Regulatory Focus and Reliance on Implicit Preferences 1 Running head: REGULATORY FOCUS AND RELIANCE ON IMPLICIT PREFERENCES Regulatory Focus and Reliance on Implicit Preferences in Consumption Contexts

The present research tested the assumption that implicit preferences fit the eagerness of a promotion focus, but not the need for safe judgments and decisions of a prevention focus. In two studies, we assessed individual differences in implicit preferences for consumer goods and investigated their influence on self-regulatory behavior. In line with expectations, implicit preferences predicted choice intentions (Study 1), single and repeated choices between consumer goods (Study 2), and the amount of product consumption (Study 3) better for individuals in a promotion focus than in a prevention focus. The results were found with two different measures of implicit preferences. Regulatory Focus and Reliance on Implicit Preferences 3 Regulatory Focus and Reliance on Implicit Preferences in Consumption Contexts Imagine that Tim is attending a conference in France. To his great pleasure he meets his former supervisor, Sharon, who asks Tim how everything is going. Enthusiastically, Tim outlines his ambitious plans and his hopes for his future career. At this moment, a waiter is offering a delicious French pastry as well as healthy fresh grapes. Tim feels pulled toward the pastry. Will he follow his spontaneous impulse? In this article, we draw on regulatory focus theory to advance the idea that the current self-regulatory orientation of an individual has an important impact on consumption behavior in these contexts. With regard to Tim’s choice in the example, we assume that he would more likely rely on his impulsive response when his current self-regulatory orientation is determined by hopes and ideals related to his career, than when his current self-regulatory orientation is determined by thoughts about his responsibilities in teaching or his plans to obtain a safe lifetime position. Regulatory Focus Theory Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997, 1998, 2002) suggests that selfregulatory orientations are a major source for differences in evaluation, behavior, and experiences. Specifically, the theory distinguishes between a promotion and a prevention focus as two basic motivational orientations that direct information processing and self-regulatory behavior. The theory proposes that even if most people try to approach pleasant states and to avoid unpleasant states, they can do so in different ways. First, promotionand prevention-focused individuals are assumed to differ in their strategic Regulatory Focus and Reliance on Implicit Preferences 4 inclinations to approach a desired end state. Promotion self-regulation is concerned with approaching matches with a desired state, whereas prevention self-regulation is concerned with avoiding mismatches with a desired state. For example, to keep a slim figure, a promotion-focused individual would be more likely to exercise (approach a match), whereas a prevention-focused individual would be more likely to avoid eating fatty foods (avoiding a mismatch). Furthermore, the theory posits that promotion-focused individuals are more sensitive to the presence and absence of positive outcomes, and preventionfocused individuals are more sensitive to the presence and absence of negative outcomes. For instance, a promotion-focused individual might be more aware that exercising will help in maintaining a slim figure, whereas a preventionfocused individual might be more aware that the consumption of fatty food would make keeping a slim figure more difficult. In the language of signal detection theory, promotion-focused individuals are expected to behave in a way that helps them to ensure hits (e.g., doing something to slenderize) and to avoid errors of omission (e.g., not doing something to slenderize), whereas prevention-focused individuals should behave in a way that helps them to avoid errors of commission (e.g., doing something wrong, such as eating fattening food) and to ensure correct rejections (e.g., not doing something wrong). Thus, promotion-focused individuals should be more eager, whereas preventionfocused individuals should be more vigilant. Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997, 1998, 2002) also suggests differences in the determinants of the two regulatory orientations. For example, for a promotion focus, basic needs for nurturance, a framing of outcomes as Regulatory Focus and Reliance on Implicit Preferences 5 gains or non-gains, and an enhanced accessibility of wishes, aspirations, and hopes (referred to as ideals) are assumed to be determinants. By contrast, needs for security, a framing of outcomes as losses or non-losses, and an enhanced accessibility of obligations, duties, and responsibilities (referred to as oughts) are assumed to be the determinants of a prevention focus. The predominant regulatory focus of an individual in a certain context can be determined by the chronic regulatory focus strength that individuals might have developed during socialization (Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002; Higgins et al., 2001) as well as by an enhanced accessibility of a specific focus in the context. The latter can be influenced by the characteristics of a task (Shah, Higgins, & Friedman, 1998) and the experiences of the individual in the present or a preceding context (Higgins, Roney, Crowe, & Hymes, 1994). Recent research has demonstrated comprehensively the impact of regulatory focus and its determinants on behavior (e.g., Florack & Hartmann, 2007; Förster, Higgins, & Taylor Bianco, 2003; Zhou & Pham, 2004). A study by Förster et al. (2003), for instance, showed the impact of chronic and induced regulatory focus on speed and accuracy. In one study, participants completed a simple drawing task. When participants moved closer to the goal of completing the drawing, the authors observed faster performance for promotion-focused participants, but also more