1
Impact of regulatory focus on emotional experiences
within an alliance setting:
impact of chronic regulatory focus and contract design
Jakub Hon
S2559498
MSc Ba Strategic Innovation Management
Supervisor: prof. dr. D.L.M. Faems
Co-assessor: Georgiana Balau
Faculty of Economics and Business
University of Groningen
2
Abstract
3
Content
1 Introduction ... 4
2 Theoretical background ... 5
2.1 Self-discrepancy theory ... 5
2.2 Introduction to regulatory focus ... 6
2.2.1 Emotions and regulatory focus ... 7
2.3 Regulatory focus in alliance settings ... 8
2.4 Contract Framing ... 9
2.4.1 Promotion Framed Contract ... 10
2.4.2 Prevention Framed Contract ... 11
2.5 Interaction of chronic and momentary focus ... 11
3 Methodology ... 12
3.1 Design of the Experiment ... 13
3.2 Data ... 14
3.2.1 Dependent Variables ... 14
3.2.2 Independent Variable... 14
3.2.3 Moderator – dummy variable ... 14
4 Results ... 15
4.1 Process ... 15
4.1.1 Factor analysis ... 15
4.1.2 Regression ... 16
5 Discussion & Conclusion ... 18
5.1 Discussion ... 18
5.1.1 Why hypothesis were not confirmed? ... 19
5.2 Limitations and suggestions for future research ... 19
5.2.1 Low Cronbach Alpha and Adjusted R squares ... 19
5.2.2 Multiple control of emotion ... 20
5.2.3 Possible manipulation by RFQ ... 20
5.2.4 Control group ... 20
5.3 Implications ... 20
5.4 Conclusion ... 21
4
1 Introduction
Alliances are prevalent in the current business world, which comes as a little surprise taking into account possible gains and benefits for both parties. Incentives to form partnerships include higher growth rates, faster innovation process, and shared risk (Elmuti & Kathawala, 2001). On the turbulent markets alliances are related to the innovation efforts, reduction time to market, ability to react to fast changing conditions (Kogut & Kulatilaka, 1994) and mitigation of market uncertainty (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1996).
Despite the increasing popularity (Beamish & Delios, 1997), alliances suffer from relatively high failure rate (Das & Teng, 2000). Apart from exogenous causes, which influence performance of alliance, various endogenous causes are identified too. These commonly include factors such as: a lack of trust, opportunism, cheating, violation of rules and motivational dynamics, and are inherently linked to the behavior of individuals within functioning alliances (Das & Kumar, 2010). Although emotions are an important element, which alongside the others influences individuals’ behavior and relations approach (Weber & Mayer, 2011), studies that focus on emotions of individuals in alliance settings remain rare. The purpose of this study is to contribute to this gap through exploring the extent to which the regulatory focus of individuals influences their emotions experienced within an alliance. Put in more specific terms, the current paper focuses on an interaction between two different origins of the regulatory orientation: momentary and chronic one.
Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT), proposed by Higgins (1997), gives an explanation to motivational dynamics of individuals which influence emotions. According to RFT, the goal-directed behavior is regulated by two distinct settings which employ different strategic inclinations. The theory proposes that
Promotion regulatory focus leads an individual to attain success (nurturance), whereas Prevention regulatory focus stresses the importance of failure avoidance (security). Furthermore, individual´s
regulatory focus orientation might be influenced by a chronic orientation or by a momentary induction of specific regulatory focus.
5
In the first part of the study the RFT together with self-discrepancy theory, as its main building block, will be introduced. Subsequently, the effect of RFT on emotions, possible implications of RFT for functioning alliances and the way regulatory focus orientation can be induced by contracts will be described and analyzed. In order to maintain a clear and logical structure, the following parts of the paper will have its spotlight on the experimental part and will describe both the setting and the results of the conducted research. The final sections of the study will comprise a comprehensive discussion and conclusion summarizing the findings.
2 Theoretical background
The focal theory of this paper is Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT). To fully understand the foundations of RFT I consider knowledge of self-discrepancy theory as essential, hence it will be introduced first. Right after the necessary overview of RFT will be provided. RFT distinguishes two main orientations: promotion and prevention. Each of the orientations relate to dissimilar emotions which subsequently influence behavior and relation approach. The functioning of an alliance is not led entirely by formal contract, but also by emotions, communication trust, etc. Contracts do have an impact on the emotions experienced by individuals involved in the alliance. Promotion and prevention orientations can be reflected in the contract clauses and each of the orientations can elicit a distinct set of emotions. The next part of the theory section is dedicated to promotion- and prevention-framed contracts and their effects on emotions. Lastly, the effect of the interaction between chronic and momentary prevention focus will be proposed.
