{"title":"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?","authors":"Kevin Winter, Kai Epstude","doi":"10.1007/s11031-022-09979-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 <i>N</i> = 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.</p>","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":"{\"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\":\"<p><p>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 <i>N</i> = 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.</p>\",\"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}","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}
Motivational consequences of counterfactual mindsets: Does counterfactual structure influence the use of conservative or risky tactics?
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.
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.