22 January 2013

Who Would You Ideally Be and Who Would you Ought Be – Regulatory Focus


Each of us has two major references about ourselves, namely “who would you ideally be” and “who you ought to be”.  In more scientific terms the first reference is called the “Ideal Self” while the second is called the “Ought Self”.

To better understand, the “ideal self” is who (how) you would be if all your hopes, wishes and aspirations about yourself would become reality. Put a bit differently, the “ideal self” is who you would be if all your and your loved ones dreams about yourself would become true.  

At the other end of the spectrum, the “ought self” is who (how) you would be if you would fulfill all your felt duties, obligations, and responsibilities. Put it a bit differently, the “ought self” is who you would be if you would manage to never “screw up” anything.

Each and every one of us humans has an “ideal self” and an “ought self”. Which one is more important or more salient in our minds, however, is not the same for everyone.

Another universal truth about each and every human is that each of us tries to match our current (actual) selves to the “ideal self” or to the “ought self”. In other words, we tend to reduce the difference between who we actually are and either who we would ideally be or who would we ought to be. Which of these hypothetical selves we try to come closer depends on our regulatory focus.

“When promotion focused, people are motivated by growth and development needs in which they attempt to bring their actual selves (their behaviors and self-conceptions) in alignment with their ideal selves (...)

When prevention focused, people are responsive to security needs in which they try to match their actual selves with their “ought selves” (self-standards based on felt duties and responsibilities).” Brockner and Higgins (2001).


People with a (dominant) promotion focus are characterized by a focus on ensuring gains, whereas people with a (dominant) prevention focus are characterized by a focus on ensuring non-losses. As a general state of mind, eagerness is specific for promotion focus, while vigilance is specific for prevention focus.

I guess the difference between gaining and not losing seams very small, but as a psychological mantra the difference is quite significant. People who focus more on gaining are more willing to take risks in order to achieve their desiderate, but people who focus on not losing are less willing to take risks, because risks imply potential loses and their goal is to avoid them.

When it comes to which goals people are people driven by, Brockner and Higgins (2001) note that: “Promotion-focused people seek to attain the goals or standards associated with the “ideal self”, whereas prevention-focused people seek to attain the goals or standards associated with the “ought self”.”

Closely related to the goals one is driven by are the needs that an individual wants to satisfy. For people with a (dominant) promotion focus the needs that are most salient can be summed as “growth and development”.  For people with a (dominant) prevention focus the needs that are most salient can be summed as “security needs”.

This is not to be understood as people with promotion focus have only growth and development need, while people with a prevention focus have only security needs. All humans have both growth and security needs. Regulatory focus, however, distinguishes between which of these needs are dominant (salient) in one’s mind. To rephrase this, for some people it is more important to get pleasure (gains), while for others it is more important to avoid pain (non-loses).

Regulatory focus also plays a role in how people perceive the world and what kind of emotions they experience. People who have a dominant promotion focus tend to see the world as a cluster of opportunities, while people who have a dominant prevention focus tend to see the world as full of potential threats. When it comes to emotions, Brockner and Higgins (2001) note that: “Promotion-focused people’s emotions vary along a cheerful–dejected dimension, whereas prevention-focused people’s emotions vary along a quiescent–agitated dimension.”

An interesting implication of regulatory focus is the impact it has on creativity. By its very nature creativity involves risk, thus promotion focus is a factor that stimulates creativity, whereas prevention focus suppresses creativity.

After describing regulatory focus, a legitimate question has to be answered, namely which is better:  promotion or prevention focus? In order to give a pertinent answer another question has to be answered, namely: “For what?”.

A narrow view would favor the answer that promotion focus is better. After all who does not want to be and work with people who are achievers that continuously pursue gains and are creative? Reality is a bit different. I think that it is preferable that people who handle security at a nuclear power plant to have a dominant prevention focus and always keep in mind that “not screwing things up” is much more important than anything in the world.  Less extreme examples come from other professions such as accountants (I really don’t like “creative accountants”) and quality control.

For human resources management (but not only), regulatory focus has a major implication when it comes to motivation and incentives. Earlier, I have mentioned that for people with a dominant promotion focus, gains are more important than avoiding non-gains. Similarly, for people with a more dominant prevention focus, avoiding loses is more important than obtaining gains.

This implies that there should be a difference between the motivators for promotion focused people and the ones used for prevention focused individuals. Shah et. al. (1998) have demonstrated that performance increases if there is a match between an individual’s regulatory focus and the framing of the motivator. To put this more simply, people with a promotion focus are more efficient when they are incentivized with a potential gain compared with when they are threaten by a penalty (loss). People with a prevention focus are more efficient when they are threatened by a penalty compared with when they are incentivized with a potential gain.

In a more metaphorical light, carrots and sticks don’t work the same for everyone. Promotion focused people are better motivated with (the promise of) a carrot, while prevention focused people are better motivated with (the threat of) a stick.

In the field of marketing (especially communication), a similar principle applies. Congruency (matching) between the regulatory focus and the framing of the message leads to better results than discrepancy. In other words, if you target people who are more promotion focused, frame the message in a “achieving / gain” way; if you target people who are more prevention focused, frame the message in a more “not losing” way.

An interesting particularity of Regulatory focus is that it is both a trait and a state. To put this in simpler words, the type of regulatory focus (promotion or prevention) is a personality trait. Each person has both types of regulatory focus, but one of them is predominant. There are people who by their nature are more vigilant and cautious and there are people who are more achievement orientated. The cases in which a person has only one or the other type of regulatory focus are extremely rare.

Since, each of us has elements of both promotion and prevention focus, it is possible that one or the other is made more salient for a period of time. This is not to say that the base-line given by the personality trait disappears. Rather, by inducing a promotion or prevention focus state, all people become more promotion or prevention focused.

For example, if a person views a motivational speech, that person will become more promotion focus as compared with before attending the speech. After a certain period of time the feelings and concepts inoculated by the motivational speech will fade and each person will go back at the base-line he or she has.

The state characteristic of regulatory focus has many practical implications for marketing and human resources. The fact that the regulatory focus can shift depending on the context opens up many opportunities. Human resources professionals can induce promotion or prevention focus depending on the task that employees have to perform at a certain moment. For example, if there is a need for a “burst” of creativity, promotion focus can be temporarily induced in order to enhance creativity.

For marketing, implications are major. As I mentioned earlier, it is good to have a match (congruency) between regulatory focus and the framing of the communication. As a personality trait, regulatory focus is not very relevant for most customer profiling. The state, however, is highly relevant. Each and every person is in a more promotion or prevention focus depending on context and this creates opportunities to match marketing communication to the state.

For example, there are certain products and services categories that are by their nature more on the promotion or the prevention side. Take car alarms for example and you will understand that it is better to frame the message in a more prevention focus way.

Another application can be in investigating the state of mind a person is in a particular context such as people on a stadium. I would assume that in this context most people are in a promotion focus state.   

Before ending, I have to mention that regulatory focus belongs to both the personality dimension and the internal state dimension from the 4D Model of Behavior.  It belongs to the personality dimension with its personality trait side and to the internal state dimension with its state side.

Like it?  Spice Up  Your Business


Note: This post is documented from:

Brockner Joel and Higgins E. Tory (2001)  Regulatory Focus Theory: Implications for the Study of Emotions at Work Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Vol. 86, No. 1, September, pp. 35–66,

Shah James, Higgins E. Tory and Friedman Ronald S. (1998) Performance Incentives and Means: How Regulatory Focus Influences Goal Attainment Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 74, No. 2, 285-293

No comments: