Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 69, Issue 2

distinguished between the appetitive system involving A promotion focus is concerned with advancement, approach and the defensive or aversive system involvgrowth, and accomplishment, whereas a prevention ing avoidance (e.g., Gray, 1982; Konorski, 1967; Lang, focus is concerned with security, safety, and responsi1995). Models in personality and social psychology have bility. We hypothesized that the promotion focus inclidistinguished between the motive to move toward denation is to insure hits and insure against errors of sired end-states and the motive to move away from omission, whereas the prevention focus inclination is undesired end-states (e.g., Atkinson, 1964; Bandura, to insure correct rejections and insure against errors of 1986; Carver & Scheier, 1981, 1990; Lewin, 1935, 1951; commission. This hypothesis yielded three predictions: (a) when individuals work on a difficult task or have McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953; Roseman, just experienced failure, those in a promotion focus 1984; Roseman, Spindel, & Jose, 1990). But it is not should perform better, and those in a prevention focus only hedonism that underlies approach and avoidance should quit more readily; (b) when individuals work strategies. The present paper considers the approach on a task where generating any number of alternatives and avoidance strategies that derive from an indepenis correct, those in a promotion focus should generate dent principle of motivation, “regulatory focus,” and more distinct alternatives, and those in a prevention examines their implications for decision-making while focus should be more repetitive; and (c) when individuproblem-solving. als work on a signal detection task that requires them A self-regulatory system can have either a desired to decide whether they did or did not detect a signal, those in a promotion focus should have a “risky” or an undesired end-state functioning as the reference response bias, and those in a prevention focus should value. The system attempts to move the current actualhave a “conservative” response bias and take more self state as close as possible to a desired end-state and time to respond. These predictions were supported in as far away as possible from an undesired reference two framing studies in which regulatory focus was point. Carver and Scheier (1981, 1990) refer to the forexperimentally manipulated independent of vamer discrepancy-reducing system as an approach syslence. q 1997 Academic Press tem and the latter discrepancy-amplifying system as an avoidance system. They also suggest that the discrepancy-reducing system is more common than the A strategy refers to a pattern of decisions in the acquisition, discrepancy-amplifying system. Higgins, Roney, Crowe, retention, and utilization of information that serves to meet cerand Hymes (1994) proposed that there are two alternatain objectives, i.e., to insure certain forms of outcome and to insure against certain others. tive means or strategies for accomplishing discrepancy Bruner, Goodnow, & Austin (1956, p. 54) reduction—approach actual self states that match the desired end-state or avoid actual self states that misProbably no motivational principle has received more match the desired end-state. A person who wants to attention than the hedonic principle that people apget a good grade on a quiz (a desired end-state), for proach pleasure and avoid pain. Biological models have example, could either study hard at the library the day before the quiz (approaching a match to the desired This article is based on Ellen Crowe’s doctoral dissertation at Columbia University and was supported by National Institute of Mental end-state) or turn down an invitation to go out drinking Health Grant MH39429 to E. Tory Higgins. We are grateful to James with friends the night before the quiz (avoiding a misBradley for his help on Study 2. match to the desired end-state). Thus, different apAddress reprint requests to E. Tory Higgins, Department of proach and avoidance strategies can be used in the Psychology, Schermerhorn Hall, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027. service of the same general approach system. Higgins