Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
2011, Vol. 100, No. 4, 647– 663
© 2010 American Psychological Association
0022-3514/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021750
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Managing Others Like You Were Managed:
How Prevention Focus Motivates Copying Interpersonal Norms
Shu Zhang and E. Tory Higgins
Guoquan Chen
Columbia University
Tsinghua University
In 5 studies, we investigated the relation between regulatory focus and the tendency to copy a role
model’s managing behavior after one experiences this behavior as its recipient and later takes on the same
managing role. Because enacting role-related behaviors fulfills interpersonal norms that fit prevention
concerns, we predicted a stronger tendency to copy among individuals with a stronger prevention focus
on duties and obligations (“oughts”) but not among those with a stronger promotion focus on aspirations
and advancements (ideals). We also predicted that individuals with a stronger prevention focus would
tend to copy a managing behavior regardless of their earlier hedonic experience with this behavior as its
recipient. These predictions were first supported in 2 experimental studies, where a stronger prevention
focus was measured as a chronic disposition (Study 1) and experimentally induced as a temporary state
(Study 2). Further, we tested the mechanism underlying the relation between stronger prevention and
stronger copying and found that concerns about the normativeness, but not the effectiveness, of a
managing behavior motivated copying for individuals with a strong prevention focus (Studies 3 and 4).
We generalized these experimental results to the field by surveying a sample of superior-subordinate
dyads in real world organizations (Study 5). Across all studies, we found that individuals with a stronger
prevention focus tend to copy more a role model’s managing behavior—independent of their hedonic
satisfaction with the behavior as its recipient and their perception of its effectiveness.
Keywords: regulatory focus, interpersonal relationships, motivation, copying, norms
has focused on the importance of outcome expectations, whereby
imitation is expected to be followed by positive outcomes (Bandura, 1977; Manz & Sims, 1981; Walter, 1975, 1976; Weiss, 1977,
1978). What has received less attention is the possibility that other
motivational mechanisms may underlie copying. Is there a kind of
motivational concern which would increase the tendency to copy
independent of the outcomes that were experienced as a recipient
of the role model’s managing behavior?
Because a role model often provides guidelines for appropriate
behaviors, an important determinant of copying is individual responsiveness to normative influence. Normative pressures exert a
strong influence on behaviors—sometimes even stronger than personal values and attitudes (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003; Miller &
Grush, 1986; Sherif & Murphy, 1936). But as powerful as they are,
norms do not have the same impact on everyone. For example, a
third of the participants in Milgram’s (1963) study did not obey the
experimenter’s orders all the way. Neither did a quarter of the
participants in Asch’s (1956) experiment succumb to the group
pressure. These findings demonstrate that even under strong normative influence, individuals can vary in their tendency to behave
in a norm-consistent way. However, it is unclear from the literature
what factors may drive such individual differences and what
underlying mechanisms can explain these differences.
In this regard, there is emerging evidence that regulatory focus
(Higgins, 1997, 1998) offers a promising approach to understanding individual differences in responsiveness to normative influence
(Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Van-Dijk & Kluger, 2004). Given
their concern with duties and responsibilities (“oughts”), individuals with a strong prevention focus are sensitive to the appropriateness of interpersonal treatment, and they react strongly to vio-
Driven by their social nature, people often exhibit behaviors that
are strongly influenced by those of others. An example of such
influence is copying or imitating the behaviors of others, especially
when people later hold the same role as those others in a similar
relationship: they behave like their same-sex parent when they
become a parent, like their graduate advisor when they become a
student advisor, or like their former work superior when they take
on a similar role as manager. Indeed, people often copy a managing behavior from their former superior—parent, graduate advisor,
or business manager— even if their earlier experience with this
behavior was negative.
In these cases, people are copying a managing behavior from
someone else, called a role model, after directly experiencing this
behavior earlier as its recipient. To date, most research on copying
This article was published Online First December 13, 2010.
Shu Zhang, Management Division, Columbia Business School, Columbia University; E. Tory Higgins, Department of Psychology, Columbia
University; Guoquan Chen, Department of Human Resources and Organizational Behavior, School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health
Grant 39429 awarded to E. Tory Higgins, and Natural Science Foundation
of China Grants 70625003 and 70972024 awarded to Guoquan Chen.
We thank Daniel Ames, Joel Brockner, Malia Mason, Abigail Scholer,
Chaolin Zhang, and Xi Zou for their constructive feedback on an earlier
version of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shu
Zhang, Management Division, Columbia Business School, 311 Uris Hall,
3022 Broadway, New York, NY 10027. E-mail: sz2225@columbia.edu
647
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
648
ZHANG, HIGGINS, AND CHEN
lation of reciprocity norms (Keller, Hurst, & Uskul, 2008). In
contrast, given their concern with hopes and aspirations (ideals),
individuals with a strong promotion focus tend to develop illusions
of control, even in the absence of an objective relation between
action and outcome (Langens, 2007), which motivates them to take
things into their own hands instead of being externally directed.
These findings suggest that having a stronger prevention focus, but
not a stronger promotion focus, could also be associated with a
stronger tendency to copy a role model’s managing behavior.
In the present research, we examined how regulatory focus
affects the tendency to copy a role model’s managing behavior
after one experiences this behavior as its recipient and later takes
on the same managing role. Because norm-consistent behaviors fit
prevention concerns more than promotion concerns, individuals
with a stronger prevention focus, but not with a stronger promotion
focus, would be expected to have a stronger tendency to copy a
role model’s managing behavior. Drawing on regulatory fit theory
(Higgins, 2005), we proposed that copying a role model’s managing behavior serves prevention concerns, even when this behavior
may be associated with one’s hedonic dissatisfaction earlier as its
recipient. In five studies, we investigated the relation between
prevention focus and copying (Study 1 and 2), the mechanism that
underlies this relation (Study 3 and 4), and the generalizability of
experimental findings to a field study involving superior–
subordinate dyads in real-world organizations (Study 5).
Copying: Conformity to Normative Influence
Copying is defined here as the repetition of a role model’s
managing behavior after an individual directly experiences this
behavior as its recipient and later takes on the same managing role
in a similar relationship (e.g., grader–student, superior–
subordinate). Compared with vicarious learning, in which a person’s behavioral change is viewed as an individual action made
through observing or imagining a role model’s behavior and related outcomes (Baer, Peterson, & Sherman, 1967; Bandura, 1977;
Sims & Manz, 1982), copying occurs in an interpersonal context in
which recipients of a role model’s managing behavior acquire this
behavior through direct experience, although such behavior may
have produced dissatisfaction in the recipients in the past. For
example, students dislike a harsh grader, but some of them may
choose the harsh grading when they later become graders, expecting dislike from their own students. Therefore, rather than only
addressing the instrumental concerns about reward and punishment associated with a managing behavior, copying can involve a
deeper motivation that transcends hedonic experience.
By definition, copying resembles the perpetuation of rolerelated behaviors across similar relationships. Characterized by
distinct patterns of behaviors, roles convey normative expectations
for the behaviors of those who occupy these roles (see Biddle,
1986, for a review). For those who are new to an interpersonal role,
a role model’s behaviors are often understood and interpreted as
normative, and copying a role model’s behaviors thus represents
individuals’ conformity to an interpersonal norm. On this point,
research has revealed a powerful influence of norms on individual
behaviors, even when these norms run counter to personal attitudes
and values (Asch, 1956; Berkowitz, 1972; Darley & Latané, 1970;
Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Milgram, Bickman, & Berkowitz, 1969;
Schultz, 1999). Further, normativeness lies in the characteristic
behaviors associated with an interpersonal role, instead of the
specific individual who occupies the role. For this reason, copying
role-related behaviors facilitates the transmission of interpersonal
norms across relationships.
Much of the evidence on norm transmission has been found in
group settings where a norm constructed in a group is perpetuated
by successive generations of new members (Jacobs & Campbell,
1961; MacNeil & Sherif, 1976; Whiten, Horner, & de Waal, 2005).
The transmission of group norms through generations of members
suggests the possibility that individuals will copy interpersonal
norms across similar relationships, especially when they see themselves as representative of a social position and are willing to
fulfill their roles in a norm-consistent way (Bates & Harvey, 1975;
Burt, 1976; Winship & Mandel, 1983). However, not everyone
acts out their interpersonal roles. Some prefer personal attitudes
and beliefs to guide their actions (Janis & Mann, 1977; Turner,
1976). Thus the tendency to copy a role model’s managing behavior varies across individuals, depending on their motivation to
fulfill an interpersonal role. Drawing on self-regulatory focus
theory, which distinguishes between two types of motivational
concerns (Higgins, 1997, 1998), we propose that a strong prevention focus, but not a strong promotion focus, is associated with
concerns to fulfill interpersonal norms, which predicts a tendency
to copy a role model’s normative managing behavior.
Copying: A Regulatory Fit With Prevention Focus
Regulatory focus theory distinguishes between two selfregulatory systems: the promotion and prevention systems, which
are oriented, respectively, toward approaching matches to desired
outcomes and avoiding mismatches to desired outcomes (Higgins,
1997, 1998). Concerned with hopes and aspirations (ideals), promotion focus is characterized by a sensitivity to gain–nongain
information. In order to avoid failures to advance through inaction
(errors of omission), individuals with a strong promotion focus
develop a strategic preference for risky tactics (Crowe & Higgins,
1997; Friedman & Förster, 2001) and eager means of attainment.
Prevention focus, in contrast, is the aspect of self-regulation concerned with duties and obligations (oughts), and it is marked by a
sensitivity to nonloss–loss information. In order to avoid unnecessary and costly actions (errors of commission), individuals with
a strong prevention focus develop a strategic preference for conservative tactics (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Friedman & Förster,
2001) and maintenance of the status quo (Liberman, Idson, Camacho, & Higgins, 1999).
Until recently, the social influence literature has emphasized
situational factors as the cause of norm-consistent behaviors, leaving the role of individual differences largely unexplored (Aarts &
Dijksterhuis, 2003; Barker, 1968; Cialdini, 1988; Leff, 1978; Milgram et al., 1969; Zimbardo, 2007). However, the distinct concerns
of the two regulatory focus systems, together with their contrasting
strategic preferences, suggest that promotion and prevention foci
could be associated with different reactions to normative influence.
