The Interplay of Temperament and Regulatory Focus on Consumer Problem-Solving Modes

Regulatory Focus Theory’s two fundamental processing orientations, Prevention Focus and Promotion Focus, have been shown to capture important differences in problem-solving motivation, goal pursuit, and individual-task ‘fit’, although some ambiguity remains regarding the nature of these differences; they have been construed as chronic but have also been related to specific situational factors. Separately, understandings of temperament (hereditable, physiological-based individual differences) have advanced significantly, although efforts to validate measures of temperament have been frustrating. Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory posits two fundamental temperaments, the Behavioral Inhibition System (an avoidance system sensitive to punishments and threats) and the Behavioral Activation System (an appetitive/approach system sensitive to rewards). We relate Regulatory Focus Theory to Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory, initiating the integration of Promotion Focus and Prevention Focus with the extensive extant theory and nomological networks of temperament and highlighting conspicuous empirical divergence between the two systems. ‘Tis one thing to be tempted, Escalus, another thing to fall.’ Angelo, in Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure (II-1) Philosophers and psychologists, as well as playwrights, have long recognized the central role of appetitive and aversive temperaments in human behavior (e.g., James, 1890; Pavlov & Anrep, 1927). Appetitive/approach responsiveness has been likened to the gas pedal in a car, aversive/avoidance response systems to the brake (e.g., Carver, Sutton, & Scheier, 2000). Greek philosopher Democritus proposed that the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain were the defining motives of human behavior (see Cartledge, 1999). In modern psychology, many theoretical schemes propose apparently similar approach/appetitive and avoidance/aversion sensitivity or reactivity systems (e.g., Depue & Iacono, 1989; Gray, 1987, 1990; Higgins, 1997; 1998, 2000; Patterson & Newman, 1993; see Derryberry 1704 Temperament and Regulatory Focus © 2008 The Authors Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/4 (2008): 1703–1718, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00128.x Journal Compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd & Rothbart, 1997; Elliot, 2006 for reviews of literature on approach and avoidance response systems). As compelling and oft considered as the notion of these dual systems has been, their measurement has remained frustrating and therefore difficult to integrate or contrast seemingly similar theories, models, and constructs (e.g., Caseras, Avila, & Torrubia, 2003; Corr, 2001, 2004). Levels of Individual Differences: Temperament, Personality, and Motives Individual differences can be differentiated within a general hierarchical organization ranging from broad, largely invariant, neurophysiologically and genetically based temperaments (i.e., ‘source traits’, ‘level one’ differences, ‘basic tendencies’, or ‘basic traits’) toward narrower, more transient, cognitive, socially and environmentally based predispositions including personality traits and motives (‘surface traits’, ‘level two’, or ‘characteristic adaptations’, see, e.g., Cattell, 1965; Mayer, 2005; McAdams, 1995; Zuckerman, 2005; cf., McCrae & Costa, 1999). The fundamental, innate, early appearing, and enduring qualities of temperament have led to it being compared to the ‘raw ingredients’ in cooking (Bateson & Martin, 2000; Strelau, 1998); narrower, more transitory, and more cognitive tendencies and specific observable behavioral patterns would, then, be analogous to the ‘finished dishes’ – the result not only of the raw ingredients and their interactions but also of the specifics and nuances of the environment and nurturing (cooking) processes. While different individual difference constructs are situated at different levels of this imprecise hierarchy, a well-defined and delimited construct will not encompass differences from different levels of the hierarchy. That is, despite the recognition of a range of important constructs, a single construct should be positioned or be able to be positioned at some distinct level of this array. Higgins’s Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT; 1997, 1998, 2000) proposes two motivational orientations: Prevention Focus and Promotion Focus. Both describe individual differences in the ways individuals approach problems and pursue goals – and the ways individuals derive value from solving problems and achieving goals. Promotion Focus involves an emphasis on ‘ideals’ and achieving desirable outcomes; Prevention Focus is an emphasis on ‘oughts’ and avoiding negative outcomes. These individual differences in motivations have been construed as ‘chronic’, that is, as relatively enduring individual differences similar to cognitive personality traits. They have, however, also been related to nurturing and environmental factors such as parenting style (Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002; Manian, Papadakis, Strauman, & Essex, 2006) and to specific task priming (e.g., Higgins, Roney, Crowe, & Hymes, 1994). Hoyle, in the introduction to a recent special issue of the Journal of Personality, noted that despite a large and growing literature ‘... there has been relatively little study of self-regulation as a feature of personality or