Content uploaded by Kai Sassenberg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kai Sassenberg on Oct 21, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS
European Review of Social Psychology, 19, 129-164
DOI: 10.1080/10463280802201894
Group-based self-regulation: The effects of regulatory focus
Kai Sassenberg1 & Karl-Andrew Woltin2
1 Knowledge Media Research Center (Tuebingen, Germany)
2 Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena (Germany)
In press: European Review of Social Psychology
Author for correspondence:
Kai Sassenberg
Knowledge Media Research Center
Konrad-Adenauer-Strasse 40
72072 Tuebingen
Germany
e-mail: k.sassenberg@iwm-kmrc.de
phone: +49 - 7071 - 979 220
fax: +49 - 7071 - 979 200
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 2
Abstract
Self-regulation has recently been introduced as a means to investigate motivational processes in
(inter-)group research, thus granting new insights into similar mechanisms underlying diverse
intergroup phenomena. This article focuses on empirical studies applying the predominant self-
regulation approach to intergroup research: regulatory focus theory and its sister theory self-
discrepancy theory. Studies conducted along these research lines are summarized, integrated, and
evaluated as to whether the collective level has actually been addressed in terms of four criteria
(adopted from Smith, Seger, & Mackie, 2007): effects stemming from ingroup rather than
individual variables, stronger effects among more highly identified individuals, functionality for
and social sharedness of the behaviour within the ingroup. The current evaluation leads to the
conclusion that group-based self-regulation indeed exists, meaning that group members self-
regulate based on their social identity. Finally, the relation between current group-based self-
regulation research and earlier research on motivation and (inter-)group phenomena is clarified.
Word count (148)
Key words: regulatory focus, self-discrepancies, group-based self-regulation, intergroup relations,
motivation, identification
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 3
Group-based self-regulation: The effects of regulatory focus
Research on motivation of individuals with a salient social identity (i.e., intra- and
intergroup processes) has for a long time mainly focused on needs and motives such as the striving
for positive self-esteem in social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), the need for inclusion and
differentiation in optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1991), the need for certainty in
uncertainty-identity theory (Hogg, 2007) or the need for cognitive economy in diverse approaches
(e.g., Neuberg & Newsom, 1993; Shah, Kruglanski, & Thompson, 1998; Stangor & Thompson,
2002).
These need-based approaches have not substantively contributed to the understanding of the
motivational processes underlying the behaviour of group members. Instead, they focused on
certain contents of motivation (or directed motivation in the sense of Kruglanski, 1999; e.g., self-
esteem, certainty, differentiation). Therefore, it has recently been suggested that research on
(inter-)group processes might benefit from changing the focus from needs and motives to self-
regulation (Smith, 2002). Self-regulation comprises the volitional and cognitive processes
individuals apply to reach a (subjectively) positive state (Förster, Liberman, & Friedman, 2007;
Vohs & Baumeister, 2004). In many other domains pertaining to the individual self this transition
has already fruitfully been made (for summaries see Baumeister & Vohs, 2004; Boekaerts,
Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000). Self-regulation approaches in these domains have led to more precise
predictions and more parsimonious explanations of the respective phenomena. Research on the
social self can also be expected to profit in a similar manner from taking self-regulation approaches
into account.
The deficit of research concerning the regulation of the social self has not only been
detected for research on (inter-)group processes, but also for self-regulation research in general.
Based on their review of the literature Higgins and May (2001) concluded that “research
emphasizes self-regulation with ‘I’ as agent and ‘me’ as target, but a more complete model of self-
regulation incorporating the group level would include ‘we’ as agent and ‘us’ as target” (p. 64). By
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 4
also studying self-regulation in relation to the social self, a more complete picture of self-regulatory
processes would be generated. In other words, not only (inter-)group research might profit from an
application of the self-regulation approach to this domain - this endeavour might at the same time
increase our understanding of self-regulatory processes, too.
Taken together, neither did (inter-)group research take self-regulation approaches into
account1 nor did self-regulation research consider the social self. Addressing this research deficit,
there has recently been a growing number of studies on group phenomena that have started to
incorporate self-regulation. This research predominantly concentrated on one specific approach to
self-regulation: self-discrepancies theory (Higgins, 1987) and regulatory focus theory (Higgins,
1997). The current article summarizes and integrates this work stemming from our own and several
other labs. Moreover, the research is evaluated in light of the question whether the collective level
Higgins and May (2001) suggested to be fruitful has actually been addressed. Finally, the relation
between the current self-regulation research at the group level and earlier research on motivation
and group phenomena is clarified. It is important to note that the focus of the current review is on
group-based self-regulation and not on self-regulation concerning the relational self (e.g., Robins &
Boldero, 2003). Hence, in what follows the term ‘social self’ is exclusively reserved for denoting
group memberships and not for interpersonal relations. In sum, our aim is to provide a first
systematic summary of a young but fast growing domain of research, to relate it to earlier work on
motivation and groups, as well as to evaluate the work concerning its truly group-based nature.
Self-discrepancy theory and regulatory focus theory
Self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987) differentiates between three domains of the self.
The actual self is the representation of the attributes a person currently possesses, the ideal self is
the representation of the attributes a person would ideally like to possess (i.e., hopes, aspirations,
and wishes), and the ought self is the representation of the attributes a person should or ought to
possess (i.e., duties, obligations, and responsibilities). Self-discrepancy theory predicts that discre-
pancies between the actual self and the ideal self lead to more dejection (sadness, disappointment)
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 5
and less cheerfulness (happiness, enthusiasm), whereas discrepancies between the actual self and
the ought self lead to more agitation (tension, nervousness) and less quiescence (calmness, relaxed-
ness). Self discrepancies are assessed with the Selves Questionnaire (Higgins, Bond, Klein, &
Strauman, 1986), which requests participants to list attributes describing their actual, ideal, and
ought self and rate themselves concerning these attributes. Actual-ideal and actual-ought indices
are formed based on concordance and discrepancies of the content and the ratings of the actual self
with the respective goal type.
Research has meanwhile shown that these affective responses only occur if the
discrepancies between the actual self and ideals or oughts are attributed internally (i.e., as a result
from one’s own action). In case of actual-ideal and actual-ought discrepancies due to other causes
(i.e., externally attributed discrepancies) individuals respond with discontent and anger,
respectively (Petrocelli & Smith, 2005; Robins & Boldero, 2003).
About a decade after its appearance self-discrepancy theory was extended by its sister
theory, namely regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997). Regulatory focus theory goes beyond self-
discrepancy theory by not only focussing on interindividual differences, but by also addressing mo-
tivational states, which are based on the two types of self-discrepancies (Higgins, 2004). It distin-
guishes two motivational systems operating within individuals: promotion focus and prevention
focus. The predominant activation of one of these foci has an impact on individuals’ attention to
different needs (nurturance and achievement in a promotion focus vs. safety and security in a
prevention focus), which in turn implies the pursuit of differing types of goals and standards
(ideals, wishes, and aspirations in a promotion focus vs. oughts, duties, and responsibilities in a
prevention focus). To give an example, imagine two athletes competing in the final of a tourna-
ment. The first athlete really wants to win, simply because it would just be great to do so. The
athlete thus is in a promotion focus, meaning that winning represents an ideal to this athlete. Con-
trary, a second athlete really wants to make it, simply because the last 40 competitions went well
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 6
and not endangering success represents a “must” – an ought – to this athlete. The second athlete
will thus be in a prevention focus, meaning that winning represents an obligation to this athlete.
Individuals with a promotion focus mainly use approach strategies, tend to take risks, try
not to miss any opportunity (leading to an increased number of false alarms in signal detection),
and they are primarily concerned with the absence or presence of positive outcomes (i.e., gains vs.
non-gains). Furthermore, they respond to success and failure with cheerfulness- and dejection-
related emotions, respectively. Individuals with a prevention focus mainly use avoidance strategies,
tend to follow rules, try to avoid errors (leading to a higher amount of misses in signal detection)
and they are primarily concerned with the absence or presence of negative outcomes (i.e., non-
losses vs. losses). For these individuals, success and failure elicit quiescence- and agitation-related
emotions, respectively. Regulatory focus varies situationally as well as inter-individually (i.e.,
chronically). Returning to the example above, the first athlete will be more willing to take risks
during the competition, will try to gain as many points as possible, and will be really happy in case
of winning but disappointed in case of losing. In contrast, the second athlete will try to closely
follow a strategy developed with the coach and to avoid errors. The athlete will be relaxed in case
of winning but angry in case of losing.
In sum, regulatory focus theory predicts that the strategies applied during goal striving and
the affective responses to goal related events depend on the needs and goals that are primarily
monitored: nurturance and ideals in a promotion focus vs. safety and obligations in a prevention
focus. Hence, the theory makes predictions about how strategies in information processing (i.e.,
operations applicable independent of content) are applied depending on the respectively activated
needs and goals.
Over the years several manipulations and measures of regulatory focus have been
developed which will be shortly introduced here in order to provide background information for the
studies reported below. Regulatory focus can be manipulated using the following procedures:
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 7
The framing manipulation (e.g., Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Shah, Higgins, & Friedman,
1998) describes the consequences of a task in different manners. To induce a promotion focus,
outcomes are described as the presence (i.e., as gains in case of success) or absence (i.e., as non-
gains in case of failure) of positive outcomes. In order to induce a prevention focus, outcomes are
described as the presence (i.e., as non-losses in case of success) or absence (i.e., as losses in case of
failure) of negative outcomes. The rational for this manipulation is that to describe outcomes (gains
vs. losses) in the terms relevant to a particular focus will in turn induce this focus.
The regulatory focus cue manipulation (Friedman & Förster, 2001) requests participants to
navigate a mouse through a maze. In the promotion condition the mouse has to be moved towards
food to keep it from starving and in the prevention condition towards a mouse hole to keep it from
falling the prey to a raptor. Hence, on behalf of the mouse participants attend to either eagerness or
security needs. Similar to a mindset priming this is assumed to induce a promotion or a prevention
focus in participants without affecting their needs.
Regulatory focus can be assessed using the following measures:
The accessibility measure (Higgins, Shah, & Friedman, 1997; Shah & Higgins, 1997) asks
participants to generate personal ideals and oughts and to rate themselves concerning these
attributes. The response time taken to rate in how far the self matches these ideals and oughts is
taken as an indicator for a chronic promotion and prevention focus respectively. For example,
shorter latencies for self-ideal ratings are seen as indicators of a promotion focus. The rational
behind this measure is that the accessibility of the actual self concerning these characteristics is
seen as indicator of the chronic importance of these goals. Shah, Brazy, and Higgins (2004)
suggested a variant of this measure. They directly assessed the accessibility of individuals’ ideals
and oughts in a lexical decision task, rather than the accessibility of the actual self concerning these
attributes.