Because a role model’s managing behaviors indicate normative
ways of managing the other person, copying these behaviors
represents a conservative tactic that fits prevention concerns, such
that one can avoid errors and mistakes and maintain the status quo
by following these behaviors.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
PREVENTION FOCUS AND COPYING
In support of this proposal, there is emerging evidence for a
relation between prevention focus and normative influence. For
example, one of the biggest prevention concerns is mortality, and
thinking about death increases people’s adherence to social norms
(Gailliot, Stillman, Schmeichel, Maner, & Plant, 2008). Similarly,
as a prevention concern that stems from the fear of exploitation
and mistreatment in relationships (Lynch, Eisenberger, & Armeli,
1999), wariness was found to be associated with a sensitivity to the
normative level of supportive behaviors, such that wary individuals would adjust the amount of support they provided to others
according to how much support they received from others. In line
with such findings, we predicted that among the recipients of a role
model’s managing behavior who later take on the same managing
role, those with a stronger prevention focus are more likely to copy
the role model’s managing behavior.
Promotion focus, in contrast, has no obvious relation to normative
influence. Instead, individuals with a promotion focus may rely on
their internal resources for behavioral guidance. Indeed, promotion
focus fosters illusion of control, a tendency to overestimate the
amount of control even when outcomes are objectively uncontrollable
(Langens, 2007). Because illusion of control creates a perceived
positive relation between behavior and outcome, individuals with a
strong promotion focus might direct their actions towards internal
attitudes and values rather than external social norms.
Therefore, our central hypothesis was that individuals with a
stronger prevention focus, but not with a stronger promotion focus,
would be more likely to copy a role model’s managing behavior
after experiencing this behavior as its recipient and later taking on
the same managing role. Further, we hypothesized that in accordance to regulatory fit theory, copying would result from the fit
between prevention focus and normative influence independent of
hedonic experience (Cesario, Grant, & Higgins, 2004; Higgins,
2005; Higgins, Idson, Freitas, Spiegel, & Molden, 2003; Idson,
Liberman, & Higgins, 2004). Although individuals with a strong
prevention focus may have felt dissatisfied with a role model’s
managing behavior earlier as its recipients, they will still copy this
behavior because the fit experience will motivate them to do so
independent of hedonic experience with the behavior itself.
The Present Research
The present research consists of four experimental studies
(Study 1– 4) and a field study (Study 5). The following questions
were addressed in these studies. First, we tested the central hypothesis that a stronger prevention focus, but not a stronger promotion focus, predicts the tendency to copy a role model’s managing behavior. Because regulatory focus not only reflects chronic
dispositions toward prevention- or promotion-focused goals (Higgins et al., 2001), but can be situationally induced as a temporary
state (Friedman & Förster, 2001; Idson, Liberman, & Higgins,
2000; Oyserman, Uskul, Yoder, Nesse, & Williams, 2007), it was
assessed both as a chronic disposition (Studies 1, 3, 4, and 5) and
as an experimentally activated momentary state (Study 2). Second,
to examine the normative determination of copying, we tested the
relation between prevention focus and copying when a role model’s managing behavior was conveyed as nonnormative. If more
copying results from normative conformity for individuals with a
stronger prevention focus, prevention focus would not be expected
to predict copying when the managing behavior was seen as
649
nonnormative (Study 3). Third, to investigate an alternative explanation that copying is motivated by concerns about the effectiveness of a managing behavior, rather than its normativeness, we
introduced an incongruent rationale against the effectiveness of a
role model’s managing behavior. We predicted that even when a
managing behavior was conveyed as ineffective, it would be
copied more by individuals with a stronger prevention focus
(Study 4). Fourth, to enhance the external validity of our predictions, we extended the laboratory findings to the field. Using
superior-subordinate dyads in organizations, we explored the role
of regulatory focus in superiors’ tendency to copy multiple managing methods from their former superiors (Study 5). Finally, if
copying a normative behavior fits prevention concerns, it should
motivate an individual to copy it independent of hedonic satisfaction that the individual experienced with the behavior as its recipient. We tested this prediction across five studies by investigating
the role of participants’ hedonic satisfaction with a role model’s
earlier managing behavior as its recipients. It was expected that
individuals with a stronger prevention focus would copy a role
model’s managing behavior more regardless of their earlier satisfaction or dissatisfaction with this behavior (Studies 1–5), and thus
prevention focus and the role model’s managing behavior would
have an interactive effect on individuals’ own managing behavior
even after the individuals’ hedonic feelings toward the managing
behavior was controlled.
Study 1
Study 1 was the first test of our central hypothesis that stronger
prevention focus, but not stronger promotion focus, predicts the
tendency to copy a role model’s managing behavior. We also investigated the regulatory fit argument that copying derives from the fit
between prevention focus and a normative behavior, regardless of
hedonic experience with the behavior itself. In the present study,
participants became involved in two consecutive tasks: testing and
grading. In the testing task, they took a standardized test and received
a score calculated with either a harsh or a lenient grading method.
Here the grader represented a role model employing a certain managing behavior (harsh or lenient evaluation). Meanwhile, participants
were given a rationale for the effectiveness of the grading method
used to score their test and then were asked to report their satisfaction
with this method. In the grading task that followed, participants were
presented with two grading methods (harsh and lenient) and asked to
choose one method to grade a set of paper tests. Their choice of
method for grading was recorded as their managing behavior. Regulatory focus was measured as chronic dispositions on both preventionand promotion-focused dimensions (Higgins et al., 2001). To support
our hypothesis, we expected that prevention focus and the received
method would have an interaction effect on the choice of method for
later grading, such that individuals with a stronger prevention focus
would be more likely to choose the method they had received,
regardless of their satisfaction with the method earlier as its recipients.
Method
Participants and design. Fifty-one college students from a
northeastern university participated in the experiment, receiving $5
in return. They were randomly assigned to one of two method
conditions: half of them received a harsh grading method in the
ZHANG, HIGGINS, AND CHEN
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
650
testing task, and the other half received a lenient grading method.
The data of two participants who failed to follow the instructions
properly were discarded.
Experimental tasks and procedures.
On arriving at the
laboratory, participants signed a consent form for a study of
“learning on standardized tests.” They were seated in adjacent
cubicles containing a table, a chair, and a computer in front of
them. Participants performed the tasks on computer, which was
programmed to provide instructions for two consecutive tasks.
Before starting the first task, participants completed the regulatory
focus questionnaire (Higgins et al., 2001), which measured their
prevention and promotion foci as two separate dimensions. An
example item of the Prevention Focus Scale is “Not being careful
enough has gotten me into trouble at times [reversed score]” (score
range: 1 ⫽ never or seldom, 5 ⫽ very often). An example item of
the Promotion Focus Scale is “Do you often do well at different
things that you try?” (score range: 1 ⫽ never, 5 ⫽ always).
The first task was a standardized test, which included a set of
multiple-choice questions in the style of those on the Graduate
Management Admission Test (GMAT) and presented in two sections, with three questions in each section. The total score was 5
points for a section and 10 points for the whole test. Participants
were told that the maximum time to complete the test was 10 min.
Once participants completed and submitted the test, they read their
score for each section and for the whole test, which was calculated
by either a harsh or lenient grading method. Participants in the
harsh condition were required to answer all three questions correctly to obtain 5 points for a section. Otherwise, they received no
points even though they answered one or two questions correctly.
In contrast, participants in the lenient condition received 5 points
for a section if they answered at least one question correctly and no
points only if they missed all three questions.
Meanwhile, participants read information about the grading
method used to score their tests. They were also informed that an
alternative method was used to grade the tests of some other
participants in the same experiment. In addition, a rationale was
given for why a certain method was used to grade their tests.
Specifically, participants in the harsh condition read,
Compared with the alternative method (i.e., lenient grading method),
the method you received has shown to be more effective in improving
one’s learning on standardized tests. Because this test emphasizes
precision and thoroughness of thinking, which allows no mistakes, it
is pretty consistent with the high standards reflected in this method.
Participants in the lenient condition read,
Compared with the alternative method (i.e., harsh grading method),
the method you received has shown to be more effective in improving
one’s learning on standardized tests. Because this test emphasizes
precision and thoroughness of thinking, which makes it difficult to get
everything correct, students should be fully rewarded for their partial
success by this method.
After reading this information, participants responded to four
items assessing their satisfaction with the received grading method
(1 ⫽ strongly disagree, 5 ⫽ strongly agree). A sample item was
“All in all, I am satisfied with the calculation.” Participants also
responded to four items measuring their perceived strictness of the
method (1 ⫽ strongly disagree, 5 ⫽ strongly agree), which served
as the manipulation check of the received method. A sample item
was “The calculation is more strict than I would normally expect.”
Both scales had adequate reliabilities (satisfaction: Cronbach’s
␣ ⫽ .92; strictness: Cronbach’s ␣ ⫽ .74),1 and their average
composites were used in the analysis.
Then participants were asked to grade a set of paper tests similar
to the test they just took. They were told that the paper tests had
been taken by college students preparing for the GMAT. The
grading took 2 min, and they were told that their task was to help
researchers find the better way to improve students’ learning on
standardized tests. In doing so, they needed to choose a grading
method and use it to grade the tests. Their indicated choice of
method was the dependent variable of the study.
Upon their agreement to help, participants were presented with
the two methods (harsh and lenient) that they read about in the
testing task. After making their choice, participants started grading
the tests using the chosen method. When finished grading, participants completed demographics questions. Then they were paid,
thanked, and dismissed.
Results
Manipulation check.
Participants in the harsh condition
rated the received method as more strict (M ⫽ 3.51, SD ⫽ 0.93)
than participants in the lenient condition (M ⫽ 3.02, SD ⫽ 0.69),
t(47) ⫽ 2.10, p ⬍ .05. In addition, participants in the harsh
condition received lower test scores (M ⫽ 1.60, SD ⫽ 2.78) than
participants in the lenient condition (M ⫽ 6.88, SD ⫽ 3.23),
t(47) ⫽ ⫺6.13, p ⬍ .001. Therefore, our manipulation of the
method conditions was successful. Further, participants in the
harsh condition expressed less satisfaction with the received
method (M ⫽ 2.52, SD ⫽ 0.92) than participants in the lenient
condition (M ⫽ 3.05, SD ⫽ 1.08), t(47) ⫽ ⫺1.86, p ⫽ .07.
