Temporal Perspective 1 Running Head: Temporal Perspective Regulatory Focus and Temporal Perspective

This research examined the link between regulatory focus (promotion versus prevention concerns) and shifts in perception with temporal proximity to a goal. We interpret previous research to have shown that promotion but not prevention focus decreases with goal proximity. In Study 1, students rated the importance of promotionand prevention-oriented concerns at two points in time: two weeks before and a few minutes before a midterm examination. Promotion goal importance decreased with temporal proximity, whereas prevention goal importance remained constant over time. Study 2 provided evidence for the reverse causal relation, that of the effect of regulatory focus on temporal perspective. Participants induced to consider promotion goals tended to look farther into the future than those considering prevention goals. Moreover, this effect was equivalent for both prospective and retrospective judgments. These findings suggest an integration across research domains that links regulatory focus to temporal perspective equivalently for both judgments of the future and the past. Temporal Perspective 3 Regulatory Focus and Temporal Perspective Although we are forever chained to the present, much of our mental activity nevertheless aims at events in the future and past. But how do perceptions of temporally distant versus proximate events differ? And are there any commonalties between perceptions of future versus past? Some answers to these questions have appeared in independent research on optimism shifts (e.g., Shepperd, Ouellette, Fernandez, 1996), temporal construal theory (Liberman & Trope, 1998), the planning fallacy (Buehler, Griffin, & Ross, 1994), the “rosy view” (Mitchell, Thompson, Peterson, & Cronk, 1997), durability bias (Gilbert et al., 1998), and counterfactual regret (Gilovich & Medvec, 1995). We argue that these lines of research have yielded findings compatible with a general conclusion, that regulatory focus (e.g., Higgins, 1998) is deeply intertwined with temporal perspective. Individuals construe events in terms of a promotion focus to a greater extent when they are temporally distant than proximate. By contrast, prevention focus holds constant with temporal proximity to the target goal. Further, we argue that these effects are equivalent in prospective and retrospective judgments. In this way, individuals look upon the present, the near future, and the recent past with an eye to both promotion and prevention. But the further their temporal gaze, that is, the further into the future or the past they peer, the greater is individuals’ relative emphasis on acquisition and achievement as opposed to obstacles and impediments. Although previous research has hinted at this synthesis, research programs and their theoretical offshoots have tended to examine prospective versus retrospective judgments separately (see Gilovich, Kerr, & Medvec, 1993 and Mitchell et al., 1997, for exceptions). The summary of findings below is intended to illuminate the commonalities across these various research areas. Our discussion spotlights temporally focused goals, that is, target tasks with a Temporal Perspective 4 discrete completion point (e.g., getting married) as opposed to those that are ongoing and openended (e.g., being happy; see Madey & Gilovich, 1993). Regulatory Focus A promotion focus centers on acquisition of positive goals; that is, a concern with advancement, accomplishment, and realization of desired end states. A prevention focus, by contrast, centers on preserving an absence of unwanted occurrences; that is, a concern with security, protection, and maintenance of the status quo (Higgins, 1998). Recent research has operationalized regulatory focus both in terms of situationally labile cognitive states as well as chronic processing tendencies. Variation in regulatory focus has several consequences. First, regulatory focus influences social perception, in that it orients attention toward information compatible with the current or chronic regulatory focus (Higgins, Roney, Crowe, & Hymes, 1994). Individuals better remember information consistent with their current or chronic regulatory focus (Higgins et al., 1994). Second, failure to achieve promotion or prevention, respectively, activates different emotion clusters. Promotion failure is associated with dejected emotions, such as sadness and disappointment, whereas prevention failure is associated with agitated emotions, such as anxiety and nervousness (Higgins, Shah, & Friedman, 1997). Third, performance, as mediated by effort and persistence, varies as a function of the match between regulatory focus and task characteristics (Förster, Higgins, & Idson, 1998). Prospection People tend to view temporally distant goals more optimistically than goals that are close at hand. That is, individuals evince heightened confidence in their ability to achieve success at discrete tasks when the relevant events (e.g., exams, athletic contests) are temporally distant rather than proximate (Gilovich et al., 1993; Shepperd et al., 1996). Further, the “planning Temporal Perspective 5 fallacy” refers to the pattern whereby