2.1 Self-discrepancy theory
The perception that people face discomfort in situations which are not consistent with their beliefs and standards has been proved by various researches in psychology (Thøgersen, 2004). Such a self-inconsistency worsens emotions of individuals. To better understand self-inconsistencies, Higgins formulated Self-discrepancy theory, which distinguishes two different types of self-guides. Self-guides are considered as the internalized standards which induce certain mode of self-regulation in order to achieve a goal. People regulate themselves in fundamentally different ways. They can be motivated by (1) ideal self-guides, representing individual´s aspirations, hopes and wishes and (2) ought self-guides, representing individual´s duties, obligations and responsibilities (Higgins, 1987).
6
ought self-guides causes an absence of a negative outcome, while discrepancy produces a presence of negative outcome (Crowe & Higgins, 1997, pp. 4,5).
It is proposed that distinct types of discrepancies and congruencies to end states produce different discomfort and satisfaction. Higgins in his series of studies (Higgins et al., 1986; Higgins & Tykocinski, 1992) proved this proposal. Congruencies to ideal states (presence of positive outcome) produce cheerfulness-related emotions, i.e. happiness, satisfaction, while discrepancies in ideal states (absence of positive outcome) produce dejection-related emotions, i.e. dissatisfaction, disappointment, discouragement, sadness. Congruencies to ought states (absence of negative outcome) produce quiescence-related emotions, i.e. relaxation, calmness, and discrepancies in ought states (presence of negative outcome), and are associated with agitation-related emotions, i.e. fear, edginess, feeling tense, feeling threatened (Higgins, 1987, 1989a; Higgins et al., 1997).
Different types of regulation involve different types of regulatory focus. Moreover, an ideal self-regulation strength is connected with a strength of promotion focus and ought self-self-regulation strength influences strength of prevention focus. In the next section the principles of RFT and its impact on strategic inclinations, emotional vulnerabilities and sensitivities to events will be described.
2.2 Introduction to regulatory focus
The hedonic principle, avoiding pain and approaching pleasure, prevails in motivational research over the past decades. This simplification often inhibited the researchers from exploring what was beyond the pleasure and pain concept, as well as distinguishing between diverse ways and means of approaching desired end-states, eventually preventing undesired end-states (Higgins, 1997).
In pursuit of understanding how people approach pleasure and avoid pain, Higgins in his past work (Higgins, 1997; Higgins et al., 1997) developed concept of Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT), which is aligned with the Hedonic principle, but in addition explains motivational dynamics and subsequent strategies connected with an achievement of a desired end-state. RFT states that people operate hedonic principle in two different ways: promotion focus and prevention focus. Each of the mentioned ways of operation uses different ways to control pleasure and pain, and hence has a significant impact on emotions, behavior and thoughts.
In order to approach pleasure and avoid pain, people have to learn to behave and control. Nevertheless, the gained knowledge varies for different types of needs, such as nurturance and security, and thus involves different regulatory focus. “Nurturance-related regulation involves a promotion focus whereas
security related focus activates prevention focus” (Crowe & Higgins, 1997, p. 14). Promotion focus, as
7
Regulatory focus proposes qualitatively different strategies and means of regulation towards a goal for each regulatory focus type. Under promotion focus individuals want to “ensure hits and prevent errors
of omission". Strategy is to make sure that all possibilities of attaining a goal were probed and none of
them remained unexplored. In another words, an individual has a predisposition to approach matches. Conversely, prevention focus “ensures correct rejections and insures against errors of commission”. By tendency to minimize costs, prevention focus hampers selecting wrong options and insures that the selected option was a right one. A person has an inclination to avoid all mismatches.
Those inclinations were proved in a signal detection task, where participants had to decide if they recognize the signal or not (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). Based on the RFT, individuals in promotion focus should have tendencies to give an affirmative answer to the signals as long as they want to “attain hits
and avoid errors of omission” (recognize the right signal and prevent omitting the right signal).
Conversely, the participants with prevention focus were supposed to have inclination to answer negatively, since they wanted to “insure correct rejections and insure against error of commission” (avoid the false signal and fail to avoid a false signal). The obtained results demonstrated that promotion focused individuals had risky bias in saying “Yes”, and at the same time prevention focused participants were inclined to answer “No”.
It is also important to notice that both regulatory foci orientations could be associated with one single person. Depending on an interaction with the other people and situations a person may involve different types of regulatory focus. Hence regulatory orientation could be either momentarily induced by manipulation or chronically associated with a person per se. In order to measure chronic regulatory focus Higgins et al. (2001) developed Regulatory focus questionnaire (RFQ) based on a reflection of individual’s history in promotion or prevention goal attainment. Subjective historical success of individuals in achieving goals by either eagerness or vigilance means causes promotion or prevention pride. Both prides are then taken as the strategic orientations for getting to the new end-state; the RFQ will be discussed in the methodology part.
2.2.1 Emotions and regulatory focus
8
A strength of emotional experiences tends to be positively dependent, firstly, on a psychological importance of a goal for an individual. With higher psychological importance emotions are more outspoken (Higgins, 1989b). The relations between discrepancy or congruency to goals and emotional experiences are moderated by the psychological importance of the goal. A second aspect which influences strength of emotions is magnitude of individual’s self-regulation effectiveness elicited in order to meet ideal or ought self-guide. Negative emotions are more prevalent with lower self-regulation effectivity (Strauman & Higgins, 1988).
As has been mentioned in the introduction, the purpose of this study is to test how regulatory focus influences emotions of an individual within an exchange and mainly how chronic regulatory focus and momentarily induced regulatory focus interact together. It is necessary to mention why regulatory focus is an important variable for the individuals in alliance setting, to which extent the emotions are important for functioning of alliance, and what the role of contract in the alliance settings is.
2.3 Regulatory focus in alliance settings
Inter-organizational relationships, heavily studied by scholars, are crucial for gaining a competitive advantage from an alliance. However, alliances still suffer from a high rate of failure, hence understanding of the underlying reasons is required. Exploring alliance settings from a RFT perspective allows an explanation of the endogenous element of alliances, which is motivational dynamics. As Das&Kumar (2010) proposed in their research, and demonstrated on the examples, motivational dynamics is an important factor in partnership. Not only does it set a goal, but also the means of attaining that goal; the expectations towards a partner influence the whole exchange. Emotional experiences are integrally connected with behavior and relation approach.
Emotions play an essential role in communication and govern the relation between two partners. Promotion regulatory focus is connected with rather positive emotions because the impact of cheerfulness-related emotions is higher than that of dejection-related. A vision of experiencing happiness when the ideal state is reached motivates individuals to do as much as possible to reach that point. Thus a promotion orientation produces a more risky behavior, higher flexibility, creativity and explorative processing style. On the contrary, prevention regulatory focus is associated with avoiding mismatches, since the influence of agitated-related emotions is higher than quiescence-related emotions. In order to prevent the wrong choices, an individual is more vigilant and risk-averse (Das & Teng, 2000; Friedman & Förster, 2001; Higgins et al., 2001; Shah et al., 1998).
9
function as a ground for closeness and commitment. (Gross & John, 2003; Idson et al., 2000; Weber & Mayer, 2011).
The importance of emotional experiences of individuals in alliances is unquestionable, due to their impact on other variables such as behavior and relation approach. Regulatory focus theory in past research proved its propositions and now there is a distinction in emotional experiences for different regulatory focus orientations. The main drivers of magnitude of emotions are discrepancies or congruencies to self-guides intensified by psychological importance of a goal. In the past research there were very often discrepancies or congruencies to self-guides connected with self-regulation ineffectiveness or effectiveness respectively. In this matter alliances are different. People can fail to attain a goal because of opportunistic behavior of the partner, which is not related to their self-regulation at all. However, since alliances are crucial for many companies, the success of people involved in alliance is inseparably dependent on the success of alliance. From this perspective actual ideal/ought-selves of individuals will be connected to the performance. Also as long as carrier advancement and bonuses are related to success of alliance, one can also expect psychological importance of alliance for individual. Thus we hypothesize that regulatory focus of individuals involved in alliances will have the same impact on emotional experiences as it was suggested by the previous research.
Hypothesis 1a: In case of a failure to meet a goal in an alliance, the stronger the prevalence of chronic promotion orientation over the prevention orientation, the higher dejection-related emotional experiences of an individual.
Hypothesis 2a: In case of a failure to meet a goal in an alliance, the stronger the prevalence of chronic prevention orientation over the promotion orientation, the higher agitation-related emotional experiences of an individual.
2.4 Contract Framing
Promotion or prevention regulatory focus influences the way individuals reach goals and also predicts emotions when the desired output is either attained or not. Since framing of the contract induces momentary regulatory focus, analyzing the contract from the perspective of the RFT helps to understand when to use safeguards in the contract and how to frame it to set up a functioning alliance (Weber et al., 2011).