Copying. To test the hypothesis that prevention focus predicts the tendency to copy, we conducted a logistic regression
analysis, using the method chosen for grading as the dependent
variable. This yielded a main effect of the received method, ␤ ⫽
1.86, z ⫽ 2.70, p ⬍ .01, suggesting a general tendency of participants to choose the received method for later grading. Neither
promotion focus nor prevention focus had a main effect on the
choice of method, ps ⬎ .20. However, the hypothesized interaction
between prevention focus and the received method emerged, ␤ ⫽
3.08, z ⫽ 2.18, p ⬍ .05. As Figure 1 shows, as the level of chronic
prevention focus increased, the tendency to choose the received
method for later grading also increased, regardless of which
method participants received earlier. Further, simple slope tests2
performed at 1 SD above and 1 SD below the mean of prevention
focus indicated a tendency to choose the received method for
1
In Studies 2, 3, and 4, the reliabilities of the two scales were all
above .80.
2
Because logistic regression is a nonlinear model (so it is in Studies 2,
3 and 4), simple slope tests were conducted on logit( pi), which is calculated by the following linear model:
logit共p i 兲 ⫽ ln
y⫽
冉
冊
pi
⫽ f共X兲 ⫽ ␤ 0 ⫹ ␤ 1 x1,i ⫹ . . . ⫹ ␤ k xk,i
1 ⫺ pi
1
, where X ⫽ 共x1 , x2 , . . . , xk兲.
1 ⫹ e⫺f共X兲
PREVENTION FOCUS AND COPYING
651
measured as a chronic disposition here, we conducted Study 2 to
replicate these results by situationally inducing a temporary promotion or prevention focus. Moreover, the experimental manipulation of regulatory focus in Study 2 would allow the assessment
of the causal relation between regulatory focus and copying.
Study 2
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Method
Figure 1. Probability of method chosen as a function of prevention focus
in harsh and lenient conditions (Study 1).
grading among participants with a strong prevention focus, t(40) ⫽
2.77, p ⬍ .01, but not among participants with a weak prevention
focus, t(40) ⫽ ⫺0.62, ns, suggesting that copying only occurred
among individuals with a strong prevention focus. These results
thus lend support to the hypothesized relation between prevention
focus and copying.
In contrast, there was no significant interaction effect between
promotion focus and the received method, ␤ ⫽ –1.68, z ⫽ –1.69,
p ⫽ .09, supporting the notion that promotion focus was not
associated with copying. Indeed, if anything, the direction of the
effect for promotion focus was opposite to what was found for
prevention focus. Taken together, the main effect of the received
method on copying was driven by the copying tendency of individuals with a strong prevention focus. Hence, Study 1 provides
initial evidence for our hypothesis that having a strong prevention
focus, but not a strong promotions focus, predicts the tendency to
copy a role model’s managing behavior after being the direct
recipient of this behavior.
To test whether the relation between prevention focus and
copying would hold independent of one’s hedonic experience with
a managing behavior, we controlled participants’ satisfaction with
the received method in the regression analysis, as well as its
interaction with the received method. With the two control variables entered in the analysis, the interaction between prevention
focus and the received method remained significant, ␤ ⫽ 3.02, z ⫽
2.12, p ⬍ .05, thus supporting the regulatory fit argument that
copying results from the fit between prevention focus and a role
model’s managing behavior, which is independent of hedonic
experience with the behavior itself.
Discussion
Study 1 provided the first evidence for the relation between a
stronger prevention focus and a stronger tendency to copy a role
model’s managing behavior. Not only did individuals with a strong
prevention focus choose the method they had received for later
grading, but they did so regardless of how they had felt about the
method earlier as recipients of it. Because regulatory focus was
Participants and design.
One hundred and three college
students from a northeastern university participated in the experiment, receiving $5 in return. The design was a 2 (regulatory focus:
prevention vs. promotion) ⫻ 2 (method received: harsh vs. lenient)
between-subjects factorial. Participants were randomly assigned to
one of the four conditions. The data of five participants who failed
to follow the instructions were discarded.
Experimental tasks and procedures.
The experimental
tasks and procedures were the same as those in Study 1, except that
regulatory focus was situationally induced as a temporary state
rather than measured as a chronic disposition. Half of the participants were assigned to the prevention focus condition and the
other half to the promotion focus condition. Manipulation of
regulatory focus was achieved through two tasks. The first task
used an in-context goal-priming paradigm (Galinsky, Leonardelli,
Okhuysen, & Mussweiler, 2005), which was introduced before
participants started the testing task. Participants in the prevention
focus condition read,
Please take a couple of minutes to briefly describe the behaviors and
outcomes you seek to avoid during this test. Think about how you
could prevent these behaviors and outcomes, and write it down in the
box below.
Participants in the promotion focus condition read,
Please take a couple of minutes to briefly describe the behaviors and
outcomes you seek to achieve during this test. Think about how you
could promote these behaviors and outcomes, and write it down in the
box below.
Then participants started the standardized test. After participants
had submitted their test but before they had seen their score, we
introduced the second manipulation task; participants were asked
to complete this task while waiting for their tests to be graded. In
this manipulation, a general goal-priming task was used, where
participants listed their current promotion or prevention goals in
life (Freitas & Higgins, 2002; Idson et al., 2000). Participants in
the promotion condition were told, “Please think about something
you ideally would like to do. In other words, think about a hope or
aspiration that you currently have. Please list the hope or aspiration
below.” Participants in the prevention condition were told, “Please
think about something you think you ought to do. In other words,
think about a duty or obligation that you currently have. Please list
the duty or obligation below.” When finished, participants received their score, which had been calculated with either a harsh or
a lenient method, read information about the grading methods, and
proceeded to perform the rest of the study as in Study 1. At the end
of the study, as a manipulation check of the induced regulatory
focus state, we asked the participants to respond to a question
652
ZHANG, HIGGINS, AND CHEN
using an 8-point scale, “In the computer test you took at the
beginning, did you focus more on avoiding negative behaviors and
outcomes (1), or did you focus more on approaching positive
behaviors and outcomes (8)?” As in Study 1, the dependent variable was participants’ indicated choice of method for the grading
task.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Results
Manipulation check. Responses to the last question showed
that participants in the prevention focus condition focused more on
avoiding negative behaviors and outcomes and less on approaching positive behaviors and outcomes in the testing task (M ⫽ 4.69,
SD ⫽ 2.37) than did participants in the promotion focus condition
(M ⫽ 5.76, SD ⫽ 2.14), t(96) ⫽ 2.33, p ⬍ .05, suggesting that our
manipulation of regulatory focus was successful. Manipulation of
the method conditions was also successful, in that participants in
the harsh condition rated the received method as more strict (M ⫽
3.91, SD ⫽ 0.71) than did participants in the lenient condition
(M ⫽ 2.70, SD ⫽ 0.89), t(96) ⫽ 7.44, p ⬍ .001. In addition,
participants in the harsh condition received lower test scores (M ⫽
2.04, SD ⫽ 2.87) than did participants in the lenient condition
(M ⫽ 8.37, SD ⫽ 2.58), t(96) ⫽ ⫺11.47, p ⬍ .001.
Moreover, participants in the harsh condition expressed less
satisfaction with the received method (M ⫽ 2.45, SD ⫽ 0.92) than
did participants in the lenient condition (M ⫽ 2.99, SD ⫽ 0.84),
t(96) ⫽ ⫺3.05, p ⬍ .01. However, participants in the promotion
condition (M ⫽ 2.69, SD ⫽ 0.83) did not differ in satisfaction from
their counterparts in the prevention condition (M ⫽ 2.76, SD ⫽
0.99), t(96) ⫽ ⫺0.33, ns.
Copying. As in Study 1, we entered the participants’ choice
of method for later grading as the dependent variable in a logistic
regression analysis. Replicating the results from Study 1, there was
a main effect of the received method, ␤ ⫽ 1.12, z ⫽ 2.45, p ⫽ .01,
indicating a general tendency of participants to copy the method
they had received. Also we found that regulatory focus as a
situationally induced state did not affect the choice of method, p ⫽
.53. More important, the analysis yielded a significant interaction
between the received method and manipulated regulatory focus,
␤ ⫽ 1.81, z ⫽ 1.97, p ⬍ .05, which remained significant after we
controlled for satisfaction with the received method as well as its
interaction with the received method, ␤ ⫽ 3.19, z ⫽ 2.62, p ⬍ .01.
The Received Method ⫻ Regulatory Focus interaction is depicted
in Figure 2: participants with an induced prevention focus state
tended to choose the received method for later grading, whereas
participants with an induced promotion focus state did not demonstrate such a tendency. Supporting this observation, the simple
slope test showed that there was a strong tendency to copy only
among participants with an induced prevention focus, t(91) ⫽
2.97, p ⬍ .01, but not among participants with an induced promotion focus, t(91) ⫽ 0.54, ns. Therefore, these findings provided
further support to our hypothesis that copying is a phenomenon
related to prevention focus but not to promotion focus.
Discussion
In line with Study 1 findings, the results of Study 2 indicated a
clear relation between prevention focus and the tendency to copy
a role model’s managing behavior, independent of the participants’
Figure 2. Proportion of method chosen as a function of method received
and induced regulatory focus states (Study 2).
hedonic experience with this behavior earlier as recipients. Moreover, Study 2 supported the predicted causal direction of this
relation; that is, an experimentally induced prevention focus increased the tendency to copy the received method for later grading.
What remains unclear is the precise mechanism underlying the
relation between prevention focus and copying. In other words,
what is it about copying that fits prevention concerns? To answer
this question, we investigated the normative determination of
copying in Study 3. Because copying was posited to result from the
fit between prevention focus and normative concerns, we did not
expect prevention focus to predict copying when a role model’s
managing behavior was nonnormative. Hence, by removing the
normative component of a managing behavior, we predicted that
individuals with a strong prevention focus would not demonstrate
the tendency to copy this behavior. Study 3 was designed to test
this prediction in the form of a three-way interaction among
prevention focus, a role model’s managing behavior, and the
normative status of this behavior. To support our hypothesis, we
expected that individuals with a stronger prevention focus would
copy a managing behavior more when it was normative (a replication of Study 1 and Study 2 findings), but they would not show
such a copying tendency when the managing behavior was nonnormative.