individuals anticipate more rapid task completion than is actually the case, in part because of their faith in specific facilitatory behaviors that they intend to perform (Buehler et al., 1994; Newby-Clark et al., 2000). Two lines of theory provide explanations for heightened confidence in success at temporally distant as opposed to proximate goals, one affective and one cognitive. First, higher-order mood management might result in attempts to “brace for the worst” by downgrading performance estimates to soften the blow of potential failure (Sanna, 1999; Shepperd et al., 2000). Second, level of construal may shift over time, such that events in the distant future are construed on an abstract, schematic level, whereas immediate events are construed at a task-specific, contextual level (Liberman & Trope, 1998; Trope & Liberman, 2000). We suggest that these patterns can be summarized in terms of relatively greater promotion focus for temporally distant events and greater prevention focus for temporally proximate events. This intertwining of regulatory focus with temporal perspective reflects the view that both affect and cognition are intimately related to temporal optimism shifts. That is, heightened promotion goals for temporally distant events initiate action and encourage enthusiasm without getting “bogged down in details.” A relatively greater emphasis on prevention focus for temporally proximate events reflects not only increased levels of anxiety but heightened task-specific attention that incorporates assessment of both facilitating and inhibiting causes. Further evidence that regulatory focus is connected to temporal perspective is that anxiety increases as prospective events draw nearer (Savitsky et al., 1998; Taylor & Shepard, 1998); anxiety is the typical affective consequence of prevention concerns (Higgins et al., 1997; Roney, Higgins, & Shah, 1995). Research on prospective judgment is thus compatible with the Temporal Perspective 6 argument that temporally distant versus proximate events are associated with promotion versus prevention focus, respectively. Retrospection A similar pattern is evident in research on retrospective judgment, but research in this domain has taken a slightly different empirical tack. Reflection on failures in one’s past typically involves counterfactual thoughts that specify how the goal might have been achieved (Roese, 1997). Two lines of research on counterfactual thinking jointly point to a connection between regulatory focus and temporal perspective. First, Gilovich and Medvec (1994) showed that when people consider events in the distant past, they are likely to generate additive counterfactuals (i.e., specifying the addition of some new action that was not in fact performed), whereas when considering the more recent past, people are more likely to generate subtractive counterfactuals (i.e., specifying the subtraction of some action that was in fact performed). Gilovich and Medvec (1995) offered several explanations for this temporal pattern, the most relevant of which was the tendency for obstacles to become less salient in memory over time. And second, Roese, Hur, and Pennington (1999) drew a direct connection between these same counterfactual subtypes and regulatory focus, showing that additive counterfactuals are evoked by promotion failure, whereas subtractive counterfactuals are evoked by prevention failure. Collectively, these two lines of research suggest that individuals perceive distantly past events with a promotion focus (as evidenced by predilection for additive counterfactual thoughts), whereas individuals view proximately past events with a prevention focus (as evidenced by a preference for subtractive counterfactuals). Gilovich et al. (1993) found that retrospective confidence in the completion of promotion-oriented achievement goals was greater for temporally distant as opposed to Temporal Perspective 7 proximate events (Study 3), a pattern that was equivalent in prospective confidence judgments (Study 2). More directly relevant, they found that participants’ prospective thought-listings contained greater emphasis on the causes of success (i.e., promotion focus) than on the causes of failure (i.e., prevention focus) when focusing on temporally distant than proximate events (Study 4). Mitchell et al. (1997) also examined both prospective and retrospective judgments, discovering that both were evaluatively more positive than was the actual present-tense experience. Again, this pattern was associated with a decrease in relevant negative thoughts as temporal proximity from the target event increased. We argue, therefore, that past research may be summarized in terms of a close connection between regulatory focus and temporal perspective, and that such a relation is equivalent for both prospective and retrospective judgments. The Present Research Our research supports two main conclusions. First, we show that temporal perspective induces shifts in regulatory focus (Study 1). That is, the importance ratings given to a variety of regulatory goals shift as a function of event proximity. As temporal distance to an event decreases, so does the relative perceived importance given to promotion as opposed to prevention goals. Study 1 was thus a derivation of Gilovich et al. (1993, Study 4) and centered only on prospective judgment, but used goal importance ratings as a more direct measure of regulatory focus. Second, we demonstrate that the link between regulatory focus and temporal perspective is causally bidirectional, meaning that regulatory focus can also induce shifts in temporal perspective. Moreover, such an effect is equivalent for both prospective and retrospective judgments. That is, when individuals are asked to ponder promotion goals (e.g., Temporal Perspective 8 getting a job), they tend to focus their temporal gaze further into the future and further into the past than when asked to ponder prevention goals (e.g., not getting pregnant). Study 1 Study 1 tested students’ perceptions of an upcoming exam at two points in time. The contrast between temporally distant versus proximate events was thus within-subject. Method Eighty undergraduate students from an introductory cognitive psychology course at Northwestern University participated. Participants completed a written survey at two points in the academic quarter. Two weeks before a midterm exam, the experimenter distributed consent forms and surveys at the beginning of the class period. Participants who chose to participate were asked to record the last four digits of their student identification numbers and were allowed approximately 10 minutes to complete the survey. On the day of the course exam, the survey was distributed at the beginning of class. Students were reminded that the exam would take much less time than the allotted class period (which was over 2 hours), in order to assuage any possible concerns that the survey would interfere with students’ ability to complete the exam in time. Participants estimated how well they expected to do on the exam by providing an estimated percentage score and by completing a subjective rating along a 9-point scale ranging from extremely poorly to extremely well. The measure of regulatory focus consisted of 10 items. Five assessed positively-framed promotion outcomes (e.g., “getting a high score”), and the other 5 assessed negatively-framed prevention outcomes (e.g., “avoiding an unfavorable score”). Participants indicated their degree of concern with each statement using an 8-point scale ranging from extremely unconcerned to extremely concerned. Temporal Perspective 9 Results Replicating previous research, participants were more confident of their exam performance when judgments were temporally distant than proximate. Percentile estimates dropped from 89.86% to 86.76% (F(1, 77) = 22.77, p < .01)), and subjective ratings fell from 7.73 to 6.68, F (1, 77) = 69.29, p < .01. Regulatory focus items were averaged to produce promotion and prevention subscales of adequate reliability (Cronbach’s α = .78 and .74). Promotion (M = 6.01) was of greater concern overall than prevention (M = 5.36), F(1, 78) = 44.8, p < .0001. However, the interaction between temporal perspective and regulatory focus was significant, F(1, 78) = 4.45, p = .04. Whereas prevention concerns remained steady over time (ns), promotion concerns decreased as the event drew nearer, t(78) = 1.90, p = .03 (one-tailed). See Figure 1. Study 2 In Study 1, temporal perspective was shown to bring about shifts in regulatory focus. Study 2 tested the reverse causal direction, examining whether promotion versus prevention focus affects the temporal perspective brought to bear in consideration of one’s goals. The design embraced the 2 x 2 manipulation of both regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention) and temporal direction (prospective vs. retrospective). In addition to demonstrating the influence of regulatory focus in altering the temporal perspective individuals adopt, this study indicates an equivalent pattern for both prospective and retrospective judgments. It is important to note that goal completion may be either temporally focused (i.e., when the event is specificiable in terms of a discrete point in time) or unfocused (Madey & Gilovich, 1993), and that this variable likely covaries with regulatory focus. Promotion success (presence of positive) and prevention failure (presence of negative) tend to be focused, in that they both Temporal Perspective 10 involve the presence of a particular outcome, whereas promotion failure (absence of positive) and prevention success (absence of negative) tend to be less focused, in that they involve a nonoccurrence. Of course, even non-occurrences may be temporally focused (e.g., Wendi failed to pay her taxes before April 15), but given that a natural correspondence probably occurs, we attempted to hold both temporal focus and outcome valence constant. All participants thus completed a questionnaire formatted to elicit temporally focused responses, and all conditions focused on successful completion of goals. Method Participants were 63 students enrolled in an introductory social psychology course at Simon Fraser University, participating as part of an in-class demonstration. The design of the experiment was a 2 (regulatory focus: promotion vs prevention) x 2 (temporal direction: prospective vs retrospective) factorial. Participants were asked to consider 6 goals. Half of the participants focused on desired events to be achieved, whereas the other half focused on undesired events to be avoided. Further, half focused on future events, whereas the other half focused on past events. The dependent measure was the estimated time of goal completion: Participants recorded a time point in months and years from the present. Nearly a third of participants failed to complete estimates for all 6 goals; but nearly 100% did so for the first 4. Analyses thus centered on those first 4 goals. Further, 10 participants were eliminated from the sample either because their time estimates were outliers, i.e., greater than two standard deviations from the mean (n=6) or because they wrote “ongoing” rather than a numerical time estimate (n=3). Although the task was designed to center only on temporally Temporal Perspective 11 focused events, these 10 subjects all provided temporally unfocused responses. As would be expected, most of these (8 of 10) were in the prevention rather than promotion condition. Results In accordance with our hypotheses, participants focusing on promotion goals tended to look farther away in time (M = 2.00 yrs) than those focusing on prevention goals (M = 1.14 yrs), F(1, 49) = 8.70, p = .005. This tendency was equivalent for prospective and retrospective estimates, as indicated by the lack of an interaction effect, F(1, 49) = .005, p = .95. In addition, perhaps reflecting the youth of the sample, prospective judgments involved more temporally distant events (M = 1.95 yrs) than did retrospective judgments (M = 1.42 yrs), F(1, 49) = 3.60, p = .064. See Figure 2. General Discussion We argue that prior research on temporal proximity effects in both prospective and retrospective judgments are consistent with the proposition that regulatory focus closely intertwines with temporal perspective. Individuals construe events in terms of a promotion focus to a greater extent when they are temporally distant than proximate. By contrast, prevention focus holds constant with temporal proximity to the target goal (Study 1). Further, the causal relation between regulatory focus and temporal perspective is bidirectional, such that regulatory focus also influences the depth of one’s temporal gaze. Promotion focus induces a view further into the future and further into the past than does a prevention focus (Study 2). Patterns of regulatory goals were very similar for both prospection and retrospection (Study 2), echoing previous findings that causal explanations are structurally equivalent across temporal perspective (Mitchell, Russo, & Pennington, 1989). Temporal Perspective 12 The present findings constitute initial support for our interpretation of prior research on optimism shifts (e.g., Shepperd, Ouellette, Fernandez, 1996), temporal construal theory (Liberman & Trope, 1998), the planning fallacy (Buehler, Griffin, & Ross, 1994), the “rosy view” (Mitchell et al., 1997), durability bias (Gilbert et al., 1998), and counterfactual regret (Gilovich & Medvec, 1995). We argue that all contain pieces of evidence consistent with the view that regulatory focus shifts with temporal proximity to goals. Our findings are compatible, for example, with findings from research on temporal construal theory, which has demonstrated that individuals give less weight to desirability (a promotion-focused concern) when making decisions for immediate events versus temporally distant events (Liberman & Trope, 1998). Our findings resemble those from two recent lines of research. First, Förster et al. (1998) explored the classic “goal looms larger” effect (i.e., the finding that motivational strength increases with proximity to a goal) and found that effort and persistence on a task increased as one moves closer to goal completion, particularly when there is a match between regulatory focus and the immediate demands and format of the task. At first glance, the Förster research might be construed to suggest that promotion focus gets stronger rather than weaker with goal proximity. However, the Förster research held regulatory focus constant then examined effort/persistence over time. By contrast, our research suggests that regulatory focus qualitatively shifts as events draw nearer in time. Second, Freitas, Liberman, Salovey, & Higgins (2001) found that individuals prefer to initiate prevention goals earlier than promotion goals. This finding is certainly consistent with our view that promotion goals involve wider breadth of temporal focus, but our Study 2 centered on completion latency rather than initiation latency. Both lines of research appear to be compatible with the perspective we have argued. Temporal Perspective 13 A temporal shift in regulatory goal strength may be a specific example of a more general proximity effect. For example, analogous findings may emerge for spatial proximity as for temporal proximity. Promotion focus may typically involve activities ranging further from home (vacationing, exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life and new civilizations) than does prevention focus (keeping the grass trimmed, the toilets clean, and the furniture dusted). Even more generally, psychological distance