10
this study. To behave opportunistically, a firm does not have to necessarily breach the formal contract; it is enough to just disrupt the spirit between the parties. Academics perceive opportunism as not only engaging in behavior which is forbidden (active opportunism), but also as a failure to meet obligations (passive opportunism) (Das & Kumar, 2010).
Given that, the specific regulatory focus might be induced and primed by contract framing (Higgins et al., 2001; Roney et al., 1995); furthermore by framing it is possible to influence emotional experiences in alliance, and consequently behavior and relation approach of an individual. In the following sections two distinct types of contract framing based on RFT will be introduced.
2.4.1 Promotion Framed Contract
In promotion framed contract the goal is considered as a gain and contract focuses more on aligning interests than on the details of processing task. As long as the goal is clearly defined it is unnecessary to describe in detail how the cooperation should be governed, desired output and general milestones are mainly mentioned. The contingent payment is framed as a bonus or reward and it is accompanied with a small upfront payment. Promotion framed contract also stresses open-end cooperation (Weber & Mayer, 2011; Weber et al., 2011).
The emphasis on a big picture as opposed to on the details only gives both parties an opportunity to be flexible and creative. Past research (Friedman & Förster, 2001) proved that framing of a task increases novelty of the ideas. It was also confirmed that when promotion focus was induced, the participants tried more alternatives to attain the goal than in the prevention frame. The fear of omission drives participants to try all the possible ways to achieve a goal regardless of costs (Crowe & Higgins, 1997).
11
motivates forgiveness in promotion setting by stressing benefits which may still be reached within an exchange (Molden & Finkel, 2010).
2.4.2 Prevention Framed Contract
In prevention setting contract is loss-framed. Motivation of a firm to attain a goal is to prevent paying a penalty. The goal is framed as a need to have, a minimum to attain. A firm wants to be sure that both parties will not behave opportunistically. Monitoring, regulation and vigilance are accented within the contracts which put emphasis on the process of exchange specifications (Weber & Mayer, 2011).
Emotions experienced within partnership can vary from highly negative to slightly positive. Expected negative emotions will not develop trustworthy, warm partnership and the relation is more business-like. Low closeness within an exchange causes a low satisfaction in the partnership (Gross & John, 2003). Prevention priming causes higher sensitivity to negative behavior, i.e. opportunism in alliances, thus the probability of spotting an adverse behavior is higher. In the prevention setting opportunism is taken as a risk, mismatch which has to be minimized, since in risk–return dilemma prevention oriented individuals focus mostly on minimizing risk (Friedman & Förster, 2001). Partnership is largely governed by contract which substitutes relationship governance. When the contract is breached, a firm will have incentives to remain in the partnership, due to investment already made and a need to secure it from even bigger loses. The company is committed to an exchange by the means of the common investment and the closed contract, hence the forgiveness process will be in the business-like manner (Molden & Finkel, 2010).
2.5 Interaction of chronic and momentary focus
12
Hypothesis 1b: Promotion manipulation positively moderates the relationship between prevalence of chronic promotion orientation over chronic prevention orientation and experienced dejection-related emotions in case of failure to meet goal.
Hypothesis 2b: Prevention manipulation negatively moderates the relationship between prevalence of chronic prevention orientation over chronic promotion orientation and experienced agitation-related emotions in case of failure to meet goal.
Figure I: Conceptual model
3 Methodology
The purpose of this research is to address a problem which has not been fully explored by the scholars and yet is faced by numerous companies and actors in the business world. From that perspective the theory testing approach is most suitable (van Aken et al., 2012). Although some findings about the impact of different tasks and contract framings on participants and their emotions can be found in the previous RFT literature (Roney et al., 1995; Weber & Mayer, 2011), the previous research does not offer any findings associated with interaction between chronically and momentarily induced regulatory focus.
13
3.1 Design of the Experiment
Firstly the participants of the experiment were asked to fill in RFQ about their past subjective success, in order to induce promotion or prevention pride. Afterwards the students were presented with a contract either in promotion or prevention framing, so as to induce momentary regulatory focus. Students were put into the role of representatives of BigBank. Bigbank together with a technology company @Work was jointly developing new online B2B financial platform. Within an alliance @Work was supposed to further explore the technology behind the platform, and Bigbank agreed to invest and contribute its resources, knowledge and access to its business channels. Both parties could benefit from the alliance and the expected additional revenue was €5 million annually.
Promotion framed contract consisted of clauses stressing the bonus as a reward (open ended contract): The collaboration is open-ended and, based on the results of annual evaluations, partners
agree to explore new business opportunities.
BIGBANK will provide access to 100 distribution points. For each additional set of 10
distribution points, BIGBANK will receive a bonus of 10,000 euro with a maximum bonus of 50,000 euro.
On the contrary, the prevention framed contract included clauses related to limited length and penalty, in case the goal was missed:
The collaboration ends after one year, except if partners decide to continue the arrangement
based on the results of an end-of-year evaluation.
BIGBANK will provide access to 100 distribution points. If BIGBANK fails to provide access,
for each set of 10 distribution points short it will have to pay a penalty of 10,000 euro with a maximum penalty of 50,000 euro.
After reading the scenario and contract, the students had to respond to opportunistic behaviour within alliance from @Work. Participants received an information that @Work had internal problems and meeting the agreed deadline was unlikely. In addition, @Work´s communication became poor and vague over the past weeks.
dejection-14
related elements – disappointment, discouragement and sadness – and three agitation-related elements – agitation, edginess and tension.
At the end of the experiment a manipulation check was performed. The students answered four questions. Two were asking about participants’ orientation towards positive versus negative outcomes and another two were related to the maximization of a financial outcome versus minimization of financial loses. Again, a 5-level Likert item scale was used as a measure.
3.2 Data
3.2.1 Dependent Variables
Agitation-related emotional frequency score (AREFC): As the measures of agitation-related
emotions the scores on 5 item Likert scale will be used, with a distinction for different emotion types, i.e. agitation, edginess and sadness. Scores represent emotions which were invoked in response to inability to provide relevant information to BigBank´s distribution partners. High scores for these types of emotions are usually connected with prevention focus.
Dejection-related Emotions emotional frequency score (DREFC): As the measures of
dejection-related emotions, the scores on 5 item Likert scale will be used for distinct emotion types, i.e. disappointment, discouragement and tension. Scores represent emotions which the participants felt in relation to their inability to provide relevant information to BigBank´s distribution partners. High scores for this type of emotions are usually connected with promotion focus.
3.2.2 Independent Variable
Prevalence of chronic regulatory focus (PRO-PRE chronic): chronic orientation towards either
promotion or prevention is measured by RFQ. Students rated the occurrence on the scale of 11 statements related to their past history of success and failure. Six questions are promotion scale items, and the remaining five are prevention scale items. By averaging both of the scores promotion and prevention chronic orientation scale was counted. Since participants could have high scores on both scales, as a predictor of orientation was used difference between promotion and prevention scales (Leone et al., 2005)
3.2.3 Moderator – dummy variable
Momentary regulatory focus manipulation (manipulation (1/0)): Independently from the scores
15
4 Results
4.1 Process
In order to assess the relation between variables, several steps had to be taken before. Firstly, as the principal component of the analysis, the answered questions from the questionnaire were reduced into two independent variables and two dependent variables. Since the effect of one independent variable on several dependent variables was tested, which has also been predicted to be moderated by the dummy variable, linear regression has been used. Prior to conducting linear regression, the data was checked for all 4 basic assumptions: linearity, statistical independence, homoscedascity and normality (Montgomery et al., 2012). All predictors were also mean centred to prevent multicollinearity and provide an accurate interpretation of main and moderation effects (Cronbach, 1987; Holmbeck, 2002).
4.1.1 Factor analysis
Principal component analysis (PCA) is used to decrease number of inputs from answered questions into a smaller set of variables (Jolliffe, 2002). First set of questions (n=11) in the experiment was based on RFQ, which measured promotion and prevention scale. During PCA only 4 out of 6 predicted promotion oriented variables and 4 out of 5 prevention oriented variables were loaded into 2 separate distinct constructs, promotion and prevention scale. During PCA the recommended setting were used: Kaiser´s extractions and Oblimin rotation (Higgins et al., 2001). Both promotion and prevention scales were calculated as the averages from the loaded variables. The subsequent test of reliability discovered poor internal consistency of promotion scale (Cronbach´s α= 0,5) and good internal consistency of prevention scale (Cronbach´s α= 0,744). Since promotion and prevention questions were answered independently of each other, participants could score high/low on both scales at the same time. The final independent variable, prevalence of chronic regulatory focus, is counted as a difference between promotion and prevention scales (Pro-Pre).
16
4.1.2 Regression
After testing variables for linearity, statistical independence, homoscedascity and normality, all predictors were mean centred and entered to multiple linear regressions. For each dependent variable, AREFC and DREFC, 2 models were run.
4.1.2.1 Agitation-related emotional frequency score (AREFC)
In model 1 the main effect of prevalence of chronic regulatory focus on the AREFC was tested. Prevalence of chronic regulatory focus, as predicted, has a negative significant effect on the AREFC (p=0,028) which confirms Hypothesis H1b. In model 2 the direct effect of manipulation was tested and was not found significant (p=0,778). Moreover, the adjusted R-squares, which indicate how much of a variance is explained by model, are rather low (adj.R2
model1=0,03; adj.R2model2=0,023).