Study 3
Method
Participants and design. Ninety-five college students from a
northeastern university participated in the experiment, receiving $5
in return. The study had a 2 (received method: harsh vs. lenient) ⫻
2 (normative status: normative vs. nonnormative) design, and
participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions.
The data of three participants who failed to follow the instructions
were discarded.
Experimental tasks and procedures. For the two normative
conditions, the experimental tasks and procedures were the same
as in Study 1. For the two nonnormative conditions, the rationale
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
PREVENTION FOCUS AND COPYING
653
for the effectiveness of the received method was removed; instead,
the received method was said to be a random choice between two
methods (i.e., between the harsh and lenient methods). In this way,
the received method was dissociated from the managing role, and
thus it did not reflect an interpersonal norm. After reading their test
score, as well as the information about the grading methods, all
participants responded to four items measuring their perception of
the normativeness of the received grading method (1 ⫽ strongly
disagree, 5 ⫽ strongly agree), which served as the manipulation
check. The items included statements such as, “Compared with the
alternative way of calculating scores, the one used to calculate my
test score is more appropriate/justifiable/legitimate/fair.” A score
averaging across the four items (Cronbach’s ␣ ⫽ .90) was used in
the manipulation check analyses. Across all four conditions, the
dependent variable was participants’ choice of method for the
grading task.
Results
Manipulation checks. A t test of participants’ perception of
the normativeness of the received method showed, as expected,
that participants perceived the received method as less normative
when it was said to be a random choice (M ⫽ 2.43, SD ⫽ 0.84)
than when it was justified as normative (M ⫽ 2.81, SD ⫽ 0.77),
t(90) ⫽ 2.27, p ⬍ .05. Also as expected, participants in the harsh
condition rated the received method as more strict (M ⫽ 3.77,
SD ⫽ 0.76) than participants in the lenient condition (M ⫽ 2.72,
SD ⫽ 0.98), t(90) ⫽ 5.77, p ⬍ .001. In addition, participants in the
harsh condition received lower test scores (M ⫽ 1.67, SD ⫽ 2.38)
than participants in the lenient condition (M ⫽ 8.18, SD ⫽ 2.66),
t(90) ⫽ ⫺12.39, p ⬍ .001. Therefore, our manipulations were
successful.
As in Study 1 and Study 2, participants in the harsh condition
expressed less satisfaction with the received method (M ⫽ 2.40,
SD ⫽ 0.77) than participants in the lenient condition (M ⫽ 2.80,
SD ⫽ 0.83), t(90) ⫽ ⫺2.36, p ⬍ .05. However, there was no
difference in satisfaction between participants in the normative
condition (M ⫽ 2.66, SD ⫽ 0.82) and their counterparts in the
nonnormative condition (M ⫽ 2.50, SD ⫽ 0.82), t(90) ⫽ 0.94, ns.
Copying.
Logistic regressions were conducted to test the
hypothesized three-way interaction between the strength of prevention focus, the type of received method, and its normative
status on the choice of method for later grading. The analyses
yielded no main effect of the received method, ␤ ⫽ 0.27, z ⫽ 0.62,
ns, or of its normative status, ␤ ⫽ 0.10, z ⫽ 0.23, ns. Neither
promotion focus nor prevention focus had a main effect, ␤s ⬍
0.22, z ⬍ 1, ns. More important, a three-way interaction between
the strength of prevention focus, the received method, and its
normative status emerged, ␤ ⫽ ⫺3.28, z ⫽⫺2.47, p ⫽ .01.
Further, this three-way interaction still held after we controlled
satisfaction and its two- and three-way interactions with the received method and its normative status, ␤ ⫽ ⫺3.45, z ⫽ ⫺2.50,
p ⫽ .01. The pattern of the three-way prevention focus ⫻ received
method ⫻ normative status interaction is plotted in Figure 3.
Simple slope tests on this three-way interactive effect revealed
that when the received method was justified as normative (the two
solid lines in Figure 3), participants with a strong prevention focus
tended to copy the role model’s behavior by choosing the same
method as they received earlier, t(77) ⫽ 1.68, p ⬍ .10, whereas
Figure 3. Probability of method chosen as a function of prevention
focus, received method, and the normative status of the received
method (Study 3).
participants with a weak prevention focus showed the opposite
tendency, t(77) ⫽ ⫺1.74, p ⬍ .10. In contrast, when the received
method was nonnormative (the two dotted lines in Figure 3), there
was no longer a tendency to copy either among those with a strong
prevention focus, t(77) ⫽ ⫺0.58, ns, or among those with a weak
prevention focus, t(77) ⫽ 1.47, ns.3 These findings support our
proposal about the normative determination of copying, such that
those with a strong prevention focus copy only the normative
managing behaviors from a role model. There was no three-way
interaction among promotion focus, received method, and its normative status, ␤ ⫽ 0.44, z ⫽ 0.38, ns.
Given that prevention focus does not predict copying when a
managing behavior becomes nonnormative, is it possible that
hedonic experience instead may play a role in motivating copying?
Indeed, supporting this conjecture, the analysis showed a marginally significant interaction between the received method and satisfaction on the choice of method for later grading only in the
nonnormative condition,4 ␤ ⫽ 1.67, z ⫽ 1.79, p ⫽ .07, but it was
3
In an independent study with different participants recruited from the
same university campus (N ⫽ 46), the same design and procedures were
used as Study 3 but only the two nonnormative conditions were examined.
This study yielded the same results as the two nonnormative conditions of
Study 3, such that prevention focus did not predict copying when a role
model’s managing behavior was nonnormative, ␤ ⫽ ⫺1.38, z ⫽ ⫺1.67, ns,
thus supporting our hypothesis about the normative determination of copying for prevention-focused individuals.
4
In the independent study including the two same nonnormative conditions as Study 3 (see Footnote 3), the results also showed an interaction
effect between the received method and satisfaction with this method, ␤ ⫽
2.53, z ⫽ 2.06, p ⬍ .05, replicating the findings of Study 3 that satisfaction
with a nonnormative managing behavior, instead of the strength of prevention focus, predicts the tendency to copy this behavior.
ZHANG, HIGGINS, AND CHEN
654
not significant in the normative condition, ␤ ⫽ 0.24, z ⫽ 0.31, ns.
Simple slope tests on the interactive effect in the nonnormative
condition indicated a marginal tendency to copy among participants who were satisfied with the received method, t(34) ⫽ 1.72,
p ⫽ .09, and no such tendency among participants who were
dissatisfied with the received method, t(34) ⫽ ⫺0.90, ns. Hence,
when a role model’s managing behavior becomes nonnormative, it
is one’s satisfaction with this behavior, instead of one’s prevention
focus, that tends to predict copying.
standardized tests. Specifically, participants in the harsh condition
read,
Compared with the method you received, the alternative method (i.e.,
lenient grading method) has been shown to be more effective in
improving one’s learning on standardized tests. Because this test
emphasizes precision and thoroughness of thinking, which makes it
difficult to get everything correct, students should be fully rewarded
for their partial success by this method.
Participants in the lenient condition read,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Discussion
In line with Studies 1 and 2, Study 3 replicated the finding that
individuals with a stronger prevention focus are more likely to
copy a role model’s managing behavior. In addition, Study 3
revealed that this copying tendency occurred only when the managing behavior was normative. That is, those with a strong prevention focus would not copy a managing behavior that was
nonnormative. Instead, regardless of their regulatory focus
strength, how individuals earlier had felt hedonically about a
nonnormative managing behavior when they were recipients of it
seemed to predict copying, such that their tendency to copy increased as they felt more satisfied with the managing behavior.
These findings thus support our proposal about the normative
determination of copying among prevention-focused individuals.
A question still remains regarding the mechanism of copying for
prevention-focused individuals. To remove the normativeness of a
managing behavior, in Study 3, we not only dissociated this
behavior from a managing role by claiming the behavior was a
random choice but also removed the original rationale for the
effectiveness of this behavior. Therefore, an alternative explanation for the absence of copying was that the received method was
not considered an effective way to manage the other person. To
rule out this possibility, in Study 4, we restored the normative
association between the received method and the managing role,
but we removed the effectiveness of the method by introducing an
incongruent rationale against its effectiveness. If copying results
from the concerns about the effectiveness of a managing behavior
for individuals with a strong prevention focus, then prevention
focus should not predict copying. But if it is the normativeness and
not the effectiveness of a managing behavior that matters, then
those with a strong prevention focus should copy the behavior
despite its ineffectiveness.
Study 4
Method
Participants and design. Forty-seven college students from
a northeastern university participated in the experiment, receiving
$5 in return. They were randomly assigned to either a harsh or a
lenient method condition. The data of one participant who failed to
follow the instructions were discarded.
Experimental tasks and procedures.
The experimental
tasks and procedures were the same as in Study 1, except for the
rationale presented at the end of the testing task. Instead of
advocating the effectiveness of the received method as in Studies
1 and 2, we stated as the rationale in this study that the alternative
method was more effective in improving students’ learning on
Compared with the method you received, the alternative method (i.e.,
harsh grading method) has shown to be more effective in improving
one’s learning on standardized tests. Because this test emphasizes
precision and thoroughness of thinking, which allows no mistakes, it
is pretty consistent with the high standards reflected in this method.
After reading this information, participants responded to three
items assessing the perceived effectiveness of the received method,
which served as the manipulation check. A sample item was
“The grading method is effective in helping me learn on the test.”
The score for the manipulation check was the average across the
three items (Cronbach’s ␣ ⫽ .74). As always, the dependent
variable was participants’ indicated choice of method for the
grading task.
Results
Manipulation check. Because we used the same design for
this study as for Study 1 except that in Study 1 the received
method was said to be the more effective whereas in the present
study the alternative method was said to be more effective, we
conducted a t test on perceived effectiveness of the received
method across the two studies. As expected, regardless of which
method they received, participants in Study 1 judged the received method to be more effective (M ⫽ 2.87, SD ⫽ 0.79) than
participants in the present study (M ⫽ 2.46, SD ⫽ 0.84), t(93) ⫽
2.44, p ⬍ .05. In addition, participants in the harsh condition rated
the received method as more strict (M ⫽ 3.52, SD ⫽ 1.00) than
participants in the lenient condition (M ⫽ 2.93, SD ⫽ 0.88),
t(44) ⫽ 2.12, p ⬍ .05, and they also received lower test scores
(M ⫽ 1.96, SD ⫽ 2.92) than those in the lenient condition (M ⫽
8.91, SD ⫽ 2.11), t(44) ⫽ ⫺9.27, p ⬍ .001. Therefore, our
manipulation of the method conditions was successful. Further, in
line with previous studies, participants in the harsh condition
expressed less satisfaction with the received method (M ⫽ 2.12,
SD ⫽ 0.89) than participants in the lenient condition (M ⫽ 2.83,
SD ⫽ 0.84), t(44) ⫽ ⫺2.76, p ⬍ .01.
Copying. The logistic regressions yielded no main effect of
the received method on the choice of method for later grading, ␤ ⫽
⫺0.30, z ⫽ ⫺0.47, ns, suggesting no general tendency of participants to copy. Compared with Studies 1 and 2 in which a general
tendency to copy was found, the absence of copying was likely due
to the introduction of an incongruent rationale against the effectiveness of the received method. Neither promotion nor prevention
focus had a main effect, ps ⬎ .60. As expected, the interaction
between prevention focus and the received method was significant,
␤ ⫽ 2.22, z ⫽ 2.35, p ⬍ .05, which remained significant after
satisfaction and its interaction with the received method were
controlled, ␤ ⫽ 2.20, z ⫽ 2.33, p ⬍ .05. As Figure 4 shows,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
PREVENTION FOCUS AND COPYING
Figure 4. Probability of method chosen as a function of prevention focus
in harsh and lenient conditions (Study 4).
regardless of which method they received for their own tests,
participants’ tendency to choose the received method for later
grading increased with the strength of their prevention focus.
Simple slope tests performed at 1 SD above and 1 SD below the
mean of prevention focus indicated a tendency to copy among
participants with a strong prevention focus, t(37) ⫽ 1.52, p ⫽ .14,
and an opposite tendency among participants with a weak prevention focus, t(37) ⫽ ⫺2.11, p ⬍ .05. We speculated that the reduced
significance of the copying tendency among participants with a
strong prevention focus, together with the absent main effect of the
received method reported earlier, was caused by a shift of preference for the alternative method after introduction of a rationale for
its effectiveness relative to the received method. This speculation
was supported by the results of the simple slope tests showing that
participants with a weak prevention focus now tended to choose
the alternative method over the received method. The interaction
between promotion focus and the received method was nonsignificant, ␤ ⫽ ⫺1.24, z ⫽ ⫺1.55, ns, supporting the notion that
promotion focus was not associated with copying, and, if anything,
the direction was opposite.
Taken together, although the general tendency to copy a role
model’s managing behavior was weakened by the introduction of
an incongruent rationale against the effectiveness of this behavior
(compared with Study 1), the strength of prevention focus, but not
the strength of promotion focus, remained a significant predictor of
copying; that is, participants’ tendency to choose the received
method for later grading increased with the strength of their
prevention focus. Thus, for those with a stronger prevention focus,
copying was motivated more by their normative concerns about
the characteristic behaviors associated with a managing role than
by their effectiveness concerns.
Discussion
Study 4 provided further support for the normative determination of copying among individuals with a strong prevention focus.
Despite an incongruent rationale against the effectiveness of a role
model’s managing behavior, a stronger prevention focus continued
655
to predict a stronger tendency to copy this behavior. This rules out
the alternative explanation that the effectiveness concerns of those
with a strong prevention focus motivate their tendency to copy. In
fact, copying in its general sense does not necessarily serve the
goals of effectiveness. Instead, perpetuation of norms through
conformity may result in the spread of maladaptive behavior
(Feldman & Laland, 1996; Richerson & Boyd, 2005).
Studies 1– 4 yielded consistent findings regarding the tendency
to copy a normative managing behavior for individuals with a
stronger prevention focus. A drawback of the experimental design
of these studies is the more limited external validity. For example,
only one managing behavior (performance evaluation) and one
interpersonal context (grader–student relationship) were examined
in these studies, leaving open the question of whether the findings
would generalize to diverse managing behaviors in real-world
interpersonal contexts. To address these issues, we conducted a
field study to investigate multiple managing behaviors that are
common in the workplace. The sample consisted of superior–
subordinate dyads from various organizations, and our goal was to
determine whether managers’ prevention focus predicts their tendency to copy the managing behaviors from their former superiors.
Because of the status and power held by superiors, they often serve
as role models for subordinates, and as a result superiors’ behaviors represent the normative ways to manage (Decker, 1982;
Latham & Saari, 1979; Manz & Sims, 1981; Sims & Manz, 1982;
Weiss, 1977, 1978). In this line of reasoning, we hypothesized that
managers’ strength of prevention focus, but not their strength of
promotion focus, would predict their tendency to copy the managing behaviors from their former superiors.
Study 5
Method
Participants.
The sample consisted of 135 superior–
subordinate dyads from organizations across a wide range of
industries, such as financial service, transportation, media, energy,
research, and government. The superior subsample included 58
participants enrolled in a master’s of business administration
(MBA) program who held a high-level position, such as chairman
or managing director, in their organization. Forty-nine (85%) were
men and nine (15%) were women. The mean age and tenure were
40.63 years (SD ⫽ 5.30) and 18.79 years (SD ⫽ 6.99), respectively. The subordinate subsample included 135 participants, who
were direct subordinates of the participants in the subsample of
superiors. Most of them held middle-level positions in their organizations, such as being vice-president or division manager.
Eighty-eight (65%) of the subordinates were men, and 47 (35%)
were women. The mean age and tenure were 35.22 years (SD ⫽
6.56) and 12.37 years (SD ⫽ 7.45), respectively. Responses of
seven superior participants were discarded because of no response
from their subordinates, leaving 51 participants in the superior
subsample. This resulted in a valid superior–subordinate ratio of 1:
2.65, with from one to three subordinates per superior.
Procedures. Surveys were distributed to the superior subsample during one of their class sessions, and all agreed to participate in our study. First, participants recalled one of their former
superiors and rated the methods used by this superior to manage
them. The exact wording was, “Please recall from your past
ZHANG, HIGGINS, AND CHEN
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
656
working experience one of your former superiors, who now may or
may not be your superior, and rate the extent to which this superior
managed you in the following ways.” By not instructing participants to think about any particular type of superior at this stage, we
hoped to elicit the most accessible superior in their mind, with
whom the participants might feel satisfied or dissatisfied. Then,
participants rated the extent to which this superior had used several
methods to manage them, including work facilitation, directive
leadership, use of legitimate power, monitoring, use of coercive
power, and negative feedback (see Appendix for the items). These
ratings were used in the same way as the “received method” in
previous studies to be the predictors of superiors’ own subsequent
managing behaviors. Next, participants reported their satisfaction
with and perceived closeness to their superiors and rated the
effectiveness of each method used by their superiors. We assessed
regulatory focus as a chronic disposition using the same questionnaire as in Studies 1, 3, and 4. Finally, participants provided the
names and e-mail addresses of three direct subordinates at work,
on the basis of which the subordinate subsample was created.
We e-mailed the subordinate subsample, inviting them to participate in an online survey. The e-mail listed the name of the
superior who provided the contact information, and the confidentiality of the completed surveys was guaranteed to all participants.
The return of 135 valid surveys yielded a response rate of 77%.
Similar to the survey administered to the superior subsample, the
online survey asked the subordinate subsample to think about their
current superiors (if they had more than one superior, they needed
to think about the one listed in the e-mail) and then rate the extent
to which their superiors had used each method to manage them.
These ratings of the superiors’ managing behaviors were treated
as the dependent variables. Finally, participants indicated their
perceived closeness to their superiors.
Results
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics, correlations, and
reliabilities of the key variables. To objectively measure the
managing behaviors of the participants in the superior subsample, we aggregated their subordinates’ ratings on each
method they used, within-group agreements (rwgs) ⬎ .70, intraclass correlations(1)(ICCs[1]) ⬎ .05. In addition, we aggregated subordinates’ ratings of perceived closeness for each
superior, rwg ⫽ .74, ICC(1) ⫽ .11.
Copying. Two types of copying were examined in the data
analysis. One was direct copying, or same-method copying, which
described one’s adoption of the same managing behavior from a
former superior (e.g., using coercive power). The other was indirect copying, or cross-method copying, whereby one’s adoption of
a managing behavior (e.g., providing negative feedback) was
evoked by a different managing behavior of the former superior
(e.g., using coercive power). Unlike direct copying that perpetuates the same managing behavior across similar relationships,
indirect copying refers to a spillover from one managing behavior
of a role model to another managing behavior of the recipient.
Both types of copying were assessed here because literature suggests that social learning is a more complex process than simple
imitation. For example, research on leadership training found that
watching videotapes of leadership behaviors induced both direct
and indirect behavior changes in the trainees (Manz & Sims,
1986).
We performed the ordinary least squares regressions to test the
hypothesis that superiors’ strength of prevention focus, but not
their strength of promotion focus, would predict their tendency to
copy the managing behaviors from their former superiors. The
dependent variables were subordinate ratings (aggregated) of the
extent to which superiors used each of the six managing methods.
The independent variables were superiors’ prevention focus, promotion focus, and their ratings of the extent to which their former
superiors had used each method to manage them. Control variables
were superiors’ gender, age, tenure, their perceived closeness to
their former superiors, and their subordinates’ perceived closeness
to them.