The regulatory focus questionnaire (Higgins et al., 2001) is based on a set of items
assessing childhood memories and self-descriptions that are relevant to promotion and prevention
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 8
focus (e.g., “Do you often do well at different things that you try?” vs. “Did you get on your
parents’ nerves often when you were growing up?” for promotion and prevention focus,
respectively). Unfortunately, it remains unclear whether the questionnaire contains true memories
resembling success in promotion and prevention self-regulation or whether the actual regulatory
focus impacts on the responses during assessment. However, even though it is not clear how the
questionnaire works, it has repeatedly led to results in line with regulatory focus theory and should
therefore be considered as a valid instrument (e.g., Higgins et al., 2001; Sassenberg & Hansen,
2007; Semin, Higgins, de Montes, Estourget, & Valencia, 2005).
The regulatory concerns measures (Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002; Keller, 2007)
capture the foci based on self-reports concerning promotion and prevention strategies during goal
striving (e.g., focussing on success as an indicator of promotion focus vs. trying to prevent negative
events as an indicator of prevention focus). The scales can be used both domain independent
(Lockwood et al., 2002) and domain specific (e.g., performance in case of Keller, 2007).
In addition, regulatory focus is sometimes assessed via its outcomes: the application of
promotion and prevention strategies during goal-striving (i.e., eagerness vs. vigilance; Seibt &
Förster, 2004).
Self-discrepancy theory and regulatory focus theory have successfully been applied to
numerous domains such as various phenomena concerning motivated cognition (Higgins &
Spiegel, 2004), creativity and analytical thinking (Friedman & Förster, 2005a), and interpersonal
relations (Robins & Boldero, 2003), to mention just a view. As a result of this research, knowledge
about the preconditions as well as the outcomes of the two regulatory foci is meanwhile substantial.
An additional development in this family of theories is the regulatory fit hypothesis
(Higgins, 2000), suggesting that the overall hedonic intensity of events, behaviours, and objects
depends on the phenomenological fit (i.e., the conscious or unconscious experience of fit) between
a specific event or behaviour and an individual’s regulatory orientation (i.e., regulatory focus, but
also other self-regulation strategies such as locomotion and assessment, Higgins, Kruglanski, &
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 9
Pierro, 2003). This implies that the value spontaneously attributed to events, behaviours, and
objects (targets) does not only depend on their relation to goals (i.e., on their potential to reduce
self-discrepancies), as suggested by many other approaches (for a summary see Brendl & Higgins,
1996). Rather, the direct fit between a target and one’s regulatory state also contributes to the
evaluation of the target. Both sources of target-value are independent of each other: Individuals
spontaneously evaluate targets fitting their regulatory state more positively, independent of whether
these targets contribute to their goal achievement (or desired outcomes more generally) or not. For
example, individuals in a promotion focus have a preference for tasks allowing them to behave in a
risky manner and individuals in a prevention focus prefer tasks allowing them to take care for
security, regardless of whether the respective strategy contributes to their goal achievement. The
empirical support for these predictions is as impresssive as the support for regulatory focus and
self-discrepancy theory (e.g., Camacho, Higgins, & Luger, 2003; Freitas, Liberman, & Higgins,
2002; Lee & Aaker, 2004; Semin et al., 2005).
Because of the overwhelming evidence in terms of the consistency concerning the findings
and in terms of the range of investigated phenomena, these theories provided the perfect starting
point for our research on the impact of self-regulation on group phenomena. Meanwhile a
substantial amount of research has been conducted in this domain. This research will be
summarized and integrated in what follows.
Self-discrepancies, regulatory focus, and group membership
The introduction of self-regulation theories to the domain of group research did not take
place in a coordinated manner, because the work was conducted in different labs at the same time
and addressed diverse phenomena. We used both a methodological and a conceptual criterion
related to the aim of the current review to systematize the research according to (a) whether
regulatory focus was treated as an independent or a dependent variable in the research and (b)
whether the research addressed the regulation of the individual or the social self (i.e., whether
participants’ personal or social identity was made salient). The latter distinction is crucial for
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 10
determining whether truly group-based self-regulation was investigated – which is required for a
better understand of self-regulation processes in general and for adding a new level of analysis to
research on motivation at the group level.
Research on stereotyping, prejudice, and other phenomena based on social categorisation
already profited from taking the impact of individual level self-regulation into account (e.g.,
Monteith, Ashburn-Nardo, Voils, & Czopp, 2002; Moskowitz, Gollwitzer, Wasel, & Schaal, 1999;
Plant & Devine, 1998). However, self-regulation pertaining to one’s social identity has so far not
been considered. Even though Smith (2002) already stated an assumption about the nature of self-
regulation on different levels, it has up to now not been confronted with data. He suggested that:
“Since self-regulatory systems […] operate at individual, relational, and group levels, this process
should operate in conceptually the same way at each level” (Smith, 2002, p. 33).
How can research that addresses the group level – situations in which ‘we’ is the subject
and ‘us’ or ‘they’ are the target of self-regulation as Higgins and May (2001) put it – be identified?
Smith et al. (2007) recently suggested four criteria for truly group-based emotions from which
criteria for truly group-based self-regulation can be derived. The criteria for group-based emotions
are:
(1) They have to be different from individual level emotions.
(2) They have to depend on an individual’s level of group identification.
(3) They have to contribute to motivating and regulating intragroup and intergroup attitudes and
behaviour.
(4) They have to be socially shared within a group.
The following analogous criteria should thus be fulfilled for truly group-based self-
regulation:
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 11
(1) Ingroup variables (e.g., ingroup appraisals) should contribute to the effects of self-regulation
beyond individual level variables.
Individual self-regulation activities are elicited by discrepancies between the actual and a
desired state of an individual or the environment to the individual. Similarly, group-based self-
regulation results from discrepancies between the actual and the desired state of the ingroup or
environment relevant to it. Hence, the actual state of the ingroup (i.e., all its members) as well as
the desired states are relevant for group-based self-regulation. The desired states of the group are
determined by group norms, goals the group members perceive to be relevant for the group, the
well-being of the group, and any other group interest.
Empirically this first criterion can be addressed by showing that discrepancies between
desired states and the actual state of the ingroup (ideally not involving the target person) have
similar effects on affect and behaviour as discrepancies between the target person’s individual
standards (i.e., desired states) and the target person’s actual individual self.
(2) The effects of self-regulation should be the more pronounced the more strongly a group
member is identified with the group.
Categorising oneself as a group member makes individuals act in terms of the group rather
than in terms of their individual identities (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherall, 1987).
Hence, highly identified group members (who have a strong tendency to categorise themselves as a
group member) should be more likely guided by group norms (and other desired states of the
group) and affected by group relevant events. Thus, (assessed and manipulated) social
identification and social self-categorisation should be a moderator of most group-based self-
regulation effects.
(3) Self-regulation should be functional for the group, rather than for the individual, and should
guide intra- and intergroup behaviour.
The regulation of the social self implies that the outcomes of one’s behaviour are evaluated
based on its effects for the ingroup as a whole, because the current state of the entire group is the
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 12
target of group-based self-regulation. Evidence for this criterion can, for example, be provided by
showing that self-regulation mechanisms known to impact on the individual striving for outcomes
similarly impact on the striving for ingroup outcomes when social identity is salient. Hence, when
social identity is salient the striving for personal gains in a promotion focus and for personal non-
losses in a prevention focus should turn into a striving for ingroup gains in a promotion focus and
ingroup non-losses in a prevention focus.
(4) The effects of self-regulation should be socially shared within the group.
In certain contexts, members of a group should respond in a similar manner if a group can
indeed guide its members’ self-regulation. Empirical evidence for this criterion requires similarity
of the behaviour shown by group members within these contexts.
Similar to Smith et al. (2007) we do not claim that each criterion is critical for establishing
the classification of a finding as an effect of group-based self-regulation. We rather suggest that
evidence supporting all four criteria is required to draw the conclusion that group-based self-
regulation exists as a phenomenon. Therefore, these criteria will be applied to the evaluation of the
research summarized below (see Table 1). It should be noted, however, that this research was not
conducted to demonstrate group-based self-regulation. Therefore, the criteria should not be
misunderstood as measures for the evaluation of the cited studies. Rather more, this research
review makes use of research conducted with different intentions in order to derive conclusions
about group-based self-regulation.
Based on the role of self-regulation in the designs of these studies and on the question
whether the individual or the social self is regulated, we identified three broad types of research
that will be summarized in the three following sections: (a) the regulation of the individual self in
relation to social groups, (b) the regulation of the social self (i.e., one’s group membership), and (c)
the impact of the social self on self-regulation. A final section will present research on the interplay
of these different processes.
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 13
Regulation of the individual self in relation to social groups
The impact of regulatory focus on dealing with information about social groups evolved as
the first research question to be addressed within this line of research. More specifically, this work
focuses on how regulatory focus impacts on activation of and memory processes related to
stereotypes (Förster, Higgins, & Strack, 2000; Brazy, Shah, & Devine, 2005, cited in Brazy &
Shah, 2006; Keller & Bless, 2008). Even though it is related to social groups, it does not deal with
group-based self-regulation per se.
Förster et al. (2000) applied regulatory focus theory to the domain of stereotype
disconfirmation. They reasoned that for male and female participants with a chronic prevention
focus who are prejudiced (i.e., who strongly endorse the stereotype), stereotype disconfirming
information should pose a threat to their efficient and effective self-regulation. This is because the
discrepancy between their personal beliefs about the other gender group and the stereotype
disconfirming information hinders efficient information processing and is therefore a negative
signal for the highly vigilant prevention focused individuals. This should in turn lead to negative
affect in terms of agitation and to an increase in attention and sensitivity - resembling a vigilance
strategy - for both the disconfirming target and its background information. Participants’ chronic
prevention focus was measured via the accessibility measure (Higgins et al., 1997). Using a person
memory paradigm Förster et al. (2000) indeed found that the higher the combination of both
prevention focus and prejudice (assessed with the Modern Sexism Scale by Swim, Aikin, Hall, &
Hunter, 1995), the better was participants’ memory for both the target and its background
information concerning incongruent attributes and the more they reported agitation-related
emotions (worry and tension).
Brazy et al. (2005) investigated how Caucasians’ chronic regulatory focus and their level of
prejudice (assessed with the Attitudes Towards Blacks scale, Brigham, 1993) impacts on their
automatic activation of stereotypic associations towards African Americans and on their affective
responses. Regulatory focus was measured based on an accessibility measure (Shah et al., 2004).
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 14
Their results indicate that only for highly prejudiced individuals the content of the associations was
differently determined by their regulatory focus: For highly prejudiced participants in a prevention
focus African American primes activated more agitation related emotions and more prevention
related stereotypic terms (e.g., dangerous, threatening); contrary, for highly prejudiced participants
in a promotion focus African American primes activated more dejection related emotions and more
promotion related stereotypic terms (e.g., lazy, passive). Förster et al. (2000) and Brazy et al.
(2005) thus provide evidence for the impact of regulatory focus on individuals’ processing of
outgroup-related information in terms of activation and memory processes pertaining to
stereotypes. However, no relation to the regulation of the social self is given and therefore these
studies do no address group-based self-regulation.