4.1.2.2 Dejection-related emotional frequency score (DREFC)
When running regression for DREFC as a dependent variable, the results show no significant findings. The logic of models is the same as in the previous series. In model 1, the direct effect of prevalence of chronic regulatory focus on prevalence of dejection related emotions was tested (p=0,208) and same as .the direct effect of manipulation on DREFC it turned out non-significant (p=0,958). Hypothesis H1a
17
Figure II: Interaction effect Table II: Linear Regression
Interaction effect was tested via split sample method. Dataset was divided based on manipulation groups into promotion manipulated and prevention manipulated group. Afterwards, a new set of linear regressions for both dependent variables (AREFC and DREFC) was conducted. None of obtained results supports Hypotheses H2a and H2b. However, additional one, statistically significant finding was discovered: in promotion manipulated group, prevalence of promotion chronic regulatory over the prevention regulatory focus had a statistically significant negative effect on AREFC (p=0,015), nonetheless the R squared remained below 0,1 (adj. R2
interaction=0,098).
Table III: Interaction effect
18
5 Discussion & Conclusion
In this section I will examine the results obtained from analysis and review possible causes of non-significant findings. Furthermore, I will mention how findings from this research contribute to the existing academic knowledge, and discuss their novelty. Since this study is based on the pilot experiment, the limitations will be extensively elaborated on. Lastly, the conclusion of the contributions of this research will be drawn, and directions for further research will be considered.
5.1 Discussion
Higgins’ work introduced and extensively developed concepts of self-discrepancy and emerging Regulatory Focus Theory. Even though many researchers followed him in the further applications of promotion and prevention regulatory focus, the field of alliances still remained untouched by empirical results. This study addresses emotional experiences of an individual in alliance settings and interaction of the chronic and momentary regulatory focus. In line with the previous research, it has been hypothesized that promotion and prevention focus will be related with the same emotions as it was already proved, and that the relation can be accented by interaction of chronic and momentary regulatory focus.
First series of linear regressions confirmed positive impact of chronic prevention regulatory focus on agitation-related emotions. As predicted, chronic prevention regulatory focus is connected with experiencing rather negative emotions. This discovery is aligned with previous research in which many scholars proved the same impact of prevention regulatory focus on agitation-related emotions (Higgins et al., 2001; Higgins et al., 1997; Leone et al., 2005; Roney et al., 1995). Nevertheless, past research focused mainly on reaction of individuals on their own outputs and did not test emotional experiences in alliances. Hence, self-discrepancy between actual-ought or ideal-ought selves was always closely connected to failure of self-regulation which significantly influences the emotional experiences (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). This research has suggested that self-regulation in/effectiveness is not a necessary factor for eliciting negative emotions.
Examination of interaction effect between chronic and momentary regulatory focus revealed some unpredicted outcome. Promotion manipulation moderates negative effect between prevalence in regulatory focus and agitation-related emotions. The higher chronic prevention focus, the more agitation-related emotions are experienced in a group of promotion framed contract. Purely based on the Regulatory Focus theory one could expect that interaction between prevention focus and prevention manipulation causes this effect.
19
promotion framed contract set positive expectancies, since in case of goal fulfilment parties could receive a bonus. Conversely, prevention framed contract evoked negative expectancies by stressing a penalty in case of failing to attain the goal. Passive opportunistic behavior of the partner violated the positive expectancy of attaining a bonus. Violation of positive expectancies evokes strong negative emotions (Weber & Mayer, 2011). In this research participants´ positive expectations were violated when they discovered passive opportunistic behavior from the counterpart, which affected the probability of a successful goal fulfilment. As has been already established, prevention oriented participants have inclination to experience negative emotion. I believe that the combination of prevention orientation and violation of positive expectation gives a justification for high agitation-related emotions.
5.1.1 Why hypothesis were not confirmed?
Within the research most of the hypotheses were not confirmed. There are several reasons which could justify lack of supportive findings. Firstly, important variable which also influences relation between regulatory focus and distinct emotional experience is psychological significance of a goal. The more important goal, the higher impact of prevention (promotion) prevalence on agitation-related (dejection) emotions is present. (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). It seems that participants simply did not identify themselves with a task, which subsequently resulted in insufficient activation of regulatory focus.