The analyses yielded no main effect of superiors’ prevention
focus on their managing behaviors, all ps ⬎ .30. Promotion focus
only had a main effect on work facilitation, ␤ ⫽ ⫺0.12, t(43) ⫽
⫺2.27, p ⬍ .05, but not on the other five managing behaviors,
ps ⬎ .10. We did not find any main effect of former superiors’
managing behaviors, p ⬎ .10. However, of the 36 possible interactive effects between superiors’ prevention focus and their former
superiors’ managing behaviors (the six behaviors listed in the
Appendix) on their own managing behaviors (the same six behaviors), four were significant. The significant interactive effects
consistently highlighted the fact that superiors with a stronger
prevention focus were more likely to copy the managing methods
from their former superiors. In particular, two of the four signifi-
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Correlations (Study 5)
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Prevention focus
Promotion focus
Work facilitation
Directive leadership
Use of legitimate power
Monitoring
Use of coercive power
Use of negative feedback
Satisfaction with former superior
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3.67
3.80
3.40
3.37
3.86
2.49
1.74
2.16
3.78
0.75
0.50
0.82
0.88
0.92
0.71
0.82
0.65
1.06
.23
⫺.07
.01
⫺.01
⫺.12
⫺.11
⫺.07
.04
.14
.18
.09
⫺.12
⫺.17
⫺.15
.13
(.75/.75)
.75ⴱⴱ
.61ⴱ
⫺.24
⫺.14
⫺.30ⴱ
.79ⴱⴱ
(.73/.76)
.53ⴱⴱ
⫺.23
⫺.29ⴱ
⫺.40ⴱⴱ
.69ⴱⴱ
(.92/.75)
⫺.07
.01
⫺.20
.50ⴱⴱ
(.64/.70)
.27
.27
⫺.32ⴱ
(.84/.75)
.33ⴱ
⫺.35ⴱ
(.63/.78)
⫺.44ⴱⴱ
Note. The first and second values in parentheses are the alpha reliabilities for the superior and subordinate subsamples, respectively.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
PREVENTION FOCUS AND COPYING
657
cant interactions reflected direct copying, and the other two reflected indirect copying. In contrast, none of the interactions
between promotion focus and former superiors’ managing behaviors was significant, all ps ⬎ .10.
Monitoring was the first managing behavior that was directly
copied by superiors with a strong prevention focus. Superiors’
prevention focus and their former superiors’ monitoring had an
interaction effect on their own monitoring, ␤ ⫽ 0.24, t(40) ⫽ 2.84,
p ⬍ .01, and this interaction remained significant after satisfaction
with the former superior, as well as its interaction with the former
superior’s monitoring, were controlled, ␤ ⫽ 0.25, t(38) ⫽ 2.79,
p ⬍ .01. As Figure 5 shows, superiors with a strong prevention
focus were more likely to use monitoring if their former superiors
had used a lot of monitoring. Further, simple slope tests indicated
a significant tendency to copy monitoring only among superiors
with a strong prevention focus, t(40) ⫽ 2.41, p ⬍ .05. In contrast,
superiors with a weak prevention focus did not show such tendency. Instead, they even showed a reverse tendency, t(40) ⫽
⫺1.76, p ⫽ .09.
Use of coercive power was another managing behavior that was
directly copied by superiors with a strong prevention focus. Superiors’ prevention focus and their former superiors’ use of coercive
power had an interaction effect on their own use of coercive
power, ␤ ⫽ 0.24, t(40) ⫽ 2.44, p ⬍ .05, and again this interaction
remained significant after satisfaction with the former superior and
its interaction with the former superior’s use of coercive power
were controlled, ␤ ⫽ 0.26, t(38) ⫽ 2.53, p ⬍ .05. As Figure 6
shows, superiors with a strong prevention focus were more likely
to use coercive power if their former superiors had used a lot of
coercive power. Indeed, the tendency to copy the use of coercive
power was marginally significant among superiors with a strong
prevention focus, t(40) ⫽ 1.71, p ⫽ .10, and even reversed among
superiors with a weak prevention focus, t(40) ⫽ ⫺1.89, p ⫽ .07.
Besides direct copying, superiors with a strong prevention focus
also engaged in indirect copying, which represents a spillover from
one managing behavior to another. The first indirect copying was
the spillover from the use of coercive power to the use of negative
Figure 6. Managers’ use of coercive power as a function of their former
superiors’ use of coercive power for managers with a strong and weak
prevention focus (Study 5).
Figure 5. Managers’ use of monitoring as a function of their former
superiors’ use of monitoring for managers with a strong and weak prevention focus (Study 5).
Figure 7. Managers’ use of negative feedback as a function of their
former superiors’ use of coercive power for managers with a strong and
weak prevention focus (Study 5).
feedback. Specifically, superiors’ prevention focus and their former superiors’ use of coercive power had an interaction effect on
their own use of negative feedback, ␤ ⫽ 0.21, t(40) ⫽ 2.29, p ⬍
.05, and again this interaction remained significant after satisfaction with the former superior and its interaction with the former
superior’s use of coercive power were controlled, ␤ ⫽ 0.20,
t(38) ⫽ 2.06, p ⬍ .05. As Figure 7 shows, superiors with a strong
prevention focus were more likely to use negative feedback if
their former superiors had used a lot of coercive power. Further,
simple slope tests showed that this indirect copying was significant among superiors with a strong prevention focus,
t(40) ⫽ 2.22, p ⬍ .05, but not among superiors with a weak
prevention focus, t(40) ⫽ ⫺0.72, ns.
Another indirect copying was the spillover from the use of
negative feedback to monitoring. Superiors’ prevention focus and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
658
ZHANG, HIGGINS, AND CHEN
their former superiors’ use of negative feedback had an interaction
effect on their own monitoring, ␤ ⫽ 0.25, t(40) ⫽ 2.47, p ⬍ .05,
and again this interaction remained significant after satisfaction
with the former superior and its interaction with the former superior’s use of negative feedback were controlled, ␤ ⫽ 0.26, t(38) ⫽
2.52, p ⬍ .05. As Figure 8 shows, superiors with a strong prevention focus were more likely to monitor their subordinates if their
former superiors had used a lot of negative feedback. In addition,
this indirect copying was significant among superiors with a strong
prevention focus, t(40) ⫽ 2.74, p ⬍ .01, but not among superiors
with a weak prevention focus, t(40) ⫽ ⫺0.99, ns.
Perceived effectiveness. We also tested whether superiors’
perceived effectiveness of a managing behavior predicted their
tendency to copy this behavior. No evidence was found to support
this possibility. Specifically, the only significant main effect of
perceived effectiveness was for monitoring, where superiors’ perceived effectiveness of their former superiors’ monitoring was
negatively related to their own use of monitoring, ␤ ⫽ ⫺0.11,
t(28) ⫽ ⫺2.32, p ⬍ .05, suggesting, if anything, a tendency against
the use of monitoring when it was perceived as an effective
method. Overall, perceived effectiveness did not predict direct or
indirect copying, all ps ⬎ .10. Hence, these findings indicate that
the perceived effectiveness of a managing method did not predict
copying, which is consistent with the findings of Study 4.
Discussion
Extending the experimental findings to the field, we found
consistent support in Study 5 for our hypothesis that a stronger
prevention focus predicts the tendency to copy the managing
behaviors of a role model. Despite their dissatisfaction with former
superiors who used monitoring, coercive power, or negative feedback, superiors with a stronger prevention focus still demonstrated
a stronger tendency to copy these behaviors from their former
superiors, in both direct and indirect ways. These results lend
additional support to our proposal that copying derives from the fit
between prevention focus and normative influence, which is inde-
Figure 8. Managers’ use of monitoring as a function of their former
superiors’ use of negative feedback for managers with a strong and weak
prevention focus (Study 5).
pendent of hedonic experience. Furthermore, the findings of Study
5, like those from Study 4, do not support the alternative explanation that effectiveness concerns motivate copying for individuals
with a stronger prevention focus.
In Study 5, the three harsh methods (monitoring, use of coercive
power, and negative feedback) copied by superiors with a strong
prevention focus were all negatively related to satisfaction with
their former superiors, ␤s ⬍ ⫺0.40, t(49)s ⬍ ⫺2.0, all ps ⬍ .05.
In contrast, none of the more lenient methods (work facilitation,
use of legitimate power, and directive leadership) that were positively related to satisfaction, ␤s ⬎ 0.60, t(49)s ⬎ 4.0, all ps ⬍ .001,
was copied by these superiors. This is different than in our other
studies (Studies 1– 4), where individuals with a strong prevention
focus copied both harsh and lenient methods. What might account
for this difference? Because positive events are more common and
expected in everyday life, they tend to be perceived as the default
(Hamilton & Huffman, 1971). For example, superiors are usually
advised to behave in ways that improve subordinate satisfaction.
As a result, adopting the managing methods associated with subordinate satisfaction may not depend on individual difference
factors. In contrast, due to their infrequent occurrence and potential threat, negative events tend to be salient (see Baumeister,
Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001, for a review; see also
Rozin & Royzman, 2001), and copying them may depend more on
individual difference factors. Given this, managing behaviors associated with subordinate dissatisfaction may be more likely to be
registered and copied by recipients with a strong prevention focus.
This finding was not an implication that superiors did not
perform managing behaviors associated with subordinate satisfaction. Indeed, our superior subsample engaged in more satisfying
managing behaviors, such as work facilitation (M ⫽ 3.40, SD ⫽
0.82), directive leadership (M ⫽ 3.37, SD ⫽ 0.88), and use of
legitimate power (M ⫽ 3.86, SD ⫽ 0.92) than dissatisfying managing behaviors, such as use of negative feedback (M ⫽ 2.16,
SD ⫽ 0.65), monitoring (M ⫽ 2.49, SD ⫽ 0.71), and use of
coercive power (M ⫽ 1.74, SD ⫽ 0.82), t(50)s ⬎ 5.0, ps ⬍ .001.
In addition, except for the main effect of promotion focus on work
facilitation, we did not find any main effects of prevention focus,
promotion focus, or prior experiences with former superiors on
either satisfying or dissatisfying managing behaviors of our superior participants. Taken together, these results suggested that all
superior participants, regardless of their prevention or promotion
focus strength, employed more managing behaviors associated
with subordinate satisfaction. And they did so not because they
were copying these behaviors from their prior superiors but because these behaviors were deemed as the default ways to manage.
Where we expected to see differences in copying as a function of
stronger prevention focus was in the nondefault, dissatisfying
behaviors; we expected that individuals with a strong prevention
focus would be more likely than those with weak prevention focus
to copy these dissatisfying behaviors they had received from their
prior superiors. And this is what we found: only those with a strong
prevention focus copied dissatisfying managing behaviors from
their prior superiors, which was motivated by a regulatory fit
experience that transcended their hedonic feelings about the behaviors.
