate. Yet, how psychological safety develops in diverse teams needs to be explained. I apply collective regulatory lenses to shed light on how collective prevention focus (status quo) and collective promotion focus (growth) uniquely affect team psychological safety. I believe promotion focus makes it easier to attain psychological safety, while prevention focus makes it harder. Under a collective promotion lens, teams seek growth. Under a collective prevention lens, teams desire protection and not making things any worse. A pilot study of 76 students in 17 student project teams provided initial support for individual relationships in my model. In Study 2, an experiment, I manipulated team regulatory foci in three tasks (building towers, selling a house, negotiating a salary). I did not find significant mean group differences in psychological safety between promotion (n = 17) and prevention (n = 15) teams; yet, promotion teams experienced greater team viability in the final activity. In Study 3, I employed an experimental vignette method that suggested leadership conditions (e.g., leader humility vs transactional leadership) created differences in regulatory foci and subsequent differences in psychological safety with 343 working professionals in 7 scenarios.

Surprisingly little research has explored the role of grit in consumer psychology. My dissertation addresses this gap by examining how grit influences consumer psychology, particularly focusing on uncovering the underlying mechanism between grit and consumer behaviors and exploring beliefs and attitudes on grit. Toward this goal, Essay 1 identifies the links between grit, a promotion regulatory focus, and variety seeking, while Essay 2 explores the role of consumers' political ideology on each facet of grit and moral consumer choices. In Essay 1, I propose that grit influences variety seeking, partially explained through a promotion regulatory focus. Three pilot studies, a main effects field study, and four experiments are used to empirically support links from grit to increased variety seeking, mediated by a promotion focus, and moderated by goal relevance. Essay 2 focuses on the influence of political ideology on grittiness. Multiple studies are used to test the proposed framework using various designs (surveys and experiments) and analysis techniques (e.g., SEM, ANOVA, and PROCESS), finding that unique types of grit, relative to consumers' political ideology, can significantly enhance or diminish intentions to make moral consumer choices. Together, this dissertation examines the important construct of grit in marketing and extends the current understanding of grit (e.g., dimensionality; promotion-focus). The essays offer robust evidence through field studies, consequential decisions, and various samples.