Firstly, lack of activation could be caused by missing valence between participants’ performance and reward. Since the experiment took place in-class within a regular course, students were not monetary incentivized to successfully solve the given problem. Secondly, also the setting of the experiment, alliance between bank and IT company, could play a role and participants could have found it very difficult to identify with task. Most of the previous research was conducted with a use of scenarios related to students’ life. Still, it is beyond the scope of this research to provide hard data which could prove mentioned arguments of why the hypotheses were not confirmed, thus they should be treated merely as suggestions and speculations useful for further experiments in the area.
5.2 Limitations and suggestions for future research
5.2.1 Low Cronbach Alpha and Adjusted R squares
20
When significant results were present, in both cases the variance explained by the model was low. Even though psychological research in predicting human behavior is quite tolerant to low Adjusted R Squares, the generalizability of this findings still remains on a low level.
5.2.2 Multiple control of emotion
There had been no check of emotional experiences made in the study before participants were manipulated. It is hard to determine what exactly caused agitation-related emotions in prevention oriented group. It could be possible that participants with stronger prevention focus over the promotion focus commenced the experiment with more negative emotions. Also recalling subjective past history in RFQ could cause worse emotional experiences. For further research I recommend to measure emotions before experiment starts, right after filling in RFQ and after presence of negative outcome.
5.2.3 Possible manipulation by RFQ
Participants were exposed to a promotion or prevention framed contract immediately after filling in RFQ. By recalling past success participants induced promotion or prevention pride, which consequently caused promotion or prevention regulatory focus (Higgins et al., 2001). This suggests that before the intended manipulation by contract framing, individuals could have been already manipulated by induced promotion or prevention pride. The effect of contract manipulation probably did not negatively harm predicted interactions because dominant regulatory focus causes higher sensitivity to stories, events or tasks in the same regulatory focus orientation. Hence, most probably prevention or promotion pride did not diminish effect of manipulation by contract in prevention or promotion frame in this study. Nonetheless, in order to distil unbiased and reliable results, I recommend to measure scores on RFQ at a different time than right before experiment, same as was done in study of Shah et al. (1998), where chronic regulatory focus of students was measured 2 weeks before the actual experiment took place.
5.2.4 Control group
In current research there was no control group included, which would remain non-manipulated by contract. In the following research I recommend to include a control group in order to better isolate the effect of manipulation and increase the reliability of a study.
5.3 Implications
This study partly confirms effect of Regulatory Focus Theory on alliance performance. Contract clauses seem to have an impact on emotions of an individual, which is an important managerial implication. When managers define a goal of an alliance, they should take into consideration a relevant strategy and subsequently reflect it in a design of contract between the parties. In addition, knowledge of antecedents of their partner’s emotions could help managers solve possible disputes more
21
Further research can draw inspiration from this study and explore Regulatory Focus Theory in alliance settings more in depth. Findings from an analysis suggest the impact of regulatory focus on emotions in an exchange. Researchers can follow-up on them by elaborating in greater detail on which variables influence strength of regulatory focus or self-guides in an alliance. Furthermore, a detailed analysis of effects on regulatory focus orientation of specific clauses could be another interesting topic.
5.4 Conclusion
Alliances in current business environment have a high rate of failure, hence it is important to understand the reasons of such a situation. It has been suggested in this study that possible causes might include different motivational dynamics of individuals involved in exchange. Alliance is about communication, collaboration, trust and emotions between partners. During partnership parties have to interact together and most likely also solve problems which could be caused by the other party. Emotional experiences of individuals when they are confronted with passive opportunistic behavior are crucial, since they have an impact on behavior and relation approach.
The aim of this study was to test whether regulatory focus theory can predict emotional experiences of individuals participating in alliances, and moreover to examine the interaction between their chronic and momentary regulatory focus. Fundamental theory of this research was Regulatory Focus theory. Based on chronic orientation of regulatory focus, promotion or prevention, we expected participants to experience distinct set of negative emotions, dejection or agitation-related. The previous research has been in a phase of stating propositions about emotional experiences in alliance setting (Das & Kumar, 2010; Weber & Mayer, 2011), and so far remained silent about interaction of momentary and chronic regulatory focus in alliance setting.
Emotions as a construct in an alliance are considered an important variable since they can easily influence behaviour and relation approach of partners. Regulatory Focus theory helps us understand distinct types of emotions while individuals approach or miss desired end-state.
In this research participants had to respond to passive opportunistic behaviour from their partner, which strongly precluded the possibility of attaining a goal in alliance. In the experiment setting partner failed to deliver promised outcome within a set deadline. As a consequence, the goal of the whole alliance was endangered, most probably leading to its failure. Undesired status, in which alliance was found, was not due to the lack of self-regulation of participants of our research, but rather due to partner´s passive opportunistic behaviour. It is important to notice that self-regulatory ineffectiveness importantly influences magnitude of experienced emotions (Brockner & Higgins, 2001).