Also interested in regulatory focus and stereotype activation, Keller and Bless (2008) took a
slightly different perspective by investigating this relationship in terms of stereotypic expectations
concerning one’s ingroup. Keller and Bless (2008) predicted that expectancy effects on individual
performance are moderated by regulatory focus. In line with stereotype threat theory (e.g., Steele,
1997; Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002) being confronted with a negative expectancy (e.g., a
negative stereotype about one’s ingroup) should harm performance, but only for individuals in a
prevention focus (when the aim is not to perform poorly). Contrary to stereotype threat theory
being confronted with a positive expectancy (e.g., a positive stereotype about one’s ingroup)
should also results in detrimental effects on performance, but only for individuals in a promotion
focus (when the aim is to perform very well). Reduced performance under negative expectancies in
a prevention focus results from the fear to perform badly which is directly resulting from the
stereotype. Reduced performance under positive expectancies in a promotion focus is expected
because of the fear not to live up to the high standards suggested by the stereotype which in turn
impairs performance. Keller and Bless (2008, Studies 1-4) manipulated regulatory focus (via the
framing manipulation; Shah et al., 1998) and stereotype-based as well as not stereotype-based
expectancies (negative vs. positive). Various performance measures were used as outcomes (e.g.,
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 15
test performance on a driver’s licence test). The results clearly support the hypothesis of an
interactive relationship between the type of expectancy and the prevailing mode of self-regulation.
They further indicate that the cognitive appraisal (threat vs. challenge) drives these effects (for
similar findings see Brazy & Shah, 2005, cited in Brazy & Shah, 2006).2
Even though group appraisals of outgroups are involved in Förster et al.’s (2000) and Brazy
et al.’s (2005) studies, as well as appraisals of ingroups in Keller and Bless’s (2008) studies, these
appraisals are not based on individuals’ salient social identity. Rather more, they are expectations
concerning one’s own or others’ assumptions (e.g., about performance in the specific contexts).
Furthermore, the focus of the work of Keller and Bless (2008) is on individual self-regulation and
performance expectations (as well as the resulting individual threat vs. challenge appraisal). Thus,
ingroup related aspects that could contribute to the expectation did not receive attention.
While the studies reported so far have focussed on stereotype activation processes, Shah et
al. (2004) investigated how regulatory focus impacts on the treatment of social groups. In their
studies regulatory focus was both measured (via the accessibility measure described above; Study 1
and 3) and manipulated (using the framing manipulation for a task related to the group; Shah et al.,
1998; Study 2 and 4). The social categorisation was realized by making participants’ university
affiliation salient (Study 1) or by the anticipation of a competition between the participant forming
a dyad with another person that would ostensibly compete against another dyad (Studies 2-4).
Approach and avoidance behaviour was measured via (a) the interest in getting to know vs. trying
to avoid ingroup and outgroup members (Study 1), (b) the chosen seating distance in relation to
ingroup and outgroup members (Study 2), (c) the intentions to show approach and avoidance
behaviour towards ingroup and outgroup members (Study 4), and (d) self-reports of positive and
negative affective responses to the ingroup and the outgroup (Studies 3 & 4). Across four studies
promotion focus increased the extent to which participants favoured their ingroup by showing
approach-related behaviour and positive emotions (cheerfulness) in response to it. In contrast,
prevention focus was related to the extent to which they derogated the outgroup in terms of
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 16
avoidance-related behaviour and negative affective responses to it (agitation). Shah et al. (2004)
therefore provide evidence for a mechanism specifying different emotional and behavioural
qualities of intergroup bias: Bias arises to foster either one’s need for nurturance (promotion focus,
approaching the ingroup) or one’s need for security (prevention focus, avoiding the outgroup).
One might wonder why we do not summarize Shah et al. (2004) in our section on group-
based self-regulation below. Theoretically, their predictions were addressed for the individual self’s
behaviour towards its ingroup, respectively ingroup members as objects in the environment, rather
than for the social self’s behaviour. Empirically, several aspects give rise to the assumption that
some studies investigated prejudiced interpersonal behaviour rather than intergroup bias. For
example, as a predictor of interpersonal affiliation Study 1 measured the motivation for
interpersonal and not ingroup security vs. stimulation. In Studies 2 and 4 the ‘groups’ were dyads -
allowing for the formation of a relational, but not for the formation of a group identity. Instructions
of Study 3 asked participants to rate how both typical in- and outgroup members would make them
feel; however, they assessed the relation between the individual (i.e., ‘I’ and not ‘we’ as a subject
of self-regulation) and the respective groups (i.e., ‘us’ or even ‘the others’ and ‘them’ as targets of
self-regulation). These considerations lead us to the conclusion that individual (rather than group-
based) self-regulation was investigated.
In sum, research discussed in this section has addressed how information about in- and
outgroups affects individuals’ self-regulation (‘I’ as agent; Förster et al., 2000; Keller & Bless,
2008; Shah et al., 2004) and other ingroup or outgroup members (‘us’ and ‘they’) as targets of self-
regulation. It thus resembles a first step towards group-based self-regulation, because it
demonstrates the relevance of the self (or self-regulation approaches more generally) to the
processing of information related to social groups. However, the research at the same time falls
short of addressing the claim put forth by Higgins and May (2001, p. 64) that group-based self-
regulation needs to include “us” (i.e., the ingroup, respectively the social self) as agent. Overall,
though set in the context of self-regulation and dealing with groups, none of the four criteria
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 17
outlined above was addressed in these studies. However, it should be noted once again that these
studies were not conducted with the specific aim to investigate group-based self-regulation.
Regulating the social self
A growing number of studies have addressed the impact of regulatory focus as well as self-
discrepancies on intra- and intergroup behaviour in a manner that allows drawing the conclusion
that they indeed investigated group-based self-regulation. Bizman, Yinon, and Krotman (2001)
were the first in applying self-discrepancy theory to the social self. They investigated the impact of
discrepancies between the actual group-self (i.e., the perceived current state of the ingroup) and the
ideals as well as obligations group members want their ingroup to adhere to on group-based
agitation and dejection related emotions. The three components of the ingroup self (i.e., actual,
ideal, and ought self) providing the basis for the discrepancies were assessed based on ratings
concerning attributes participants generated themselves for the ingroup. The group-based emotions
were assessed by means of participants’ ratings of positive and negative agitation and dejection
related emotions they experience as group members when thinking about their ingroup (e.g.,
disappointment and joy for dejection and apprehension and calmness for agitation).
Group-based actual-ideal discrepancies predicted group-based dejection but not group-
based agitation. Conversely, larger actual-ought discrepancies of their ingroup predicted more
group-based agitation and fear of negative evaluations but not to group-based dejection. Hence,
discrepancies concerning the social self impact on group-based affect in a similar way as
discrepancies concerning the individual self impact on individual affect. Importantly, the effect of
group-based discrepancies on group-based emotions was found even after controlling for the
influence of individual level self-discrepancies that where assessed with the Selves Questionnaire
(Higgins et al., 1986). In other words, affect towards the group (i.e., the social self) depended on
group-level appraisals of discrepancies rather than individual level appraisals. The latter similarly
guide affect towards the individual self. Hence, the findings of Bizman et al. (2001) provide
evidence that the effect of discrepancies concerning the social self fulfils the first criterion
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 18
mentioned above: group level variables clearly contributed beyond individual level variables to the
effects of self-regulation.
Petrocelli and Smith (2005) argued that the effects found by Bizman et al. (2001) should be
moderated by social identification, because only if the group is relevant to the self should
discrepancies related to this group impact on individuals’ affect. In line with their expectations,
they found that the more strongly individuals were identified with the target group, the more did
higher levels of group-based actual-ideal discrepancies lead to higher levels of dejection or
discontent (depending on whether the discrepancy was attributed internally or externally)3.
Similarly, the stronger participants’ identification, the more did higher levels of group-based
actual-ought discrepancies result in agitation or anger (again depending on whether the discrepancy
was attributed internally or externally). In sum, Petrocelli and Smith (2005) demonstrated that the
impact of group-based self-discrepancies on emotions was the greater, the stronger group members
were identified with their group (thus fulfilling criterion 2).
Taken together, ingroup level self-discrepancies have been demonstrated to contribute to
group members’ emotions (a) beyond individual self-discrepancies and (b) to an increasing extent
the more members are identified with their group. The functionality and the social sharedness of
this effect, however, were not addressed.
In our own research we applied regulatory focus theory to intergroup phenomena. In a
series of experiments (Sassenberg & Hansen, 2007) we tested the hypothesis that (chronic and
induced) regulatory focus moderates the impact of social discrimination on (a) emotional responses
and (b) the willingness to act against the discriminating outgroup. These responses were expected
to be stronger for social discrimination based on losses (i.e., more negative outcomes for the
ingroup than for the outgroup) compared to when social discrimination was based on non-gains
(i.e., less positive outcomes for the ingroup than for the outgroup). Our predictions were derived
from the finding that responses to negative events are generally stronger in a prevention focus
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 19
(when they are seen as losses) than in a promotion focus (when they are seen as non-gains; e.g.,
Idson, Liberman, & Higgins, 2000).
Regulatory focus was either assessed using the regulatory focus questionnaire (Higgins et
al., 2001) or manipulated based on promotion and prevention cues (Friedman & Förster, 2001). To
manipulate social discrimination East German participants read a press release about a factitious
public opinion poll. The findings of this poll were depicted graphically and described in a text
indicating that compared to themselves young West Germans ascribe East Germans (a) more
negative attributes (discrimination with losses, e.g., “The West-Germans perceived East Germans
as lazier than West Germans”) or (b) less positive attributes (discrimination with non-gains, e.g.,
“The West-Germans perceived East Germans as less hard-working than West Germans”) or (c) the
same attributes (using positive as well as negative traits in the text and the figures).
The stronger group members’ prevention focus was, the more they responded to social
discrimination with negative emotions (especially by showing agitation and anger). This effect was
more pronounced when social discrimination was based on losses (fitting a prevention focus) than
when social discrimination was based on non-gains (fitting a promotion focus). A chronic
promotion focus did not impact on the affective responses to social discrimination. Additional data
demonstrated that this is due to the general perception of social discrimination as a loss, even when
discrimination is based on non-gains: participants in the discrimination condition indicated that
they experienced a loss rather than a non-gain, even when they were discriminated against in terms
of non-gains. Moreover, in an induced prevention focus participants were more willing to act
against the discriminating outgroup than in an induced promotion focus (see Figure 1). This effect
was mediated by anger (for similar findings see Oyserman, Uskul, Yoder, Nesse, & Williams,
2007, Exp. 3). In sum, following social discrimination participants in a prevention focus responded
with stronger affect and behavioural intentions to act against the discriminating outgroup, because
compared to participants in a promotion focus they were more vigilant to negative events (i.e.,
losses) in general.