The reason that the experimental studies (Studies 1– 4) did not
reveal the negativity bias may lie in the fact that both the harsh and
lenient grading methods used in these studies were relatively
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
PREVENTION FOCUS AND COPYING
uncommon in life; that is., they were not the default method. Both
the harsh and the lenient methods were nonstandard methods
compared with a normal grading method, in which partial credit is
awarded for a single correct question. Therefore both methods
should be salient and register in the minds of the participants, and
choosing to copy them or not would depend more on individual
difference factors. In fact, participants in one of our pilot studies
were given the choice of a normal grading method (i.e., students
could get partial score for a single correct question) in addition to
the harsh and lenient methods, and most participants chose the
normal method, regardless of their regulatory focus and regardless
of which method they had received earlier. Therefore, compared
with the normal method, both the harsh and lenient methods
probably were perceived as uncommon ways of evaluation and
thus would be salient enough to register with prevention-focused
individuals and motivate them to copy. In other words, if we had
included the normal method as a choice in all of our experimental
studies, we would expect it to function in the same way as the
satisfying managing behaviors in Study 5 (e.g., work facilitation,
use of legitimate power, and directive leadership), such that the
majority of participants would choose the normal method over the
harsh or the lenient method, regardless of the participants’ regulatory focus or the method they received earlier. In this sense, what
we found in the field study was consistent with what we would
have found in the experimental studies if we had included a normal
grading method condition.
General Discussion
Why do some people copy the managing behavior of a role
model despite their dissatisfaction with this behavior as its recipients? The widely accepted answer lies in the strength of situations
that define appropriate behaviors associated with a managing role
and press individuals in a norm-consistent direction (Aarts &
Dijksterhuis, 2003; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Deutsch & Gerard,
1955). However, even in the presence of strong situational demands, people still vary in their tendency to conform (DeYoung,
Peterson, & Higgins, 2002; Maslach, Santee, & Wade, 1987;
Strickland & Crowne, 1962). The present research has broadened
the view on normative conformity in an interpersonal context by
introduction of an individual difference variable—regulatory focus—as a key predictor of copying. Specifically, we investigated
how regulatory focus affects the tendency to copy the managing
behavior from a role model after one experiences this behavior as
its recipient and later takes on the same managing role in a similar
relationship.
Four experiments and a field study provided converging evidence for the positive relation between the strength of prevention
focus and copying. Across two different types of relationships
(grader–student, superior–subordinate), and multiple managing behaviors (performance evaluation, monitoring, and use of power),
we obtained consistent findings that having a stronger prevention
focus, but not a stronger promotion focus, predicted a stronger
tendency to copy the managing behavior of a role model. In Study
1, where regulatory focus was assessed as a chronic disposition, a
stronger prevention focus, but not a stronger promotion focus, was
associated with a stronger tendency to copy the managing behavior
of a role model, regardless of how one felt about this behavior
earlier as its recipient. In Study 2, we replicated these results by
659
situationally inducing a regulatory focus state, and those with an
induced prevention focus, but not an induced promotion focus,
showed the tendency to copy. This study allowed a causal inference to be drawn in which experimental induction of a prevention
focus, but not a promotion focus, led participants to copy the
managing behavior of a role model.
We also tested the hypothesis that the normativeness of a
managing behavior underlies the relation between stronger prevention focus and copying. The results supported this hypothesis.
First, when the managing behavior of a role model was conveyed
as nonnormative, neither prevention nor promotion focus was
associated with the tendency to copy (Study 3). Second, even in
the presence of an incongruent rationale against the effectiveness
of the managing behavior from a role model, a stronger prevention
focus still predicted stronger copying (Study 4), suggesting that
concerns about the normativeness, rather than the effectiveness, of
a managing behavior motivated copying for individuals with a
stronger prevention focus.
These findings were then generalized to the organizational field
(Study 5), where we found superiors with a stronger prevention
focus were more likely to copy the managing behaviors from their
former superiors—in both direct and indirect ways— despite dissatisfaction with their former superiors who engaged in these
behaviors. And once again, we found no evidence that perceived
effectiveness led to stronger copying among managers with a
stronger prevention focus. Consistent with our hypothesis, only
when the normativeness of a managing method was removed in
Study 3 did hedonic satisfaction with the method predict copying.
When the normativeness of the managing method was present,
individuals with a stronger prevention focus copied the managing
method regardless of their hedonic experience as its recipients.
Regulatory Fit: Transcending Pleasure and Pain
We argued that copying derives from the fit between prevention
focus and the normative behaviors associated with a managing
role. Independent of hedonic experience, which would motivate
the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, the fit between
prevention focus and normative influence generates a regulatory fit
experience that makes people feel right about copying (Higgins,
2005). This is exactly what we found across studies: copying the
managing behavior of a role model represented a conservative
strategy that fits prevention concerns about duties and obligations
(oughts), and the experience of fit transcended how one had felt
hedonically about the behavior when one had been its recipient
earlier. Although individuals with a stronger prevention focus were
more likely to copy the managing behavior of a role model, they
did not report more satisfaction with this behavior as its recipients.
Instead, across all experimental studies, all participants expressed
less satisfaction with harsh grading than with lenient grading,
including those with a stronger prevention focus who still chose to
copy both methods for later grading. Similarly, in the field study,
regardless of the strength of their prevention focus, all managers
were less satisfied with their former superiors who used monitoring, coercive power, or negative feedback, yet only those with a
stronger prevention focus had a stronger tendency to copy these
behaviors when they became superiors. These findings suggest that
it is the fit between prevention focus and normative influence that
strengthens the engagement in copying, which occurs beyond the
660
ZHANG, HIGGINS, AND CHEN
pleasure or pain that one had experienced earlier when receiving
the copied behavior.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Copying: A Conscious or Unconscious Behavior?
Copying results from individual conformity to normative influence, especially for those having concerns about duties and obligations (oughts) rather than hopes or aspirations (ideals). A question thus arises: when individuals with a strong prevention focus
copy the managing behaviors from a role model, are they aware of
the impact of norms on their interpersonal behaviors, or do they
think that they just act on personal values and attitudes? The social
influence literature suggests the latter answer is true. Despite the
ubiquity and strength of norms, their influence often goes undetected or severely underestimated (Bargh, 1992, 1999; Bowers,
1984; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). Indeed, normative influence operates in such a nonconscious way that people underestimate or
deny the impact of norms on their decisions (Cialdini, 2005;
Latané & Darley, 1970; Nolan, Schultz, Cialdini, Goldstein, &
Griskevicius, 2008). Instead, other causes of behaviors are highlighted, most of which are internal, such as personal thoughts,
motives, and intentions.
In this regard, previous research has shown that normative
conformity involves introspection illusion, a propensity to focus
on internal information in making self-assessments (Pronin,
Molouki, & Berger, 2007). For this reason, it is unlikely that
individuals with a strong prevention focus will detect and report
the impact of norms on their interpersonal behaviors. In fact,
across the experimental studies, when asked why they made the
choice of method for grading, most participants, including those
who copied the received method, emphasized their personal judgment as the reason (e.g., “I like it being strict; it makes people
improve”; “I believe it will be more effective and make people try
harder to gain more points”; “I am an avid believer in partial
credit”). Similarly, in the field study, all participants in the superior
subsample, including those with a strong prevention focus who
copied the three harsh managing methods (monitoring, use of
coercive power, and negative feedback), reported that the three
harsh methods were, if anything, less normative than the three
more lenient ones (work facilitation, directive leadership, and use
of legitimate power), F(5, 175) ⫽ 24.20, p ⬍ .001.5 Indeed, if they
had been aware of the normative influence on their choice, it is
possible that individuals with a strong prevention focus would
have made efforts to correct for this influence and engaged in less
copying. In any case, our results are consistent with Nisbett and
Wilson’s (1977) classic finding that people are often not aware of
the actual mechanisms that influence their choices.
Self-Other Asymmetries in Copying
In the present work, copying reflects the efforts to behave in a
norm-consistent way when people take on a managing role in a
relationship, such as a grader who evaluates students’ performance
and a superior who manages subordinates. In these circumstances,
one’s previous experience with a role model from a similar relationship provides a script of conduct, which specifies the appropriate behaviors associated with the managing role. In this sense,
copying represents a behavioral response of those who want to live
up to the normative script of an interpersonal role. It is possible,
then, that the present findings on copying would not apply in a
situation that involves no relationships and one’s behavioral choice
affects only oneself and not others. For example, preventionfocused individuals might not copy how they were treated by their
manager when choosing a managing behavior for the purpose of
self-evaluation. In fact, there is evidence from our studies that
prevention-focused individuals would make different grading
method choices when grading their own tests. Across the four
experimental studies, there was no regulatory focus difference in
the choice of method to grade one’s own test. This suggests that
when a behavioral choice is made in a noninterpersonal context,
the normative script for a managing role is rendered irrelevant with
respect to how individuals choose to act out self-management.
Promotion Focus: Inattention to or Disregard for
Normative Influence?
We speculate that there are two reasons why individuals with a
promotion focus are less influenced by normative behaviors: (a) they
are less likely to attend to the managing behavior of a role model even
though these behaviors convey interpersonal norms, and (b) even
when they do attend to the behavior of the role model, they are less
affected by these behaviors. As suggested by the positive relation
between promotion focus and illusion of control (Langens, 2007),
those with a promotion focus emphasize the congruence between their
own personal actions and intended outcomes. As a result, individuals
with a promotion focus may pay less attention to others’ behaviors in
the first place. In addition, individuals with a promotion focus may
downplay or dismiss the relevance of social pressure for normative
behaviors. For example, despite the fact that all participants rated the
harsh method as more strict than the lenient method, those with an
induced promotion focus did not report a difference in satisfaction
with the lenient method versus the harsh method, t(47) ⫽ ⫺0.73, ns,
whereas individuals with an induced prevention focus reported less
satisfaction with the harsh method than with the lenient method,
t(47) ⫽ ⫺3.57, p ⬍ .001. Thus, compared with their counterparts with
a prevention focus, individuals with a promotion focus were less
affected psychologically by their previous experience with a role
model. Considering the coexistence of both of these mechanisms, it is
not surprising that normative influence was less effective in eliciting
copying among individuals with a promotion focus.
5
Perceived normativeness of a managing behavior was measured as
the extent to which a managing method is appropriate or widely adopted.