22
chronic prevention regulatory focus over promotion regulatory focus positively influences agitation-related emotions. This relation was also moderated through manipulation by promotion framed contract.
This study was run as an empirical pilot study. Several limitations were discussed and recommendations for a further research were offered. Moreover, as sketched in Weber&Mayer (2011) paper, it appears expedient to combine regulatory focus theory with other theory which describes emotions when expectations are not met, such as expectancy violation theory.
Acknowledgments
23
6 References
Bacon, D. (2004). The contributions of reliability and pretests to effective assessment. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(3).
Beamish, P. W., & Delios, A. (1997). Incidence and propensity of alliance formation. Cooperative
strategies: European perspectives, 103-127.
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 86(1), 35-66.
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communications Monographs, 55(1), 58-79. Cao, Z., & Lumineau, F. (2015). Revisiting the interplay between contractual and relational
governance: A qualitative and meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Operations
Management, 33, 15-42.
Cronbach, L. J. (1987). Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws in analyses recently proposed. Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and
prevention in decision-making. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 69(2), 117-132.
Das, T. K., & Kumar, R. (2010). Regulatory focus and opportunism in the alliance development process. Journal of Management.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. (2000). Instabilities of strategic alliances: An internal tensions perspective.
Organization Science, 11(1), 77-101.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996). Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 7(2), 136-150. Elmuti, D., & Kathawala, Y. (2001). An overview of strategic alliances. Management decision, 39(3),
205-218.
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(6), 1001.
Ghoshal, S., & Moran, P. (1996). Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy
of management Review, 21(1), 13-47.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 85(2), 348.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: a theory relating self and affect. Psychological review, 94(3), 319.
Higgins, E. T. (1989a). Continuities and discontinuities in self‐regulatory and self‐evaluative
24
Higgins, E. T. (1989b). Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer.
Advances in experimental social psychology, 22, 93-136.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American psychologist, 52(12), 1280. Higgins, E. T., Bond, R. N., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1986). Self-discrepancies and emotional
vulnerability: how magnitude, accessibility, and type of discrepancy influence affect. Journal
of personality and social psychology, 51(1), 5.
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(1), 3-23.
Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 66(2), 276.
Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of personality and social psychology, 72(3), 515. Higgins, T., & Tykocinski, O. (1992). Seff-Discrepancies and Biographical Memory: Personality and
Cognition at the Level of Psychological Situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
18(5), 527-535.
Holmbeck, G. N. (2002). Post-hoc probing of significant moderational and mediational effects in studies of pediatric populations. Journal of pediatric psychology, 27(1), 87-96.
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(3), 252-274.
Jolliffe, I. (2002). Principal component analysis: Wiley Online Library.
Kogut, B., & Kulatilaka, N. (1994). Operating flexibility, global manufacturing, and the option value of a multinational network. Management Science, 40(1), 123-139.
Leone, L., Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. (2005). Emotions and decision making: Regulatory focus
moderates the influence of anticipated emotions on action evaluations. Cognition & Emotion,
19(8), 1175-1198.
Molden, D. C., & Finkel, E. J. (2010). Motivations for promotion and prevention and the role of trust and commitment in interpersonal forgiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
46(2), 255-268.
Montgomery, D. C., Peck, E. A., & Vining, G. G. (2012). Introduction to linear regression analysis (Vol. 821): John Wiley & Sons.
Roney, C. J., Higgins, E. T., & Shah, J. (1995). Goals and framing: How outcome focus influences motivation and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), 1151-1160. Shah, J., Higgins, T., & Friedman, R. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: how regulatory
25
Strauman, T. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Self‐discrepancies as predictors of vulnerability to distinct syndromes of chronic emotional distress. Journal of personality, 56(4), 685-707.
Thøgersen, J. (2004). A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and inconsistencies in environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 93-103. van Aken, J., Berends, H., & Van der Bij, H. (2012). Problem solving in organizations: A methodological
handbook for business and management students: Cambridge University Press.
Weber, L., & Mayer, K. J. (2011). Designing effective contracts: exploring the influence of framing and expectations. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 53-75.
Weber, L., Mayer, K. J., & Macher, J. T. (2011). An analysis of extendibility and early termination provisions: the importance of framing duration safeguards. Academy of Management
Journal, 54(1), 182-202.
Weinreich, P. (2003). Identity exploration: Theory into practice. Analysing identity: Cross-cultural,