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 20
The effects on the willingness to engage in collective action, and thus to act up against the
unfair treatment, is initial evidence that individual level self-regulation strategies (i.e., regulatory
foci) impact on group relevant behaviour and not only on group-based affect (criterion 3). As the
experience of social discrimination in the studies by Sassenberg and Hansen (2007) was
manipulated at the group level, this research contributes to the explanation of affect and intentions
beyond individual level appraisals (which were not systematically assessed, but should be equally
distributed across the experimental conditions due to randomization; criterion 1). However, neither
the effect of social identification nor the social sharedness of the behaviour was addressed in this
set of studies (criteria 2 & 4).
Sassenberg, Kessler, and Mummendey (2003) studied the impact of participants’ regulatory
focus on social discrimination in a different domain, namely concerning the distribution of gains
vs. losses between two groups (i.e., increases vs. decreases of participants’ compensation in the
next experimental session). We expected that participants in a promotion focus would allocate
more gains to the ingroup than participants in a prevention focus. Conversely, participants in a
prevention focus were expected to prevent more losses from occurring to the ingroup than to the
outgroup (compared to participants in a promotion focus). These predictions were derived from the
assumption that the social self is regulated in a similar manner as the individual self, with gains
being approached in a promotion focus and losses being avoided in a prevention focus. As the
ingroup makes up the social self and as the social self is the basis for group-based self-regulation,
only allocations to the ingroup (but not to the outgroup) were expected to be affected by the fit
between group members’ regulatory focus and the mode of resources allocation (i.e., the valence
resulting from the fit between the mode of resource allocation and the regulatory focus).
Participants categorised themselves (Study 1) or were categorised (Study 2) as members of
minimal groups and had to allocate outcomes to members of the in- and outgroup which were
ostensible participants of the next experimental session. Chronic regulatory focus (based on
differences between business major who tend to focus on gains and law majors who tend to focus
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 21
on losses, in Study 1), manipulated regulatory focus (via framing of the instruction for the
monetary allocation in terms of gains vs. non-gains or non-losses vs. losses, see Crowe and
Higgins, 1997, in Study 2), as well as whether increases or decreases of compensation (i.e.,
resource type) had to be allocated to in- and outgroup participants in the next experimental session
served as independent variables. The amount of resources allocated served as dependent variable.
To be able to provide clear evidence for the group-based nature of our findings, care was taken that
participants got the impression that the outcomes of the allocations would not affect them
personally. This was done (a) by using minimal groups and (b) by informing them explicitly that
their personal compensation for participation in the study would not be affected by the resource
allocation.
In line with our expectations we found that regulatory focus only affected allocations
towards the ingroup: More gains were allocated to the ingroup in a promotion focus compared to a
prevention focus, and more losses were prevented from occurring to the ingroup in a prevention
focus compared to a promotion focus. No differences were found concerning allocations to the
outgroup (see Figure 2). The study thus fulfils the requirements of the criteria 1 and 3: Even though
no personal functionality of the behaviour for the participants and no appraisals at the individual
level were present, the self-regulation effects nonetheless occurred. Furthermore, they were limited
to the ingroup and did not involve the outgroup. Additional results of this study speak to criterion
2: the impact of identification with the group. At the end of the study participants had to indicate
whether they agreed that the minimal categorisation suited their self-perception. A median-split
based on the answer to this question moderated the impact of regulatory focus and resource type.
The regulatory focus by resource type interaction on the allocations remained reliable for
participants with a strong match of self-perception and social categorisation. However, for
participants with a weak or no match the effect disappeared. This is most likely because they did
not perceive the ingroup as part of their self.
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 22
Whereas Sassenberg et al. (2003) used minimal groups and a rather artificial setting,
Kessler, Sassenberg, and Mummendey (2006) replicated the finding in a field setting. Polytechnic
and university students were used as social groups. In line with current budget changes in German
higher education, participating students from both institutions had to make decisions concerning
increases and decreases of money transfer. They had to imagine that they were student
representatives in a committee responsible for the budget decisions of both institutions. Instead of
manipulating regulatory focus, an approach or an avoidance goal was induced prior to the resource
allocations (i.e., improving study conditions vs. avoiding the impairment of study conditions).
Regulatory focus and approach / avoidance goals are not equivalent; however, they have equivalent
consequences when it comes to the concern for positive vs. negative outcomes. Positive outcomes
are more relevant in a promotion focus and when approach goals are dominant, negative outcomes
are more relevant in a prevention focus and when avoidance goals are dominant. Therefore, the
predictions of Kessler et al. (2006) were equivalent to those of Sassenberg et al. (2003).
Participants with an approach goal should allocate more increases to their own group than
participants with an avoidance goal, whereas participants with an avoidance goal should prevent
more decreases form occurring to their own group than participants with an approach goal.
In line with these predictions Kessler et al. (2006) found that compared to the avoidance
goal condition, social discrimination was stronger when increases were distributed in the approach
goal condition. Conversely, compared to the approach goal condition, social discrimination was
stronger when decreases were distributed in the avoidance goal condition. Because of the strong
negative interdependence in this setting (the budgets of both groups were allegedly provided by the
same organization), ingroup as well as outgroup allocations contributed to this effect (i.e., better
treatment of the ingroup co-occurred with worse treatment of the outgroup). Interestingly,
participants who indicated in a questionnaire that they categorised themselves in terms of the
superordinate category (i.e., students in general rather than polytechnic vs. university students) did
not show stronger social discrimination concerning resource allocation (Figure 3). This provides
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 23
additional evidence for the fact that social identification and social self-categorisation is relevant
for group-based self-regulation (criterion 2).
All in all, research has come a long way in providing evidence that self-regulation can be
truly social. Evidence for the dependence of affect and behaviour on group rather than on
individual level input variables, for the dependence of these effects on social identification, and for
group rather than individual level functionality has been provided. However, evidence concerning
the moderating effect of social identification is only correlational. Therefore, this criterion should
receive further attention. Furthermore, evidence for the social sharedness as the last criterion for
group-based self-regulation is lacking. The research summarized in this section suggests that self-
discrepancy theory and regulatory focus theory can be applied to the regulation of the social self. In
other words, the studies summarized so far support the assumption of Smith (2002) that the
regulation of the social self underlies the same mechanisms as the regulation of the individual self
and also speak to the majority of the criteria indicating whether the effects are truly group-based.
The impact of the social self on self-regulation strategies
A third line of research treats regulatory focus as an outcome of (inter-)group phenomena
by assessing how different features of the intergroup context (especially threat) impact on self-
regulatory strategies. Thus, this research is distinct from the general case in regulatory focus
research, where the strategy applied is assumed to be a result of events happening to the individual
self or a result of chronic inter-individual differences. Rather, this third line of research refers to the
potential of an (inter-)group context to elicit either a promotion or a prevention focus.
The work of Seibt and Förster (2004) is a prime example of how such an analysis renders a
more profound understanding of intergroup phenomena. They argue that activated self-stereotypes
can influence the strategies of task solution by inducing regulatory foci. Specifically, they found
that being confronted with an ascribed negative stereotype (e.g., your ingroup is worse in doing X
than the outgroup) induces a prevention focus eliciting security oriented and vigilant strategies
(e.g., avoiding errors of commission) when working on stereotype related tasks. This is similar to
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 24
stereotype threat effects. However, being confronted with an ascribed positive ingroup stereotype
induces a promotion focus eliciting eager and more risky strategies (e.g., approaching hits). In
other words, regulatory focus resulting from positive or negative self-stereotypes was assessed
based on participants’ usage of promotion and prevention strategies. For example, in Study 2 a
word selection task required participants to find one out of five words that did not fit the category
of the words presented; in Study 3 a dot-connection task required participants to draw a picture by
connecting numbered dots. Results indicated that participants confronted with negative stereotypes
were slower on the word selection and the dot-connection task than participants in a control group
that was not confronted with a stereotype. Contrary, participants confronted with positive
stereotypes were faster than the control group. For accuracy, however, the pattern reversed. Studies
4 and 5 found that positive ingroup stereotypes lead to more creative performance (measured with
the brick task, in which participants have to generate creative uses for a brick). This was mediated
by subjective eagerness. Contrary, negative stereotypes led to better analytical performance
(measured with the analytic section of the Graduate Record Examination test) and this finding was
mediated by subjective vigilance.4 Seibt and Förster’s (2004) research thus refers to an ingroup-
based feature of an intergroup context (i.e., ingroup stereotypes) eliciting regulatory foci – meaning
that group level variables contribute to individual behaviour beyond individual level variables
(criterion 1).
Whereas Seibt and Förster (2004) examined how regulatory focus shifts in reaction to
ingroup stereotypes, Derks, van Laar, and Ellemers (2006) examined focus shifts of members of
low status groups in reaction to the presence of ingroup vs. outgroup members during task
performance. More specifically, they investigated the effects of group contexts (only ingroup vs.
only outgroup members present) and the value attached to ingroup and outgroup strengths (i.e., the
importance of a task type on which either the ingroup or the outgroup usually excels). Female
participants were led to believe that their ingroup had performed below average on a task
measuring a relevant dimension for males (i.e., creative integration), but that it had performed
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 25
above average on a task measuring an ingroup relevant dimension (i.e., inferential flexibility). They
were further told that they would have to take part in an oral examination on one of these two tests
– together with only other in- or only other outgroup members present. The dependent variable of
interest in the current context was the focus on success (i.e., a promotion focus) versus failure (i.e.,
a prevention focus).5 Regulatory focus was assessed while participants waited for the group
interaction. The promotion focus indicators were dejection in response to the (supposedly
unpleasant) task and time spend on items that allowed to gain points, whereas the prevention focus
indicators were agitation and time spend on items allowing to avoid the loss of points (during the
preparation for the task performance in groups).
Derks el al. (2006) predicted that compared to when only ingroup members are present, the
presence of outgroup members would induce a prevention focus, because this is a threatening
situation for members of low status groups. Indeed, they found more agitation and that more time
was spent on tasks allowing to ensure the avoidance of losses when the presence of outgroup
(compared to ingroup) members was anticipated. This effect partly disappeared when the
importance of the ingroup strength (i.e., the importance of the other task type) was stressed.
Overall, in two studies Derks et al. (2006) provide evidence for the impact of the presence of
ingroup vs. outgroup members during task performance on regulatory focus.
Oyserman et al. (2007, Studies 1 & 2) used direct measures of the self-regulation strategy
(i.e., in Study 1 the regulatory concerns measure by Lockwood et al., 2002; in Study 2 the
regulatory focus questionnaire by Higgins et al., 2001). Going beyond the findings of Derks et al.
(2006) their results further demonstrate that merely making a stigmatized group membership
salient causes a prevention focus, regardless of past experiences with unfair treatment due to the
stigmatized group membership. Overall, the findings of Derks et al. (2006) and Oyserman et al.
(Studies 1 & 2) provide evidence for two of the criteria for group-based self-regulation. Addressing
criterion 1, group level variables contribute beyond individual level variables to the behaviour.
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 26
Indirectly addressing criterion 2, the enhancement of social identity via an emphasis on dimensions
of ingroup superiority affected motivated performance.
