Skip to main content
Log in

A regulatory focus perspective on reputational concerns: The impact of prevention-focused self-regulation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Motivation and Emotion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The hyper-sociality found in the human species is unequivocally manifested in their special sensitivity about reputation. In the present contribution, individuals’ reputational concerns are examined from the perspective of one prominent motivational approach: regulatory focus theory. Specifically, individual differences in prevention and promotion focus are related to reputational concerns. Building on the assumption that prevention-focused individuals are sensitive to and concerned with oughts and social expectations, it is expected that prevention-focused individuals are particularly concerned regarding their reputation. In line with this assumption, Study 1 documents a positive relation between individual differences in prevention focus and reputational concerns (beyond the Big Five and perceived stress). In Study 2, individuals are exposed to a subtle reputation cue (i.e., stylized watching eyes). It is documented that prevention-focused individuals specifically react to this cue in that they donate more money when such a cue is present. This finding is replicated in an additional sample and shown to be independent of the Big Five. In sum, the present work contributes to a better understanding of basic motivational orientations regarding reputational concerns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Sample sizes in the present contribution were determined to achieve at least 80 % power to detect a medium effect at an alpha-level of .05 (two-tailed) if an effect is present (cf. Cohen 1988) and were also influenced by the research project budget. Those participants who did not respond to every scale were excluded from reporting on sample sizes and analyses. All scales applied in the studies are reported.

  2. Sex did not significantly moderate the main results in the present contribution (all ps > .29).

  3. The items “I wish to have a good reputation” and “I try to work hard on my reputation” were removed from the reputational concerns index given that these items do not measure reputational concerns but general striving for a good reputation. Removing the items did not affect the results in any way. Of note, both items were positively correlated with prevention (rs > .17, ps < .01) and promotion focus (rs > .13, ps < .08) in all three samples, suggesting that promotion-focused individuals are also motivated to approach a positive reputation. See General Discussion regarding this point.

  4. In Study 2, Sample 1, social desirability (Crowne and Marlowe, 1960) was also assessed. Social desirability did not significantly influence the results (neither as a control variable nor as a moderator in two- or three-way interactions; ps > .24).

References

  • Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). “I” seek pleasures and “we” avoid pains: The role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, R. D. (1987). The biology of moral systems. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J., & Bernheim, B. D. (2009). Social image and the 50–50 norm: A theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects. Econometrica, 77, 1607–1636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70, 1–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, G. E., Katok, E., & Zwick, R. (1998). Dictator game giving: Rules of fairness versus acts of kindness. International Journal of Game Theory, 27, 269–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brudermann, T., Bartel, G., Fenzl, T., & Seebauer, S. (2014). Eyes on social norms: A field study on an honor system for newspaper sale. Theory and Decision. doi:10.1007/s11238-014-9460-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, T. C., & Hare, B. (2007). Engineering human cooperation. Human Nature, 18, 88–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cai, W., Huang, X., Wu, S., & Kou, Y. (2015). Dishonest behavior is not affected by an image of watching eyes. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36, 110–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbon, C., & Hesslinger, V. M. (2011). Bateson et al.’s (2006) cues-of-being-watched paradigm revisited. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 70, 203–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & Blaney, P. H. (1977). Perceived arousal, focus of attention, and avoidance behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 154–162.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385–396.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 894–908.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, W. A., Raye, C. L., & Johnson, M. K. (2005). Neural correlates of evaluation associated with promotion and prevention regulatory focus. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 5, 202–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973). From Jerusalem to Jericho’: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Am I respected or not? Inclusion and reputation as issues in group membership. Social Justice Research, 18, 121–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emler, N. (1990). A social psychology of reputation. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 171–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernest-Jones, M., Nettle, D., & Bateson, M. (2010). Effects of eye images on everyday cooperative behavior: A field experiment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32, 172–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137–140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Schneider, F. (2010). Eyes are on us, but nobody cares: Are eye cues relevant for strong reciprocity?. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 277, 1315–1323.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, M., Cheng, J. T., & Willer, R. (2012). Gossip as an effective and low-cost form of punishment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M., & Buss, A. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, L., & Stopa, L. (2008). Private and public self-awareness in social anxiety. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 39, 57–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gervais, W., & Norenzayan, A. (2012). Like a camera in the sky? Thinking about God increases public self-awareness and socially desirable responding. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 298–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich, T., Medvec, V., & Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own actions and appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 211–222.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haley, K. J., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2005). Nobody’s watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 245–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–46). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (2012a). Beyond pleasure and pain: How motivation works. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (2012b). Regulatory focus theory. In P. A. van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 483–504). London: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory—Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jolij, J. & de Haan, T. (2014). Being watched doesn’t make you nicer: No effect of visible and invisible eye primes on prosocial behavior in a masked priming study. In Working Paper, Department of Experimental Psychology. University of Groningen, Netherlands.

  • Keller, J., & Pfattheicher, S. (2011). Vigilant self-regulation, cues of being watched and cooperativeness. European Journal of Personality, 25, 363–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J., & Pfattheicher, S. (2013). The compassion-hostility-paradox: The interplay of vigilant, prevention-focused self-regulation, compassion and hostility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1518–1529.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • King-Casas, B., Tomlin, D., Anen, C., Camerer, C. F., Quartz, S. R., & Montague, P. R. (2005). Getting to know you: Reputation and trust in a two-person economic exchange. Science, 308, 78–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lamba, S., & Mace, R. (2010). People recognise when they are really anonymous in an economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 271–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1122–1134.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, P., Chasteen, A. L., & Wong, C. (2005). Age and regulatory focus determine preferences for health-related role models. Psychology and Aging, 20, 376–389.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive and negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 854–864.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H. R. (1978). The effect of mere presence on social facilitation: An unobtrusive test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 389–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mifune, N., Hashimoto, H., & Yamagishi, T. (2010). Altruism toward in-group members as a reputation mechanism. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 109–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milinski, M., Semmann, D., & Krambeck, H. (2002). Reputation helps solve the tragedy of the commons. Nature, 415, 424–426.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Milinski, M., Semmann, D., Krambeck, H., & Marotzke, J. (2006). Stabilizing the earth’s climate is not a losing game: Supporting evidence from public goods experiments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 3994–3998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molden, D. C., Lee, A. Y., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Motivations for promotion and prevention. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 169–187). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nettle, D., Harper, Z., Kidson, A., Stone, R., Penton-Voak, I. S., & Bateson, M. (2013). The watching eyes effect in the Dictator Game: It’s not how much you give, it’s being seen to give something. Evolution and Human Behavior, 43, 35–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1998). Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature, 393, 573–577.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oda, R., Niwa, Y., Honma, A., & Hiraishi, K. (2011). An eye-like painting enhances the expectation of a good reputation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32, 166–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfattheicher, S., & Keller, J. (2013). Vigilant self-regulation and costly punishment in public goods situations. European Journal of Personality, 27, 346–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfattheicher, S., & Keller, J. (2014). Towards a biopsychological understanding of costly punishment: The role of basal cortisol. PloS one, 9(1), e85691.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pfattheicher, S., & Keller, J. (in press). The watching eyes phenomenon: The role of a sense of being seen and public self-awareness. European Journal of Social Psychology.

  • Pfattheicher, S., & Sassenrath, C. (2014). A regulatory focus perspective on eating behavior: How promotion and prevention focus relates to emotional, external, and restrained eating. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfattheicher, S., & Schindler, S. (in press). Understanding the dark side of costly punishment: The impact of individual differences in everyday sadism and existential threat. European Journal of Personality.

  • Raihani, N. J., & Bshary, R. (2012). A positive effect of flowers rather than eye images in a large-scale, cross-cultural dictator game. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 279, 3556–3564.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rege, M., & Telle, K. (2004). The impact of social approval and framing on cooperation in public good situations. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1625–1644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, G. (1998). Competitive altruism: From reciprocity to the handicap principle. Proceeding of the Royal Society, 265, 427–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnuerch, R., & Gibbons, H. (2014). A review of neurocognitive mechanisms of social conformity. Social Psychology, 45, 466–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Distinguishing levels of approach and avoidance: An analysis using regulatory focus theory. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 489–503). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholer, A., & Higgins, E. T. (2011). Promotion and prevention systems: Regulatory focus dynamics within self-regulatory hierarchies. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 143–161). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper and Brothers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonsohn, U. (2013). Just post it the lesson from two cases of fabricated data detected by statistics alone. Psychological Science, 24, 1875–1888.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, A., & Barclay, P. (2013). Eye images increase generosity, but not for long: The limited effect of a false cue. Evolution and Human Behavior, 5, 317–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tane, K., & Takezawa, M. (2011). Perception of human face does not induce cooperation in darkness. Letters on Evolutionary Behavioral Science, 2, 24–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bommel, M., Van Prooijen, J., Elffers, H., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2012). Be aware to care: Public self-awareness leads to a reversal of the bystander effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 926–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bommel, M., van Prooijen, J., Elffers, H., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2014). Intervene to be seen: The power of a camera in attenuating the bystander effect. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 459–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rompay, T. J., Vonk, D. J., & Fransen, M. L. (2009). The eye of the camera effects of security cameras on prosocial behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 60–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Vugt, M., Roberts, G., & Hardy, C. (2007). Competitive altruism: Development of reputation-based cooperation in groups. In R. Dunbar & L. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 531–540). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Unterstanding self-regulation. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and application (pp. 1–9). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vohs, K. D., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2003). Self-regulation and extended now: Controlling the self alters the subjective experience of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 217–230.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wedekind, C., & Braithwaite, V. A. (2002). The long-term benefits of human generosity in indirect reciprocity. Current Biology, 12, 1012–1015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Pfattheicher.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 62 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pfattheicher, S. A regulatory focus perspective on reputational concerns: The impact of prevention-focused self-regulation. Motiv Emot 39, 932–942 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-015-9501-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-015-9501-2

Keywords

Navigation