Normativeness ratings of the satisfying managing methods were as follows: (a) work facilitation: M ⫽ 5.31, SD ⫽ 1.20; (b) directive leadership:
M ⫽ 4.93, SD ⫽ 1.21; and (c) use of legitimate power: M ⫽ 4.99, SD ⫽
1.30. Normativeness ratings of the dissatisfying managing methods were as
follows: (a) monitoring: M ⫽ 3.60, SD ⫽ 1.35; (b) use of coercive power:
M ⫽ 3.28, SD ⫽ 1.62; and (c) use of negative feedback: M ⫽ 3.24, SD ⫽
1.57. The analyses of variance showed no significant difference in perceived normativeness between the three satisfying methods, F(2, 72) ⫽
1.38, p ⬎ .20, and no significant difference between the three dissatisfying
methods, F(2, 74) ⫽ 1.44, p ⬎ .20. However, the average normativeness
rating of the three satisfying methods (M ⫽ 5.07, SD ⫽ 0.94) was
significantly higher than that of the three dissatisfying methods (M ⫽ 3.37,
SD ⫽ 1.29), F(1, 35) ⫽ 55.36, p ⬍ .001, suggesting that superiors
perceived the three satisfying methods as more normative than the three
dissatisfying methods.
PREVENTION FOCUS AND COPYING
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Concluding Comment
Our research was the first examination of how differences in
regulatory focus influence the tendency to copy an interpersonal
norm. The main finding was that a stronger prevention focus, but
not a stronger promotion focus, predicts the tendency to copy a
role model’s managing behavior—independent of the hedonic
experience with that behavior as its recipient and independent of
its effectiveness. Taken together, our findings reveal an important
role of prevention focus in the perpetuation of interpersonal behaviors across similar relationships. We hope that extending this
work in future studies will shed light on the understanding of other
interpersonal behaviors such as parenting and coaching and how
managing styles can persist despite being perceived as being
unpleasant and ineffective.
References
Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2003). The silence of the library: Environment, situational norm, and social behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 84, 18 –28. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.18
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of
one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs,
70(Whole no. 416).
Baer, D. M., Peterson, R. F., & Sherman, J. A. (1967). The development of
imitation by reinforcing behavioral similarity to a model. Journal of
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 405– 416. doi:10.1901/
jeab.1967.10-405
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice–Hall.
Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Value and behavior: Strength and
structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,
1207–1220. doi:10.1177/0146167203254602
Bargh, J. A. (1992). Does subliminality matter to social psychology?
Awareness of the stimulus versus awareness of its influence: Cognitive,
clinical, and social perspectives. In R. F. Bornstein & T. S. Pittman
(Eds.), Perception without awareness: Cognitive, clinical, and social
perspectives (pp. 236 –255). New York, NY: Guilford.
Bargh, J. A. (1999). The most powerful manipulative messages are hiding
in plain sight. Chronicle of High Education, 45, B6.
Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for
studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Bates, F. L., & Harvey, C. C. (1975). The structure of social systems. New
York, NY: Wiley.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001).
Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370.
doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
Berkowitz, L. (1972). Social norms, feelings, and other factors affecting
helping and altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6,
63–108. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60025-8
Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent development in role theory. Annual Review of
Sociology, 12, 67–92. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435
Bowers, K. S. (1984). On being unconsciously influences and informed. In
K. S. Bowers & D. Meichenbaum (Eds.), The unconscious reconsidered
(pp. 227–273). New York, NY: Wiley.
Burt, R. S. (1976). Positions in networks. Social Forces, 55, 93–122.
doi:10.2307/2577097
Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “feeling right.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 86, 388 – 404. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.388
Cialdini, R. B. (1988). Influence: Science and practice (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
661
Cialdini, R. B. (2005). Basic social influence is underestimated. Psychological Inquiry, 16, 158 –161. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1604_03
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance
and conformity. In S. T. Fiske, D. L. Schacter, & C. Zahn-Waxler (Eds.),
Annual Review of Psychology: Vol. 55 (pp. 591– 621). Palo Alto, CA:
Annual Reviews.
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. doi:10.1006/
obhd.1996.2675
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1970). Norms and normative behavior: Field
studies of social interdependence. In J. Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (Eds.),
Altruism and helping behavior (pp. 83–102). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Decker, P. J. (1982). The enhancement of behavior modeling training of
supervisory skills by the inclusion of retention processes. Personnel
Psychology, 35, 323–332. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1982.tb02198.x
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 51, 629 – 636. doi:10.1037/h0046408
DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2002). Higher-order
factors of the big five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health?
Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 533–552. doi:10.1016/
S0191-8869(01)00171-4
Feldman, M. F., & Laland, K. N. (1996). Gene– culture coevolutionary
theory. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 11, 453– 457. doi:10.1016/
0169-5347(96)10052-5
Freitas, A. L., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Enjoying goal-directed action: The
role of regulatory fit. Psychological Science, 13, 1– 6. doi:10.1111/14679280.00401
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and
prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001–1013. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1001
Gailliot, M. T., Stillman, T. F., Schmeichel, B. J., Maner, J. K., & Plant,
E. A. (2008). Mortality salience increases adherence to salient norms and
values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 993–1003. doi:
10.1177/0146167208316791
Galinsky, A. D., Leonardelli, G. J., Okhuysen, G. A., & Mussweiler, T.
(2005). Regulatory focus at the bargaining table: Promoting distributive
and integrative success. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31,
1087–1098. doi:10.1177/0146167205276429
Hamilton, D. L., & Huffman, L. J. (1971). Generality of impression
formation processes for evaluative and nonevaluative judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 200 –207. doi:10.1037/
h0031698
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist,
52, 1280 –1300. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a
motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1– 46). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Higgins, E. T. (2005). Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 209 –213. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00366.x
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. doi:10.1002/ejsp.27
Higgins, E. T., Idson, L. C., Freitas, A. L., Spiegel, S., & Molden, D. C.
(2003). Transfer of value from fit. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84, 1140 –1153. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1140
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. doi:10.1006/jesp.1999.1402
Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Imaging how you’d
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
662
ZHANG, HIGGINS, AND CHEN
feel: The role of motivational experiences from regulatory fit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 926 –937. doi:10.1177/
0146167204264334
Jacobs, R. C., & Campbell, D. T. (1961). The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition
through several generations of a laboratory microculture. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 62, 649–658. doi:10.1037/h0044182
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis
of conflict, choice and commitment. New York, NY: Free Press.
Keller, J., Hurst, M., & Uskul, A. (2008). Prevention-focused selfregulation and aggressiveness. Journal of Research in Personality, 42,
800 – 820. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.10.005
Langens, T. A. (2007). Regulatory focus and illusions of control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 226 –237. doi:10.1177/
0146167206293494
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why
doesn’t he help? New York, NY: Appleton–Century-Crofts.
Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. (1979). Application of social-learning theory
to training supervisors through behavioral modeling. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 64, 239 –246. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.64.3.239
Leff, H. L. (1978). Experience, environment, and human potential. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, C. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1999).
Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1135–1145. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.77.6.1135
Lynch, P. D., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1999). Perceived organizational support: Inferior vs. superior performance by wary employees.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 467– 483. doi:10.1037/00219010.84.4.467
MacNeil, M. K., & Sherif, M. (1976). Norm change over subject generations as a function of arbitrariness of prescribed norms. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 762–773. doi:10.1037/00223514.34.5.762
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1981). Vicarious learning: The influence
of modeling on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 6, 105–113. doi:10.2307/257144
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1986). Beyond imitation: Complex
behavioral and affective linkages resulting from exposure to leadership
training models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 571–578. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.71.4.571
Maslach, C., Santee, R. T., & Wade, C. (1987). Individuation, gender role,
and dissent: Personality mediators of situational forces. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1088 –1093. doi:10.1037/00223514.53.6.1088
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378. doi:10.1037/h0040525
Milgram, S., Bickman, L., & Berkowitz, O. (1969). Note on the drawing
power of crowds of different size. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 13, 79 – 82. doi:10.1037/h0028070
Miller, L. E., & Grush, J. E. (1986). Individual differences in attitudinal vs.
normative determination of behavior. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 22, 190 –202. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(86)90023-5
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and
workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity
beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159 –1168. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.92.4.1159
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know:
Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231
Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). Normative social influence is undetected. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 913–923. doi:10.1177/
0146167208316691
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, 505–512. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.014
Pronin, E., Molouki, S., & Berger, J. (2007). Alone in a crowd of sheep:
Asymmetric perceptions of conformity and their roots in an introspection illusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 585–
595. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.585
Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture
transformed human evolution. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5,
296 –320. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2
Schultz, P. W. (1999). Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: A field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic Applied Social
Psychology, 21, 25–36.
Sherif, M., & Murphy, G. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New
York, NY: Harper & Brother.
Sims, H. P., & Manz, C. C. (1982). Modeling influences on employee
behavior. Personnel Journal, 61, 58 – 65.
Strickland, B. R., & Crowne, D. P. (1962). Conformity under conditions of
simulated group pressure as a function of the need for social approval.
Journal of Social Psychology, 58, 171–181. doi:10.1080/00224545
.1962.9712366
Turner, R. H. (1976). The real self: From institution to impulse. American
Journal of Sociology, 81, 989 –1016. doi:10.1086/226183
Van-Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. N. (2004). Feedback sign effect on motivation:
Is it moderated by regulatory focus? Applied Psychology, 53, 113–135.
doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00163.x
Walter, G. A. (1975). Effects of videotape feedback and modeling on the
behaviors of task group members. Human Relations, 28, 121–138.
doi:10.1177/001872677502800202
Walter, G. A. (1976). Changing behavior in task groups through social
learning: Modeling alternatives. Human Relations, 29, 167–178. doi:
10.1177/001872677602900206
Weiss, H. M. (1977). Subordinate imitation of supervisor behavior: The role of
modeling in organizational socialization. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 19, 89–105. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(77)90056-3
Weiss, H. M. (1978). Social learning of work values in organizations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 711–718. doi:10.1037/00219010.63.6.711
Whiten, A., Horner, V., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2005, July 21). Conformity
to cultural norms of tool use in chimpanzees. Nature, 437, 737–740.
doi:10.1038/nature04047
Winship, C., & Mandel, M. (1983). Roles and positions: A critique and
extension of the blockmodeling approach. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1983–1984 (pp. 314 – 44). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey–Bass.
Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good
people turn evil. New York, NY: Random House.