The perspective of high status group members in intergroup encounters has also been
investigated. Drawing on research indicating that interracial interactions often have a negative
impact on the executive functions of non-stigmatized group members, Trawalter and Richeson
(2006) reasoned that regulatory focus might moderate this effect: Attempting to avoid prejudice
(i.e., a prevention focus) activates cognitive processes requiring effortful self-regulation to prevent
an undesired end-state (e.g., vigilant monitoring of thoughts, affect, and behaviour). This should
temporarily deplete inhibitory task performance. In contrast, approaching a desired end-state (i.e., a
promotion focus, associated with flexible cognitive processing) should spare executive capacity.
This prediction is in line with the more general findings that executive performance (as, for
example, measured by the Stroop colour-naming task) is higher in a promotion than in a prevention
focus (Friedman & Förster, 2005b).
Participants believing to take part in an interracial interaction were told to try and avoid
prejudice (prevention focus), to try and have a positive interracial exchange (promotion focus), or
they received no instructions (control condition). In line with their hypothesis, Trawalter and
Richeson (2006) found that participants in the prevention and the control conditions performed
worse on a Stroop colour-naming task (the measure of executive attentional task performance) than
participants in the promotion condition. Central to our discussion is the fact that actual or
anticipated interracial encounters apparently elicit a prevention focus (as indicated by the fact that
participants in the control and the prevention focus conditions performed equally bad). This is thus
another example of regulatory focus shifts in reaction to intergroup cues and thus of group level
variables contributing to self-regulation beyond individual level variables (criterion 1).
Instead of investigating how features of an intergroup context may elicit regulatory focus,
Faddegon, Scheepers, and Ellemers (in press) argued and found that promotion and prevention
strategies can also form part of the identity of a group (i.e., a so-called ‘collective regulatory
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 27
focus’) and influence the behaviour and experienced emotions of individual group members. In
other words, they examined focus shifts among group members in reaction to situational cues in
terms of ‘collective regulatory focus’. Faddegon et al. (in press) first assessed participants’
individual regulatory focus (in Study 1 via a recognition memory task, Crowe & Higgins, 1997; in
Study 2 with the regulatory focus questionnaire by Higgins et al., 2001). Subsequently they
induced a ‘collective regulatory focus’ by presenting group mottos to participants – allegedly
selected by other members of their minimal ingroup in the previous experimental sessions. These
mottos expressed either a preference for promotion (e.g., “If there is a will, there is a way”) or
prevention strategies (e.g., “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”). Additionally, in
their second study Faddegon et al. (in press) also manipulated the strength of participants’
identification with their group. As a measure of self-regulation strategy a signal detection task was
used. In this task a liberal bias is expected to result from a promotion focus and a conservative bias
from a prevention focus (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). Study 2 also measured the extent to which
participants would feel cheerful and quiescent (indicating a promotion focus) or dejected and
agitated (indicating a prevention focus) if their group performed well or poorly, respectively. Thus,
promotion and prevention strategies in terms of affective and behavioural responses were assessed.
In two studies ‘collective regulatory focus’ was found to shift the behaviour and emotions
of group members towards the regulatory focus associated with their group. However, findings
were limited to individuals with a promotion focus showing more liberal bias and
cheerfulness/dejection when the ingroup was characterized by a ‘collective promotion focus’
compared to it being characterized by a ‘prevention focus’; no effect occurred for individuals with
prevention focus. Study 2 provided additional evidence for the moderation of the impact of
collective regulatory focus by social identification. High identifiers but not low identifiers showed
more cheerfulness in a promotion focus than in a prevention focus. No such effect was found for
prevention related emotions. Apart from the findings of Shah et al. (2004) and Sassenberg and
Hansen (2007) this is additional evidence for the claim that the promotion focus is related to
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 28
ingroup response and the prevention to outgroup responses. The research by Faddegon et al. (in
press) provides initial evidence for the social sharedness of self-regulation: When group members
experience that other members have a certain self-regulation strategy, they tend to adopt it
(criterion 4). Furthermore, the current research fulfils criteria 1 and 2 because of the predictive
power of ‘collective regulatory’ focus (beyond individual regulatory focus) and the moderation of
its effect on emotions by identification.
Another, more direct approach to studying the social sharedness of self-regulation strategies
as dependent variables stems from Levine, Higgins, and Choi (2000). They studied the impact of
group members’ regulatory focus on norm formation within three-person groups working jointly on
a recognition task. After manipulating regulatory focus via framing (Crowe & Higgins, 1997), the
experimenter assessed group members’ convergence towards a liberal or conservative bias (i.e.,
promotion or prevention strategy) while responding out loud to the trial items. As expected, groups
converged over time towards a liberal bias when group members had a promotion focus and
towards a conservative bias when group members had a prevention focus. Even though this pattern
was not very stable over time (most likely because of group members’ fatigue), it nicely illustrates
that members of collaborating groups influence each other concerning their self-regulation strategy.
Similar findings have been reported by Florack and Hartmann (2007) for investment decisions in
groups. Thus, this work goes beyond research discussed earlier by providing evidence for the
development of the social sharedness concerning group members’ regulatory focus (criterion 4).
Moreover, the design of these studies allows us to conclude that groups contribute beyond
individual predispositions to self-regulation (criterion 1) when a joint functionality of the behavior
(in terms of interdependence concerning the outcome) is given (criterion 3).
Research summarized in this section looked at how features of an (inter-)group context and
(inter-)group phenomena impact on indicators of regulatory focus (specific emotions, strategic
biases, etc.) rather than measuring regulatory focus directly. Taken together, this research provides
converging evidence that group level variables impact on self-regulation beyond individual level
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 29
variables (Derks et al., 2006; Faddegon et al., in press; Florack & Hartmann, 2007; Levine et al.,
2000; Oyserman et al., 2007; Seibt & Förster, 2004; Trawalter & Richardson, 2006). In addition
research has found that these effects are stronger the more group members identify with their group
(Derks et al., 2006; Faddegon et al., in press). Furthermore, regulatory focus can be socially shared
when experimental paradigms provide the opportunity for intragroup convergence (Faddegon et al.,
in press; Florack & Hartmann, 2007; Levine et al., 2000). Finally, while the studied behaviour did
not always serve a direct material instrumental function for the ingroup (e.g., by assuring a reward;
but see Levine et al., 2000, for an exception), in most cases it did serve a symbolic function,
meaning that the public standing of the group was affected (e.g., a well performing group member
contributes to the social standing of the group). In other words, all criteria for truly group-based
self-regulation are fulfilled.
The interplay between self-regulation strategies and the intergroup context
Most research on regulatory focus in intergroup contexts can be classified as belonging to
one of the three approaches summarized in the preceding three sections. Despite the fact that
research within these approaches has provided important insights into the relation between self-
regulation strategies and intergroup behaviour, it does not fully capture the complexity of this
relation. The conclusions that (individual) regulatory focus also applies to the regulation of the
social self and that the intergroup context impacts on group members’ (individual) regulatory focus
almost inevitably lead to the question of what happens if an individual’s self-regulation strategy
and the strategy resulting from group characteristics contradict each other. The relevance of this
question is stressed by the findings of Faddegon et al. (in press), who found that group members’
chronic regulatory focus and the group norm in terms of the suggested self-regulation strategy did
not simply add up in producing their effects but interacted. The research summarized in this section
addresses precisely such cases in which individuals’ regulatory focus impacts on intergroup
behaviour and the (inter-)group context at the same time induces a (matching or non-matching)
regulatory focus. In other words, it analyses how the impact of individuals’ regulatory focus is
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 30
moderated by features of the intergroup context that are known to situationally affect regulatory
focus.
We addressed this question in our own research within the context of power (Sassenberg,
Jonas, Shah, & Brazy, 2007; Sassenberg, Brazy, Jonas, & Shah, 2006). Keltner, Anderson, and
Gruenfeld (2003) concluded from an impressive review that higher power (no matter whether it is
personally determined or results from one’s group membership) leads to a state similar to a
promotion focus and lower power to a state similar to a prevention focus. Hence, one can study the
interplay between the regulatory focus an individual holds and group-implied regulatory focus by
manipulating regulatory focus and group power orthogonally. This would lead to constellations of
high vs. low regulatory fit (high power / promotion and low power / prevention vs. low power /
promotion and high power / prevention). We assumed that individuals would indeed perceive this
high vs. low level of regulatory fit and as a result would show high vs. low preference for their
ingroup over the outgroup. The reasoning for this prediction is based on the assumption made by
the regulatory fit hypothesis, namely that the valence of targets providing the opportunity to show
behaviour fitting one’s self-regulation strategy is experienced as more positive than the valence of
targets not providing this opportunity.
In a first study, participants had to rate which strategies fit high and low power groups. In
line with our expectations, they perceived promotion strategies (e.g., taking risks, trying out
something new) to be more appropriate for high power groups and prevention strategies (e.g.,
following rules, avoiding mistakes) to be more appropriate for low power groups. The hypothesis
that these differences in behavioural strategies considered to be appropriate would lead to a
preference for higher power groups among individuals in a promotion focus and to a preference for
lower power groups among individuals in a prevention focus was tested in a series of studies
(Sassenberg et al, 2007, Studies 2-5). One study manipulated regulatory focus based on regulatory
focus cues (Friedman & Förster, 2001) and assessed how much participants would like to become a
member of 16 groups varying in power and status (e.g., the group of unemployed, self-employed,
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 31
teachers, politicians, scientists). Moreover, they also had to indicate the subjective power and status
of these groups. In line with our expectation regulatory focus moderated the impact of group power
but not of group status on interest in group membership: Higher power groups were generally
preferred to a larger extent but more so in a promotion focus than in a prevention focus.
The next step was to replicate this finding while manipulating group power and to
demonstrate that the power by regulatory focus interaction on interest in group membership results
from regulatory fit. For this purpose participants’ regulatory focus was manipulated as in the
preceding study. Subsequently, they had to think of a group either high or low in power within a
company. Afterwards, participants indicated their perceived regulatory fit (i.e., how much they
expected to be able to do what they like to do in these groups) and their interest in group
membership. Supporting our predictions, the regulatory focus by group power interaction was
mediated by the perceived regulatory fit (see Figure 4). In sum, these studies support the prediction
that the fit between individuals’ regulatory focus and the regulatory focus induced by a group they
belong to leads to positive attitudes towards this group. However, in the two studies summarized
above, no preference for lower power groups over higher power groups by participants in a
prevention focus occurred, even though they liked lower power groups more than participants in a
promotion focus.
To test whether a prevention focus leads to a preference for lower power groups over higher
power groups concerning more spontaneous responses, the impact of regulatory focus on affect
activated by groups differing in power was tested. In these studies regulatory focus was either
measured using the regulatory focus questionnaire (Higgins et al., 2001) or manipulated using a
framing procedure (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). To manipulate group power the outgroup was varied
(West Germans vs. Poles) while participants’ ingroup was kept constant (East Germans).
