Motivational consequences of counterfactual mindsets: Does counterfactual structure influence the use of conservative or risky tactics?

IF 1.7 3区心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL

Motivation and Emotion Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1007/s11031-022-09979-6

Kevin Winter, Kai Epstude

{"title":"Motivational consequences of counterfactual mindsets: Does counterfactual structure influence the use of conservative or risky tactics?","authors":"Kevin Winter, Kai Epstude","doi":"10.1007/s11031-022-09979-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Motivational states are important determinants of human behavior. Regulatory focus theory suggests that a promotion focus stimulates risky behavior, whereas a prevention focus fosters conservative tactics. Previous research linked counterfactual structure with regulatory focus. Extending this work, we predicted that additive counterfactual mindsets (\"If only I had…\") instigate risky tactics in subsequent situations, whereas subtractive counterfactual mindsets (\"If only I had NOT…\") lead to conservative tactics. We tested this prediction and the underlying assumptions in four preregistered studies (total N = 803) and obtained consistent null results. Additive and subtractive counterfactual mindsets did not elicit different tactics - neither on behavioral nor on self-report measures - and they did not influence participants' motivation compared to a neutral control condition. Likewise, our results put doubts on previous findings on counterfactuals and regulatory focus as well as regulatory focus and conservative or risky behavior. More general implications for research on counterfactuals and motivation are discussed.","PeriodicalId":48282,"journal":{"name":"Motivation and Emotion","volume":"47 1","pages":"100-114"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9464056/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Motivation and Emotion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-022-09979-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Motivational states are important determinants of human behavior. Regulatory focus theory suggests that a promotion focus stimulates risky behavior, whereas a prevention focus fosters conservative tactics. Previous research linked counterfactual structure with regulatory focus. Extending this work, we predicted that additive counterfactual mindsets ("If only I had…") instigate risky tactics in subsequent situations, whereas subtractive counterfactual mindsets ("If only I had NOT…") lead to conservative tactics. We tested this prediction and the underlying assumptions in four preregistered studies (total N = 803) and obtained consistent null results. Additive and subtractive counterfactual mindsets did not elicit different tactics - neither on behavioral nor on self-report measures - and they did not influence participants' motivation compared to a neutral control condition. Likewise, our results put doubts on previous findings on counterfactuals and regulatory focus as well as regulatory focus and conservative or risky behavior. More general implications for research on counterfactuals and motivation are discussed.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

反事实心态的动机后果:反事实结构是否影响保守或冒险策略的使用?

动机状态是人类行为的重要决定因素。监管焦点理论认为，促进焦点会刺激冒险行为，而预防焦点则会培养保守策略。先前的研究将反事实结构与监管焦点联系起来。扩展这项工作，我们预测，累加式反事实心态(“如果我有……就好了”)会在随后的情况下引发风险策略，而减法式反事实心态(“如果我没有……就好了”)会导致保守策略。我们在四项预登记研究(共N = 803)中检验了这一预测和潜在的假设，并获得了一致的零结果。加法和减法反事实心态并没有引发不同的策略——在行为和自我报告测量中都没有——与中性控制条件相比，它们没有影响参与者的动机。同样，我们的结果对之前关于反事实和监管焦点以及监管焦点和保守或风险行为的发现提出了质疑。讨论了反事实和动机研究的更一般含义。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Motivation and Emotion Multiple-

CiteScore

5.40

自引率

4.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Motivation and Emotion publishes articles on human motivational and emotional phenomena that make theoretical advances by linking empirical findings to underlying processes. Submissions should focus on key problems in motivation and emotion, and, if using non-human participants, should contribute to theories concerning human behavior. Articles should be explanatory rather than merely descriptive, providing the data necessary to understand the origins of motivation and emotion, to explicate why, how, and under what conditions motivational and emotional states change, and to document that these processes are important to human functioning.A range of methodological approaches are welcome, with methodological rigor as the key criterion. Manuscripts that rely exclusively on self-report data are appropriate, but published articles tend to be those that rely on objective measures (e.g., behavioral observations, psychophysiological responses, reaction times, brain activity, and performance or achievement indicators) either singly or combination with self-report data.The journal generally does not publish scale development and validation articles. However, it is open to articles that focus on the post-validation contribution that a new measure can make. Scale development and validation work therefore may be submitted if it is used as a necessary prerequisite to follow-up studies that demonstrate the importance of the new scale in making a theoretical advance.