errors. Prevention-focused participants were more careful and made fewer mistakes than promotion-focused participants, but also worked more slowly on the task. Regulatory Focus and Reliance on Implicit Preferences 6 Regulatory Focus and Information Processing In addition, researchers have repeatedly argued that focus-specific orientations of individuals manifest not only in behavior, but also in information processing (e.g., Florack, Scarabis, & Gosejohann, 2005; Förster & Higgins, 2005; Lee & Aaker, 2004; Mourali, & Pons, 2009; Pham & Higgins, 2005; Wang & Lee, 2006). A basic assumption from this line of research is that a promotion focus should lead to eager and risky information processing strategies in the same way that it leads to eager and risky behavioral strategies. By contrast, according to this perspective, a prevention focus should lead to vigilant information processing strategies in the same way that it leads to vigilant behavioral strategies. Friedman and Förster (2001) integrated this basic assumption into regulatory focus theory by proposing that the regulatory focus itself informs the individual which behavioral as well as which information processing strategy is adequate in a specific context. In detail, they suppose that the mere activation of a promotion focus is related to a perception of the environment as safe and benign, whereas the mere activation of a prevention focus is related to a perception of the environment as threatening. As a consequence, the activation of a promotion focus should lead to riskier information processing strategies than the activation of a prevention focus (Friedman & Förster, 2001). The consequences of differential information processing by promotionand prevention-focused individuals are manifold (Florack, Ineichen, & Bieri, 2008; Friedman & Förster, 2001; Herzenstein, Posavac, & Brakus, 2007; Pham & Avnet, 2004, 2009; Mourali & Pons, 2009). Herzenstein et al. (2007), for Regulatory Focus and Reliance on Implicit Preferences 7 instance, showed that prevention-focused individuals more carefully draw inferences about the potential risks of a new product than promotion-focused individuals, even if the related disadvantages were equally important to promotion and prevention-focused participants. Similarly, Mourali and Pons (2009) found that effortful attribute processing, which is generally preferred by individuals who are motivated to maximize the accuracy of decisions, is favored more by prevention-focused individuals than by promotion-focused individuals. Friedman and Förster (2001) demonstrated that promotion-focused individuals more than prevention-focused individuals develop an eager creative thinking style when working on a task. Pham and Avnet (2004) showed in a series of studies that the activation of a promotion focus leads to a reliance on “risky” affective responses, whereas the activation of a prevention focus strengthens the “save” elaboration on substantive information regarding a product. In one study (Study 3), the authors manipulated the regulatory focus of participants and presented participants with an ad for a dictionary. This ad had either an attractive or an unattractive appeal, and was based on either a strong or weak advertising message. In line with their hypotheses, the authors found that the affective responses toward the appeal of the ad were more important for individuals in a promotion focus than for those in a prevention focus, while the strength of the advertising message was more important for individuals in a prevention focus than for those in a promotion focus. In a similar study (Pham & Avnet, 2009, Study 2), the same authors demonstrated that promotion-focused individuals are more likely than prevention-focused individuals to rely on their mood when evaluating a product. Regulatory Focus and Reliance on Implicit Preferences 8 Since reliance on ad-elicited affect or mood is an eager and risky information-processing strategy, which is contrasted by a more careful consideration of substantive information, the studies of Pham and Avnet (2004, 2009) support the assumption that the strategic orientations of promotion and prevention also manifest themselves in information processing, leading to a differential use of feelings or immediate internal responses. The reported results are corroborated by other research on human information processing showing that states of eagerness, but not states of vigilance, encourage a reliance on heuristics and general knowledge structures (Bless, Schwarz, Clore, Golisano, & Rabe, 1996; Bodenhausen, Kramer, & Süsser, 1994), and that less riskaverse individuals more than risk-averse and vigilant individuals are open to relying on information that cannot easily be justified (Shafir, Simonson, & Tversky, 1993). In sum, evidence suggests that states of eagerness and vigilance that are associated with a promotion and a prevention focus, respectively, indeed lead to different information processing strategies. Promotion-focused individuals tend to rely on riskier, heuristic information processing, while prevention focused individuals tend to rely on safer, systematic information processing. As an extension of this reasoning, the influence of regulatory focus on information processing strategies becomes apparent also when considering how individuals vary in how much they rely on implicit preferences. Implicit preferences can be considered to arise from the ability to memorize implicit reinforcement values, which are based on the experience of associative learning and probabilistic reinforcement outcomes (Frank, Cohan, & Sanfey, Regulatory Focus and Reliance on Implicit Preferences 9 2009). Implicit preferences can be contrasted with preferences derived from explicit memory, which, for example, is based on the encoding of distinct episodes and facts. Several information processing models from social psychology take these distinct functions of memory systems into account (Epstein & Pacini, 1999; Smith & DeCoster, 2000; Strack & Deutsch, 2004; Strack, Werth, & Deutsch, 