Participants went through an affective priming paradigm. City names related to the in- and
outgroup served as primes and non-words as well as words of positive or negative valence served
as targets. Participants had to classify these targets as words or non-words. In such a paradigm
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 32
positive affect associated with the prime results in faster responses to positive and slower responses
to negative targets (Sassenberg & Wieber, 2005). The studies replicated the regulatory focus by
group power interaction. Most importantly, participants in a prevention focus preferred lower
power groups over higher power groups. Thus, the fit between group members’ prevention focus
and the opportunity to apply prevention strategies as a member of a low power group led to a
preference for low power groups among the prevention focused – at least concerning spontaneous
evaluations and thus on a measure that is not corrected for the potential negative outcomes
associated with low power.
In an additional line of research we demonstrated that these effects are not limited to groups
for which varying comparison groups exist (such as groups based on regional identity), but also
occur when the comparison group is fixed, such as in the case of gender (Sassenberg et al., 2006).
Gender differences in power are certainly diminishing. Nonetheless a substantive amount of
research on power uses gender as a proxy of power. Therefore, we where interested in replicating
the findings reported above in the context of gender (i.e., with fixed comparison groups). Women
with a chronic or situationally induced prevention focus (using the same procedures as Sassenberg
et al., 2007) indeed showed a more positive association with their own gender than women with a
promotion focus. The opposite was true for men (see Figure 5). Moreover, women with a strong
prevention focus showed stronger gender identification. Hence, a fit between individuals’
regulatory focus and a specific group (i.e., the regulatory fit of a group) has an impact on ingroup
evaluations and potentially also on the self-concept (as indicated by higher levels of identification).
This most recent line of research demonstrates the interplay between the self-regulation
opportunities and constraints provided by a group (group level variables) and regulatory focus
(usually an individual level variable; criterion 1) on the relevance of the group to the social self and
on interest in group membership (criterion 3). The impact of social identification as an independent
variable and the social sharedness of this effect (i.e., criteria 2 and 4) have not been addressed, yet.
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 33
Discussion
The collective nature of group-based self-regulation
The aim of this article was not only to provide an overview of the work on self-
discrepancies and regulatory focus in the intergroup domain, but also to evaluate whether and to
what extent truly group-based self-regulation has been demonstrated (which, as noted in the
introduction, was not the goal of most of the summarized research). The research on the impact of
regulatory focus and self-discrepancies on intergroup behaviour has clearly demonstrated that self-
regulation does not only impact on individuals’ treatment of their own and other groups (e.g.,
Förster et al., 2000) but also that (1) ingroup variables contribute to the effects of self-regulation
beyond individual level variables (Bizman et al., 2001; Sassenberg & Hansen, 2007; Oyserman et
al., 2007; Petrocelli & Smith, 2005; Sassenberg et al., 2003), (2) the effects of self-regulation are
more pronounced the more strongly group members are identified with their respective group
(Petrocelli & Smith, 2005; Sassenberg et al., 2003), and (3) self-regulation can be more functional
for the group than for the individual (Sassenberg & Hansen, 2007; Kessler et al., 2006; Sassenberg
et al., 2003). However, the social sharedness (criterion 4) of these effects within groups has so far
not been investigated. Nonetheless, evidence for social sharedness has been found in research on
the impact of group characteristics on group members’ regulatory focus (Faddegon et al., in press;
Florack & Hartmann, 2007; Levine et al., 2000). Studies following this approach have also
provided evidence that (1) ingroup variables contribute to the effects of self-regulation beyond
individual level variables (Derks et al., 2006; Faddegon et al., in press; Florack & Hartmann, 2007;
Levine et al., 2000; Oyserman et al., 2007; Seibt & Förster, 2004; Trawalter & Richardson, 2006),
(2) the effects of self-regulation are more pronounced the stronger a group member is identified
with the group (Derks et al., 2006; Faddegon et al., in press), and (3) self-regulation occurs when a
group member’s behaviour has implications which are functional for the group but not for the
individual (Levine et al., 2000).
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 34
Overall, there is clear evidence that regulatory focus plays an important role in the
regulation of the social self or, stated differently, that group-based self-regulation does exist as a
phenomenon. Nonetheless, several limitations need to be pointed out. First, the impact of the
intergroup context on regulatory focus has mostly been shown with measures assessing proxies of
regulatory focus, but only in one case with an actual measure of regulatory focus (Oyserman et al.,
2007). Second, the social sharedness of the impact of regulatory focus on intergroup phenomena
still awaits demonstration. Finally, the findings in support of the four criteria stem from research
using different paradigms and interested in diverse phenomena. This makes it difficult to directly
compare the effects demonstrated in these studies, which poses a limitation. Ideally, the fulfilment
of all four criteria should be shown for several (inter-)group phenomena using a single paradigm in
each domain. However, given that the summarized research was originally not intended to serve
the purpose of fulfilling the four criteria applied here, these do not pose a major problem.
Nonetheless they need to be addressed in future research.
An important question is how the need-based and the self-regulation approaches to
motivation underlying (inter-)group behaviour relate to each other. Group-based self-regulation
adds a further level of analysis rather than replacing the need-based approaches. The need-based
approaches focused on the question what group members are striving for (e.g., positive
distinctiveness). In contrast, research on group-based self-regulation focuses on how group
members strive to reach group goals. For example after a negative intergroup comparison group
members are likely to satisfy their need for positive distinctiveness by showing ingroup bias.
Individuals in a promotion focus will establish a positive ingroup image whereas individuals in a
prevention focus are more likely to establish a negative outgroup image. Hence, both approaches
are needed to gain a complete understanding of the motivations underlying intergroup phenomena
in its specific forms.
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 35
Implications for intergroup phenomena
The summarized research demonstrated that self-discrepancies and regulatory focus have
implications for a wide range of intergroup phenomena: attention to and memory for stereotype
inconsistent information (Förster et al., 2000), stereotype content and spontaneous affect towards
groups (Brazy et al., 2005; cited in Brazy & Shah, 2006), stereotype threat (Brazy & Shah, 2005
cited in Brazy & Shah 2006; Keller & Bless, 2008), intergroup bias (Kessler et al., 2006;
Sassenberg et al., 2003; Shah et al., 2004), affective responses to the ingroup’s and the outgroup’s
deviance from held expectations (Bizman et al., 2001; Förster et al., 2000; Petrocelli & Smith,
2005), as well as the affective and behavioural responses to social discrimination (Sassenberg &
Hansen, 2007; Oyserman et al., 2007). Moreover, regulatory focus has been shown to be influenced
by the following features of the intergroup context and might therefore contribute to the
explanation of the outcomes occurring within these contextual parameters: stereotype threat (Seibt
& Förster, 2004), interaction between members of stigmatized and non-stigmatized groups (Derks
et al., 2006; Oyserman et al., 2007; Trawalter & Richeson, 2006), and group norms related to
regulatory focus (Faddegon et al., in press; Florack & Hartmann, 2007; Levine et al., 2000).
Finally, research has demonstrated that the fit between groups’ characteristics and regulatory focus
contributes to ingroup liking and social identification (Sassenberg et al., 2006, 2007). This latter
finding suggests that the relation between group characteristics and individual self-regulation needs
to be addressed in further research to gain a more complete picture of group-based self-regulation.
Studies should answer questions such as: Do certain individual level self-regulation strategies
foster or hinder the integration of a new group into the self-concept? And: Does this depend on the
self-regulation strategy suggested by the group?
The surplus resulting from the group-based self-regulation approach and the studies
summarized above is that regulatory focus, respectively self-discrepancies, allows us to predict
responses more specifically than earlier approaches did. For example, regulatory focus predicts
which type of social discrimination will occur: ingroup approach vs. outgroup avoidance and
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 36
discrimination regarding positive vs. negative resources. Thus, it renders further insight into the
positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination, which is the phenomenon that social
discrimination is found to be stronger with positive compared to negative outcomes (Mummendey
& Otten, 1998). Sassenberg et al. (2003) demonstrated that this effect is restricted to promotion
focused individuals but reverses if participants are prevention focused. The predominance of the
positive-negative asymmetry in the literature might result form the fact that all the research
demonstrating this effect was conducted in Western societies, in which a promotion focus is
dominant (Lee, Aaker, & Gardner, 2000).
Moreover, the studies focusing on regulatory focus as a dependent variable have identified
joint psychological processes underlying such diverse phenomena as stereotype threat, intergroup
interactions, and the impact of specific group norms. In the long run, it might thus be possible to
explain phenomena that were for a long time investigated using different theories and models based
on a unifying theoretical approach. Even though it would be premature to draw this conclusion
based on the few existing findings, there is reason to hope that the integration of regulatory focus
into the social identity approach can help to relate diverse phenomena to each other and to foster
more parsimonious theorizing. Finally, research on the interplay of regulatory focus and group
characteristics has discovered a precondition of self-categorisation and social identification that so
far had not received attention: regulatory fit.
A domain in which evidence for the summarized research is already impressive is the
relation between powerless stigmatized and powerful stigmatizing individuals. A stigma elicits a
prevention focus when it is activated or negative treatment is expected (Derks et al., 2006;
Oyserman et al., 2007) and in the long run may also lead to a chronic prevention focus (Keltner et
al., 2003; Oyserman et al., 2007). A chronic prevention focus in turn leads to a preference for and
social identification with low power groups (Sassenberg et al., 2006, 2007). Conversely, there are
some indications that high power and domains in which a group is superior lead to a promotion
focus (Derks et al., 2006; Keltner et al., 2003), which in turn results in a preference for high power
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 37
groups (Sassenberg et al., 2006, 2007). This perspective divergence between groups (Mummendey,
Linneweber, & Löschper, 1984) may already form the basis for an intergroup conflict: Members of
both groups show spontaneous preferences for their own group and will potentially derive claims
from this. Furthermore, instances of unequal treatment by high power group members will elicit
anger within low power group members (Sassenberg & Hansen, 2007). As soon as members of
both groups are to interact things are likely to become even worse, because members of the
dominant group are also prone to then switch to a prevention focus (Trawalter & Richeson, 2006).
In turn, members of both groups will then have a tendency to respond with anger (and potentially
also aggression) to the negatively perceived behaviour of the other group (Sassenberg & Hansen,
2007). Overall, this summary of findings allows for the explanation of negative intergroup
dynamics and negative treatment of outgroups that for a long time was lacking in intergroup
research (Mummendey & Otten, 2004). Applying the group-based self-regulation approach to other
intergroup phenomena will most likely have the potential to also contribute to the explanation of
these phenomena.
Each of the steps summarized above provides an opportunity for interventions. Members of
stigmatized groups often interpret ambiguous behaviour of high status group members as negative
because of attributions to discrimination. Research has shown that prevention strength moderates
these affective responses (Sassenberg & Hansen, 2007). Thus, replacing the prevention focus
resulting from the activation of a stigmatized group membership (Oyserman et al., 2007) by
inducing a promotion focus might reduce these negative affective responses. This can be done by
stressing the importance of the strength of the stigmatized (e.g., the wisdom of the elderly or the
benefits of diversity; Derks et al., 2006).
