Individuals‘ regulatory focus affects their information processing. Promotion focused individuals attend especially to ‗positive‘ accounting information such as information concerning attained and collectable amounts; whereas prevention focused individuals attend especially to ‗negative‘ accounting information, e.g., information concerning unattained and uncollectable amounts. Regulatory fit intensifies the effects of promotion focus versus prevention focus on information processing and has a persuasiveness effect (persuasion fit) on information processed. Thus, it can be expected that individuals with different regulatory focus will make different judgment under the effect of persuasion fit.
Experiment 1 required participants to make judgment in three related sections to form a final judgment. Participants were presented with messages framed to match with promotion or prevention focus. The priming of regulatory focus adapted methods described in Cesario et al. (2008) (see Section 7.2) that guide subjects to consider motivational reasons intensively by choosing among them in a manner that fitted with promotion or prevention focus. The message framings were adapted from the distinctive gain / hits and loss / misses frames of regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997). Two sets of messages were produced that describe the same position using either ‗hits‘ framing (e.g., half paid) or
‗misses‘ framing (e.g., half not paid yet). ‗Hits‘ framed messages that fit with promotion focus will be considered as more persuasive and thus lead to higher estimation regarding collectable amounts and collectability of target amounts. Prevention focused individuals will be more persuaded by ‗misses‘ framed messages and make lower estimation regarding collectable amounts and collectability of target amounts.
The manipulation of message framings to induce fit and misfit among participants was accomplished in Experiment 1a. The effectiveness of the manipulations applied was confirmed by validity checks (see section 7.7).
A summary of results of hypotheses testing is presented in Table 7.17 (on next page).
In the subscriptions section (Experiment 1a), participants with different regulator foci made different judgments under the effect of persuasion fit in the likelihood assessment task. Promotion focused participants, as more concerned with information pertaining collectability, indicated higher likelihood than prevention focused participants and under the effect of persuasion fit, the differences were significant (one-tail sig. = 0.026). In the
following estimation judgment on collectable amount, persuasion fit was found to improve the persuasiveness of ‗misses‘ messages among participants primed with prevention focus.
Table 7.17 Summary of results of hypotheses testing in Experiment 1
H1: Promotion focused people are more sensitive to and tend to be primarily concerned with
‗positive‘ accounting information; whereas, prevention focused people are more sensitive to and tend to be primarily concerned with ‗negative‘ accounting information.
H1a: Therefore, individuals with different regulatory foci will make different judgments as a result of differences in their sensitivities to ‗positive‘
versus ‗negative‘ accounting information processed. H2: Message matching improves the persuasiveness of positive accounting information among promotion focused individuals.
H2a: in likelihood assessments; and, Exp 1a-1 H2a Rejected
H2b: in estimations. Exp 1a-3 H2b Rejected
H3: Message matching improves the persuasiveness of negative accounting information among prevention focused individuals.
H3a: in likelihood assessments; and, Exp 1a-1 H3a Accepted
H3b: in estimations. Exp 1a-3 H3b Accepted
H4: The effect of persuasion fit created by message matching affects the persuasiveness of accounting information processed and leads to variations in judgments among people.
H4a: in likelihood assessments; and, Exp 1a-1 H4a Accepted
H4b: in estimations. Exp 1a-3 H4b Rejected
H11: Individuals are more confident about their judgment when induced with regulatory fit.
H11a: in likelihood assessment; and, Exp 1a-2 Exp 1b-3
H11a(i) H11a(ii)
Rejected Accepted
H11b: in final recommendation. Exp 1c H11b Rejected
H12: Individuals are likely to take more careful thinking in processing the messages when induced with regulatory misfit, and therefore, there will be no difference between judgments by individuals with different regulatory foci.
H12a: in likelihood assessments; and, Exp 1a-1 H12a(i) Accepted
H12b: in estimations. Exp 1a-3 H12b(i) Accepted
All participants received same case information presented in a histogram in the donations section (Experiment 1b). Differences in judgments among participants were found to be associated with their experience of regulatory fit / misfit induced in earlier section (Experiment 1a). Participants‘ experience of regulatory fit / misfit in prior task
performance, as manipulated in Experiment 1a, continued to impact on individuals‘
judgments in Experiment 1b. In the first estimation task, the difference in individuals‘
earlier experience of regulatory fit versus misfit led to significantly different judgments made (sig. = 0.03) among promotion focused participants. Their responses also signify a possible rebound effect of regulatory fit / misfit being carried into this task. Promotion focused individuals who were induced with fit in prior section made the lowest estimation on the amount of donations to be received among all treatment groups; whereas those induced with misfit made the highest estimation. In the second task (likelihood assessment), a similar rebound in judgments were detected among prevention focused participants. Those who were induced with regulatory fit in prior section suggested the highest probability. The results suggest that regulatory fit and misfit can be carried over to affect later judgments, which may however, have a rebound effect on judgments.
Although H1a concerning the direct effect of regulatory focus on judgments was rejected, responses were congruent with the prediction that promotion focused participants would be more attentive to ‗positive‘ / ‗hits‘ messages; whereas prevention focused participants would be more attentive to ‗negative‘ / ‗misses‘ messages. Hence, the main hypothesis concerning the effect of regulatory focus on individuals‘ sensitivity to ‗positive‘ or
‗negative‘ accounting information (H1) is supported by results obtained in this experiment.
Participants‘ confidence in judgments across three sections was correlated. Confidence was building up for those experiencing fit as the experiment progressed, and it was impaired by experience of misfit. Promotion focused participants experiencing fit in Experiment 1a were the most confident in their judgment in Experiment 1b; whereas prevention focused participants who had misfit experience in the early stage were least confident.
In conclusion, the results provide support for the hypothesis that promotion focused and prevention focused individuals made different judgments depending on how relevant information is framed. Consistent with the predictions, messages described in ‗hits‘
framing were more persuasive to individuals primed with promotion focus, which led to higher estimations (on both amount and likelihood); messages described in ‗misses‘ were more persuasive to individuals primed with prevention focus, which led to lower estimations. Hence, the findings suggest that information became more persuasive under the effect of regulatory fit from message matching.