might embrace both temporal and spatial proximity as well as conceptual proximity, defined in terms of hypothetical versus actual activity engagement (Van Boven, Loewenstein, Welch, & Dunning, 2001). To conclude, we suggest that individuals may be said to inhabit “spheres of the present” marked by both promotion and prevention concerns. Overall, promotion outweighs prevention, but this disparity increases with temporal proximity. As people gaze further into the future and past, they see through rosier lenses to a place where action easily makes dreams come true. Merely focusing on acquisition versus obstacle, moreover, induces a gaze with further temporal reach. Temporal Perspective 14 ReferencesBuehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the “planning fallacy”: Whypeople underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,67, 366-381.Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Idson, L. C. (1998). Approach and avoidance strengthduring goal attainment: Regulatory focus and the “goal looms larger” effect. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 75, 1115-1131.Freitas, A. L., Liberman, N., Salovey, P., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). When to begin?:Regulatory focus and initiating goal pursuit. Unpublished manuscript.Gilovich, T., Kerr, M., & Medvec, V. H. (1993). Effect of temporal perspective onsubjective confidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 552-560.Gilovich, T., & Medvec, V. H. (1994). The temporal pattern to the experience of regret.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 357-365.Gilovich, T., & Medvec, V. H. (1995). The experience of regret: What, when, and why.Psychological Review, 102, 379-395.Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J., & Wheatley, T. P. (1998).Immune neglect: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 59, 617-638.Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivationalprinciple. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1-46).San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Temporal Perspective 15 Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J. R., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus oughtpredilections for approach and avoidance: Distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 66, 276-286.Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goalattainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 72, 515-525.Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerationsin near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality& Social Psychology, 75, 5-18.Madey, S. F., & Gilovich, T. (1993). Effect of temporal focus on the recall ofexpectancy-consistent and expectancy-inconsistent information. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 65, 458-468.Mitchell, D. J., Russo, J. E., & Pennington, N. (1989). Back to the future: Temporalperspective in the explanation of events. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2, 25-38.Mitchell, T. R., Thompson, L., Peterson, E., & Cronk, R. (1997). Temporal adjustmentsin the evaluation of events: The “rosy view.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33,421-448.Newby-Clark, I. R., Ross, M., Buehler, R., Koehler, D. J., & Griffin, D. (2000). Peoplefocus on optimistic scenarios and disregard pessimistic scenarios while predicting taskcompletion times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 171-182.Roese, N. J. (1997). Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 133-148. Temporal Perspective 16 Roese, N. J., Hur, T., & Pennington, G. L. (1999). Counterfactual thinking andregulatory focus: Implications for action versus inaction and sufficiency versus necessity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1109-1120.Roney, C. J. R, Higgins, E. T., & Shah, J. (1995). Goals and framing: How outcomefocus influences motivation and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1151-1160.Sanna, L. J. (1999). Mental simulations, affect, and subjective confidence: Timing iseverything. Psychological Science, 10, 339-345.Savitsky, K., Medvec, V. H., Charlton, A. E., & Gilovich, T. (1998). “What, meworry?”: Arousal, misattribution, and the effect of temporal distance on confidence. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 529-536.Shepperd, J. A., Findley-Klein, C., Kwavnick, K. D., Walker, D., & Perez, S. (2000).Bracing for loss. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 620-634.Shepperd, J. A., Ouellette, J. A., & Fernandez, J. K. (1996). Abandoning unrealisticoptimism: Performance estimates and the temporal proximity of self-relevant feedback. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 844-855.Taylor, K. M., & Shepperd, J. A. (1998). Bracing for the worst: Severity, testing, andfeedback timing as moderators of the optimistic bias. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 24, 915-926.Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changes inpreferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 876-889.Van Boven, L., Loewenstein, G., Welch, E., & Dunning, D. (2001). Underestimatingsocial-risk Aversion in self and others. Unpublished manuscript. Temporal Perspective 17 Temporal Perspective 18