Teaching the members of high status groups to approach members of low status groups
with the goal to have interracial interactions that are as pleasant as possible (rather than stressing
political correctness norms implying to try to avoid being prejudiced) might reduce ambiguous
behaviour displayed by high status group members in the first place. Such an intervention would
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 38
directly impact on the reduced processing capacity resulting from a prevention focus (i.e., the goal
to avoid prejudice, Trawalter & Richeson, 2006) and thus most likely reduce the smoothness of the
social interaction (leading, amongst other things, to ambiguous behaviour). These examples show
that the current research provides numerous stimulations for interventions to improve intergroup
relations.
The relevance of all these findings certainly depends on the relevance of regulatory focus in
everyday life. Unfortunately, there is no systematic overview on the conditions under which a
promotion or a prevention focus arises. However, the work summarized here already provides
plenty of evidence for the occurrence of one or the other regulatory focus in everyday life.
Regulatory focus is expressed by proverbs (Faddegon et al., in press) and belief systems conveyed
by such proverbs, it is affected when Caucasians expect an interracial interaction (Trawalter &
Richeson, 2006), and by the mere salience of membership in a stigmatized group (Oyserman et al.,
2007). Thus, prevention focus is likely to be encountered in everyday interactions between
members of groups differing (for whatever reasons) in status. Activated positive stereotypes induce
a promotion focus and activated negative stereotypes induce a prevention focus (Seibt & Förster,
2004), a finding that has large-scale consequences for education: Stereotype threat will only make
students underperform in inductive tasks (and other domains where promotion strategies are
required) but not in deductive task (and other domains where prevention strategies have been
shown to improve performance). Moreover, students experiencing stereotype threat might even
outperform the others provided they are granted more time, because due to their prevention strategy
they are less likely to make errors. These are just some of the many examples drawn from research
indicating that regulatory focus is not merely a theoretical concept but occurs in everyday life.
More generally one could also expect societal factors to have an impact on individuals’ regulatory
focus. Societies marked by economic growth and tolerant cultures might induce a promotion focus,
whereas terrorism and dictatorships are more likely to elicit a prevention focus. Do such factors on
the long increase vulnerability for depression and undermine creative performance among the
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 39
oppressed? This would imply that regulatory focus theory summarizes mechanisms that allow for
the understanding of societal mechanisms.
In sum, the ecological validity of regulatory focus and the findings summarized here is
beyond doubt, but regulatory focus research would benefit from inventorying the situations leading
to one or the other regulatory focus. This requires a shift from research on regulatory focus as a
cause of behaviour that has dominated the field until now, to regulatory focus as an outcome
variable. Moreover, putting research on regulatory focus and collective self-regulation in a societal
context and studying the impact of societal conditions affecting regulatory focus would be a means
to discover the action potential of the current approach.
The long list of domains to which regulatory focus theory and self-discrepancy theory have
been applied indicates their relevance for intergroup research, but despite the large number of
studies that have been conducted in less than a decade there is still a lot of work to be done before
one may conclude that the role of regulatory focus in intergroup relations is completely understood.
Phenomena such as social categorisation, social orientation, linguistic intergroup bias, social
influence, identity threat, and acculturation might also be influenced by self-regulation strategies,
because the relevant information processing underlying these phenomena has been shown to be
influenced by regulatory focus (e.g., Friedman & Förster, 2001; Semin et al., 2005). Moreover,
with the exception of power the relation between regulatory focus and socio-structural variables of
the intergroup context has not been analyzed, yet. Hence, there is still a long way to go before the
impact of self-regulation in the context of (inter-)group behaviour is fully understood.
Such a complete understanding would also require the study of the impact of other self-
regulation strategies in the context of intergroup relations. Promising research in this direction is
already on the way. For example, Wieber and Sassenberg (2006) demonstrated that implementation
intentions in favour of ingroup members result in an automatic derogation of outgroup members.
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 40
Implications for self-regulation research
The research summarized here has not only contributed in a valuable way to (inter-)group
but also to self-regulation research. It demonstrated that self-discrepancy theory and regulatory
focus theory do not only apply to the regulation of the personal self but also to the regulation of the
social self, and by this linked research on self-regulation to research on the self-concept (e.g., the
work by Faddegon et al., in press, showing that the self-regulation strategy associated with the
social identity actually impacts on individuals’ self-regulation). This link deserves more attention
in future research. Moreover, research using regulatory focus as dependent variable contributed to
the (to date scarce) knowledge about conditions eliciting either a promotion or a prevention focus
(e.g., Seibt & Förster, 2004). Furthermore, the studies demonstrating that regulatory fit influences
social identification were the first to show how self-regulation strategies contribute to changes
concerning the (social) self (Sassenberg et al., 2007). Finally, the studies assessing affect towards
high and low power groups resulting from regulatory fit were the first to demonstrate the
spontaneous and unconscious nature of regulatory fit effects using implicit measures (Sassenberg et
al., 2007).
Besides the study of the implications of single self-regulation theories for intergroup
relations, self-regulation research in general and intergroup research in particular would also profit
from analyzing the relations between and the interplay of different self-regulation approaches. To
give but one example, regulatory focus should be conceptually and empirically distinguished from
other closely related concepts such as challenges vs. threats (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996),
approach vs. avoidance tendencies (Förster, Higgins, & Idson, 1998), as well as hope for success
vs. fear of failure (Higgins et al., 2001).
Conclusion
Research on intergroup relations has ignored self-regulation approaches until the beginning
of this century, when self-discrepancy theory and regulatory focus theory were introduced into this
field. Both sister theories have contributed substantially to the understanding of several intergroup
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 41
phenomena, providing the potential of an integration of explanations for phenomena that have until
recently been explained by separate approaches, or at least by different processes, within the social
identity approach. The studies summarized in this overview allow for the conclusion that the social
self is regulated in a similar manner as the personal self. In addition, self-regulation can lead to
changes within the social self and intergroup contexts clearly impact on self-regulation.
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 42
References
Abrams, D. (1994). Social self-regulation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20,
473-483.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (Eds.) (2004). Handbook of self-regulation: Research,
Theory, and Applications. New York: Guilford Press.
Bizman, A., Yinon, Y., & Krotman, S. (2001). Group-based emotional distress: An
extension of self-discrepancy theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1291-1300.
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1996). The biopsychosocial model of arousal regulation. In:
M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 1-51). San Diego:
Academic Press.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of self-regulation.
San Diego: Academic Press.
Brazy, P. C., Shah, J. Y., & Devine, P. G. (2005). Considering the regulatory focus of
implicit associations. Unpublished manuscript. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Cited in Brazy
& Shah (2006).
Brazy, P. C. & Shah, J. Y. (2005). Regulatory focus as a moderator of stereotype threat.
Unpublished manuscript. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Cited in Brazy & Shah (2006).
Brazy, P. C. & Shah, J. Y. (2006). Strength and safety in numbers: Considering the social
implications of regulatory focus. Journal of Personality, 74, 1647-1671.
Brendl, C. M., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Principles of judging valence: What makes events
positive or negative. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28,
pp. 95-160). San Diego: Academic Press.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.
Brigham, J. C. (1993). College students' racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 23, 1933-1967.
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 43
Camacho, C. J., Higgins, E. T., & Luger, L. (2003). Moral value transfer from regulatory
fit: What feels right is right and what feels wrong is wrong. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84, 498-510.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion
and prevention in decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69,
117-132.
Derks, B., van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2006). Striving for success in outgroup settings:
Effects of contextually emphasizing ingroup dimensions on stigmatized group members.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 576-588.
Faddegon, K, Scheepers. D., & Ellemers, N. (in press). If we have the will, there will be a
way: Regulatory focus as a group identity. European Journal of Social Psychology.
Florack, A., & Hartmann, J. (2007). Regulatory focus and investment decisions in small
groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 626-632.
Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Idson, C. L. (1998). Approach and avoidance strength as a
function of regulatory focus: Revisiting the “goal looms larger” effect. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75, 1115-1131.
Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Strack, F. (2000).When stereotype disconfirmation is a
personal threat: How prejudice and prevention focus moderate incongruency effects. Social
Cognition, 18, 178-197.
Förster, J., Liberman, N., & Friedman, R. (2007). Seven principles of automatic goal
pursuit: A systematic approach to distinguishing goal priming from priming of non-goal constructs.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 211-233
Freitas, A. L., Lieberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Regulatory fit and resisting tempta-
tion during goal pursuit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 291-298.
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on
creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001-1013.
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 44
Friedman, R. S. & Förster, J. (2005a). Effects of motivational cues on perceptual
asymmetry: Implications for creativity and analytical problem solving. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 88, 263-275.
Friedman, R. S. & Förster, J. (2005b). The effect of approach and avoidance cues on
attentional flexibility. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 69-81.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological
Review, 94, 319-340.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.
Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55,
1217-1229.
Higgins, E. T. (2004). Making a theory useful: Lessons handed down. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 8, 138-145.
Higgins, E. T., Bond, R. N., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1986). Self-discrepancies and
emotional vulnerability: How magnitude, accessibility, and type of discrepancy influence affect.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 5-15.
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.
Higgins, E. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Pierro, A. (2003). Regulatory mode: Locomotion and
assessment as distinct orientations. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 35., pp. 293-344). San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.
Higgins, E. T., & May, D. (2001). Individual self-regulatory functions. It’s not “we”
regulation, but it’s still social. In C. Sedikides, & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Individual self, relational
self, collective self (pp. 47-67). New York: Psychology Press.
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 45
Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment:
Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 515-
525.
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.), Hand-
book of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 171-187). New York: Guilford.
Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty-identity theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 69-126). San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.
Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses
and losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 252-274.
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.
Keller, J. (2007). Development and validation of a self-report scale assessing performance-
related chronic self-regulatory concerns: The regulatory concerns questionnaire. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Mannheim, Germany.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.
Psychological Review, 110, 265-284.
Kessler, T., Sassenberg, K., & Mummendey, A. (2006). Influence of different kinds of goals
on differentiation between social groups. Unpublished manuscript, University of Exeter, UK.
Kruglanski, A. W. (1999). Motivation, cognition, and reality: Three memos for the next
generation of research. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 54-58.
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.
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 46
Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasure and pain of distinct self-
construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78, 1122–1134.
Levine, J. M., Higgins, E. T., & Choi, H.-S. (2000). Development of strategic norms in
groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 88-101.
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C., & 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.
Monteith, M. J., Asburn-Nardo, L., Voils, C. I., & Czopp, A. M. (2002). Putting the brakes
on prejudice: On the development and operation of cues for control. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 83, 1029-1050.
Moskowitz, G. B., Gollwitzer, P. M., Wasel, W., & Schaal, B. (1999). Preconscious control
of stereotype activation through chronic egalitarian goals. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77, 167-184.
Mullen, B. (1991). Group composition, salience, and cognitive representations: The
phenomenology of being in a group. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 297-323.
Mummendey, A., Linneweber, V., & Löschper, G. (1994). Actor or victim of aggression:
Divergent perspectives--divergent evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 297-
311.
Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (1998). Positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination.
In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 107-143).
New York: Wiley.
Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (2004). Aversive discrimination. In M. B. Brewer, & M.
Hewstone (Eds.), Emotion and motivation (pp. 298-318). Malden: Blackwell.
Neuberg, S. L., & Newsom, J. T. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual differences
in the desire for simple structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 113-131.
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 47
Oyserman, D., Uskul, A. K., Yoder, N., Nesse, R. M., & Williams, D. R. (2007). Unfair
treatment and self-regulatory focus. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 502-512.
Petrocelli, J. V., & Smith, E. R. (2005). Who I am, who we are, and why: Links between
emotions and causal attributions for self- and group-discrepancies. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1628-1642.
Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without
prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811-832.
Robins, G. & Boldero, J. (2003). Relational discrepancy theory: The implications of self-
discrepancy theory for dyadic relationships and for the emergence of social structure. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 7, 56-74.
Roseman, I. J. (1991). Appraisal determinants of discrete emotions. Cognition & Emotion,
5, 161-200.
Sassenberg, K., Brazy, P. C., Jonas, K. J., & Shah, J. Y. (2006). Fitting with one’s genes:
The regulatory fit of gender. Unpublished manuscript, University of Tübingen, Germany.
Sassenberg, K., & Hansen, N. (2007). The impact of regulatory focus on affective responses
to social discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 421-444.
Sassenberg, K., Jonas, K. J., Shah, J. Y., & Brazy, P. C. (2007). Regulatory fit of the
ingroup: The impact of group power and regulatory focus on implicit intergroup bias. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 249-267.
Sassenberg, K., Kessler, T., & Mummendey, A. (2003). Less negative = more positive?
Social discrimination as avoidance and approach. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39,
48-58.
Sassenberg, K., & Wieber, F. (2005). The impact of ingroup identification on implicit
measures of prejudice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 621-632.
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 48
Seibt, B., & Förster, J. (2004). Stereotype threat and performance: How self-stereotypes
influence processing by inducing regulatory foci. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
87, 38-56.
Semin, G. R., Higgins, T., de Montes, L. G., Estourget, Y., & Valencia, J. F. (2005).
Linguistic signatures of regulatory focus: How abstraction fits promotion more than prevention.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 36-45.
Shah, J. Y., Brazy, P. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Promotion and prevention forms of
ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 433-446.
Shah, J. Y, & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Expectancy X value effects: Regulatory focus as deter-
minant of magnitude and direction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 447-458.
Shah, J. Y., Higgins, E. T., & Friedman, R. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means:
How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74, 285-293:
Shah, J. Y., Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1998). Membership has its (epistemic)
rewards: Need for closure effects on in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
75, 383-393.
Smith, E. R. (2002). Overlapping mental representations of self and group: Evidence and
implications. In J. P. Forgas, & K. D. Williams (Eds.), The social self. Cognitive, interpersonal,
and intergroup perspectives (pp. 21-35). New York: Psychology Press.
Smith, E. R., Seger, C. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Can emotions be truly group-level?
Evidence regarding four conceptual criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93,
431-446.
Stangor, C., & Thompson, E. P. (2002). Needs for cognitive economy and self-
enhancement as unique predictors of intergroup attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology,
32, 563-575.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air. How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 49
performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613.-629.
Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The
psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 379-440). San Diegao: Academic Press.
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-
fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199-214.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.
Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey:
Brooks/Cole.
Trawalter, S., & Richeson, J. A. (2006). Regulatory focus and executive function after
interracial interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 406-412.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).
Rediscovering the social group. A self-categorisation theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Understanding self-regulation: An introduction.
In R. F. Baumeister, & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, Theory, and
Applications (pp. 1-10). New York: Guilford Press.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 548-573.
Wieber, F., & Sassenberg, K. (2006). Benefits without costs? Implementation intention
induced overgeneralization and contrast effects in social judgments. Unpublished Manuscript,
University of Konstanz, Germany.
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 50
Footnotes
Table 1: Overview of relevant research.
study independent variable(s) dependent variable(s) fulfilled criteria
Förster et al. (2000) regulatory focus, prejudice (sexism) memory for stereotype (in)congrunent
attributes and background information,
affective responses
-
Brazy et al. (2005) regulatory focus, prejudice (African
Americans)
affective responses, promotion and
prevention related stereotypic
associations
-
Keller & Bless
(2008)
regulatory focus, expectancies (positive
vs. negative, stereotypic vs. non-
stereotypic)
test performance (driver’s license
items; verbal, special, and logical
ability), threat and challenge appraisals
-
Shah et al. (2004) regulatory focus in- and outgroup approach and
outgroup distancing
-
Bizman et al. (2001) group-based self-discrepancies group-based affect 1
Petrocelli & Smith
(2005)
group-based self-discrepancies, social
identification
group-based affect 1, 2
Sassenberg &
Hansen (2007)
regulatory focus, social discrimination
with losses and non-gains
affective response, willingness to act
against the discriminator
1, 3
Sassenberg et al.
(2003)
regulatory focus, allocation of increases
vs. decreases to in- and outgroup
resources allocated 1, 2, 3
Kessler et al. (2006) approach / avoidance goals, allocation of
increases vs. decreases to in- and
outgroup
resources allocated 1, 2, 3
Seibt & Förster
(2004)
ascribed stereotypes (positive vs. negative
vs. control)
promotion and prevention strategies 1
Derks et al. (2006) in- vs. outgroup contexts, contextual
value for ingroup dimensions
focus on success vs. failure (including
promotion and prevention emotions)
1, 2
Oyserman et al.
(2007)
salience of stigmatized and non-
stigmatized group membership
regulatory focus, perception of unfair
treatment
1
Trawalter &
Richeson (2006)
regulatory focus Stroop colour naming task 1
Faddegon et al.
(2006)
collective regulatory focus, individual
regulatory focus, social identification
promotion and prevention strategies 1, 2, 4
Levine et al. (2000) regulatory focus promotion and prevention strategies 1, 3, 4
Florack & Hartmann
(2007)
regulatory focus, time pressure promotion and prevention strategies at
the individual and group level
1, 4
Sassenberg et al.
(2007)
regulatory focus, group power interest in group membership,
regulatory fit, group valence
1, 3
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 52
Sassenberg et al.
(2006)
regulatory focus, gender group valence, social identification 1, 3
Figure caption
Figure 1: The impact of regulatory focus and social discrimination on (a) anger and (b) the
willingness to act against the perpetrator (Sassenberg & Hansen, 2007, Study 3)
Figure 2: Rewards resulting from allocations to ingroup and outgroup members depending
on regulatory focus and resource type to be allocated (increases vs. decreases;
Sassenberg et al., 2003, Study 2)
Figure 3: Ingroup bias in resource allocation depending on goal type (approach vs.
avoidance), resource type (increases vs. decreases), and social self-categorisation
(Kessler et al., 2006, Study 2).
Figure 4: Mediation of the regulatory focus by group power interaction on interest in group
membership via regulatory fit (Sassenberg et al., 2007, Study 3).
Figure 5: Implicit Sexism in favour of one’s own gender displayed by females and males in
a promotion and prevention focus (Sassenberg et al., 2006, Study 2).
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 53
FIGURE 1 TOP
(a) (b)
* ***
1
2
3
4
5
6
promotion prevention
anger
discrimination
no discrimination
1
2
3
4
5
6
promotion prevention
intention to act
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 54
FIGURE 2 TOP
160
180
200
220
promotion
increments
prevention
increments
promotion
decreament
prevention
decreaments
Rewards resulting form allocation'
ingroup
outgroup
Note: Had participants allocated the same amount of money to the in- and outgroup
members, both groups would have received 180.
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 55
FIGURE 3 TOP
0
5
10
15
approach
increase
avoidance
increase
appraoch
decrease
avoidance
decrease
Ingroup bias in ressource allocations'
two groups
one group
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 56
FIGURE 4 TOP
regulatory focus
x power
interest in
group membership
regulatory
fit
.11 (.25**)
.24**
.58***
REGULATORY FOCUS AND INTERGROUP CONTEXTS 57
FIGURE 5 TOP
-50
-30
-10
10
30
50
promotion prevention
affective priming effect (ms)
females
males
1 In the 1990s the term self-regulation was used in intergroup research to specify under which
conditions ingroup norms, personal needs, or societal and outgroup norms serve as standards for
self-regulation (e.g., Abrams, 1994; Mullen, 1991). In other words, these approaches focused on the
question when the social self is regulated and not on the question that would have lead to the study
of motivational processes, namely: How is the social self regulated? Therefore, the afore mentioned
approaches are not discussed in the remainder of this article.
2 The results are somewhat at odds with the idea that individuals in a promotion focus respond
positive to positive stimuli. The current work demonstrates that the relation between positive stimuli
and promotion focus seems to be more complex. Compared to a prevention focus, in a promotion
focus the response to positive stimuli was stronger (here just as in earlier research). However, in
response to positive stimuli earlier research found performance increases (among other responses),
whereas the current research indicates that a positive stimulus in form of high performance
expectation (i.e., high standards for the evaluation of the actor) elicits a negative response in
participants. Because of the importance of achievement in a promotion focus, high expectations turn
into a threat.
3 Petroelli and Smith (2005) expected that actual-ideal discrepancies would lead to dejection when
they are attributed internally and likewise that actual-ought discrepancies would lead to agitation
when they are attributed internally. In contrast, higher levels of discontent and anger were expected
the stronger the external attribution of the respective discrepancies. The expectations were derived
from appraisal theories of emotions (e.g., Roseman, 1991; Weiner, 1985), which argue that the
external vs. internal source of an event has implications for the resulting emotions. Agitation and
dejection result from internally attributed events, whereas discontent and anger result from
externally attributed events.
4 The findings of Seibt and Förster (2004) might seem to be inconsistent with the results of Keller
and Bless (2008), because the former found increased performance from positive stereotypes or
expectations in tasks profiting from the applications of promotion strategies, whereas the latter
found generally decreased performance resulting from the same expectations, but only among
participants with a promotion focus. Keller and Bless (2008) studied how regulatory focus affects
the way individuals deal with high expectations, whereas Seibt and Förster (2004) studied how high
expectations affect regulatory focus. Hence, they addressed different relations between the same
variables. Therefore, the results in fact do not contradict each other. It would, however, be
interesting to see what happens, if re-occurring expectations affect regulatory focus on the long run
(for a more extensive discussion of the relation between both lines of research see Keller & Bless,
2008).
5 Rather than directly assessing regulatory focus (e.g., by means of a questionnaire), Derks et al.
(2006) measured indicators of a promotion vs. prevention focus in terms of emotional and
behavioral reactions as a proxy for regulatory focus. They thus speak of a focus on success (a focus
on gains vs. non-gains congruent with a promotion focus) and a focus on failure (a focus on losses
vs. non-losses congruent with prevention focus). For the sake of simplicity we refer to these
indicators as promotion and prevention focus, respectively.
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