2006; Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler, 2000). In particular, all these models make predictions about an associative memory system that slowly forms associative representations of typical sequences and patterns of perceptions, experiences, and behaviors, which are the source of implicit preferences. They contrast this system with a second system that integrates semantic and episodic representations in an analytical and propositional way. An important aspect of implicit preferences is that they provide individuals with the possibility of eager and fast decisions, but that they do not provide individuals with a secure base of choice, which might be more important for vigilant individuals. Hence, promotion-focused individuals should be more likely to rely on implicit preferences than prevention-focused individuals. To illustrate this point, let us go back to our introductory example where Tim had to choose between French pastries or fresh grapes. It might be that Tim immediately remembered that every time he had visited this particular place he had some of these pastries and he remembered that the taste has been delicious every time. This episodic memory would be a very safe base for the choice. However, it might be that Tim had not visited this place and eaten these pastries yet. In this case, he still might have built implicit preferences through Regulatory Focus and Reliance on Implicit Preferences 10 probabilistic reinforcement learning in similar places where he had similar pastries. Maybe, in some of these cases the pastries were good. Then, Tim might possess an implicit preference for the pastries even if he does not remember a single case where he ate similar pastries. We assume that Tim would be more likely to rely on his implicit preferences when making a choice in an eager state of promotion focus than when making a choice in a vigilant state of prevention focus. When considering this hypothesis, it is important to note that implicit preferences are different from the concepts examined in the research of Pham and Avnet (2004; 2009). In most of their studies, Pham and Avnet focused on explicit feelings, for example, toward an ad. Even if explicit feelings and implicit preferences both match the needs of eager information processing, they represent different constructs. While explicit feelings represent the conscious affective evaluation of an object in a specific context or in past episodes, implicit preferences are based on associative and probabilistic learning. In addition, implicit preferences need not to be consciously accessible (Strack & Deutsch, 2004). As reported above, Pham and Avnet (2009, Study 2) tested in one study the differential reliance on mood under a promotion or a prevention focus, as well. Again, the reliance on mood fits the needs of eager information processing in the same way implicit preferences do. However, mood does not have its base in associative memory processes. It is an incidental state. By contrast, implicit preferences are represented in associative memory traces associated with a target object. Regulatory Focus and Reliance on Implicit Preferences 11 In the present research, therefore, we set out to examine the relation between implicit preferences for consumer products and consumer behavior as a function of regulatory focus. Our basic assumption was that because of their non-propositional and intangible nature, implicit preferences do not suit the needs of prevention-focused individuals for safe and well-justified judgments and decisions, while the reliance on implicit preferences fits the eager information processing style of promotion-focused individuals for whom speed is more important than accuracy (Förster et al., 2003). Specifically, we tested the hypotheses that implicit preferences have a stronger influence on consumption intentions (Study 1), consumer choices (Study 2), and the actual amount of consumption (Study 3) in promotion-focused individuals than in prevention-focused individuals. To strengthen the validity of our results, we measured two different indicators of implicit preferences that are both theoretically and empirically closely related (Scarabis, Florack, & Gosejohann, 2006): associations of the target objects with the self (Study 1 and 2) and associations of the target object with valence (Study 3). Associations of objects with the self are developed by possession, prior use, or the imagination or wish to possess the object (cf. Brunel, Tietje, & Greenwald, 2004). They represent a main aspect of implicit preferences (Greenwald et al., 2002). Evaluative associations are connections between an object and positive or negative valences. They are based, among other factors, on prior learning and experience with the object (Gibson, 2008; Smith & DeCoster, 2000). Past research has shown that both measures predict behavior particularly well under conditions that foster associative processing, such as under conditions of high Regulatory Focus and Reliance on Implicit Preferences 12 cognitive load (Friese, Hofmann, & Wänke, 2008), low need for cognition (Florack, Scarabis, & Bless, 2001), low trait self-control (Friese & Hofmann, 2009), or when individuals focus on their affective reactions toward choice options as opposed to rational considerations (Scarabis et al., 2006; for an overview, see Friese, Hofmann, & Schmitt, 2008). Study 1 In Study 1, we examined the hypothesis that implicit preferences are an important determinant of consumption intentions for individuals in a promotion focus, but not for those in a prevention focus. To test this hypothesis, we induced the regulatory focus with an ideal or ought priming (cf., Higgins et al., 1994; Pham & Avnet, 2004) and asked participants to indicate their intention to consume one of two offered burgers. To measure implicit preferences for the two burgers, we applied an implicit association test (IAT, Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwarz, 1998) measuring associations of the relevant burger brands with the self.