This document discusses self-determination theory (SDT) and regulatory focus theory (RFT) as they relate to coaching. It summarizes key concepts from each theory, including:
- SDT posits three innate psychological needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness) and that autonomy supportive contexts nurture intrinsic motivation versus controlling contexts undermining it.
- RFT distinguishes between promotion and prevention focus, where individuals are motivated to achieve goals (promotion) or avoid failures (prevention) and matching feedback to one's focus increases motivation.
The document then describes studies on:
- Autonomy supportive coaching increasing needs satisfaction and motivation more than controlling coaching.
- Framing feedback to match one
3. 1. Organismic systems
Cognitive Psychology: Our perceptions of
the world are a function of environmental
stimulus and mental structures.
Humanistic Psychology: a self unifying
system that responds to experience
and meaning.
4. 2. Dialectic System
Focuses on the development and interaction
between a person and their environment
(social/contextual) where change and conflict are
seen as ongoing necessary processes.
5. „Individuals have natural, innate, and
constructive tendencies to develop an ever
more elaborate and unified sense of self‟ (Deci
& Ryan, 2004).
This tendency involves integrating both
autonomy (self) and homonomy (self with
others). The integration
process can be enabled or
thwarted by (social/
contextual) factors.
6. Others
Self
Aims to explain factors that enable (nurture) or thwart
(impede) this innate tendency within the system of
integration
7. Why we pursue goals:
Three needs:
Autonomy
Competence
Relatedness
Need strength and satisfaction are important.
8. Why we pursue goals:
Motivation is multidimensional
with multiple levels (strengths)
and multiple orientations (types).
Motivation can be conceptualised along a
continuum between instrinsic and extrinsic
motivation.
Needs satisfaction positively predicts
motivation in a number of contexts.
(Grouzet, Vallerand, Thill, & Provencher, 2004; Hagger, Chatzisarantis, &
Harris, 2006; Sheldon & Filak, 2008; Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis,
2006).
13. Contexts can be informational, promoting
autonomy and internalisation, or controlling,
undermining internalisation and self-
determined motivation
(Deci, La Guardia, Moller, Scheiner, & Ryan, 2006)
15. Staff well-being, job
satisfaction and motivation for
carrying out treatment
programs in psychiatric patient
sample (Lynch, Plant and Ryan, 2005);
Similar effect has been found
in non-psychiatric patients
(Williams, Rodin, Ryan, Grolnick, & Deci,
1998);
Swimmers autonomous
motivation (Pelletier, Fortier,
Vallerand, & Brière, 2001);
Student‟s autonomous
motivation (Black & Deci, 2000);
Engagement (Reeve, Jang, Carrell,
Jeon, & Barch, 2004);
Self-determined learning
(Williams & Deci, 1996);
Patient‟s long-term medication
adherence from physicians
(Williams, et al., 1998);
Increased autonomous
motivation for smoking cessation
(Williams, Gagné, Ryan, & Deci, 2002);
Employees‟ acceptance of
organisational change, both
cross-sectionally and
longitudinally over a 13-month
period (Gagne, Koestner and
Zuckerman, 2000).
Perceived autonomy support
from managers predicted needs
satisfaction of employees, which
in turn predicted performance
and adjustment (Baard et al., 2004).
16. Increases in needs satisfaction
Increases in self determined motivation
Maximal or optimal work performance in
coachees...
17. Blind experimental coaching study (N=58)
3 conditions:
High autonomy supportive
Low autonomy supportive (controlling)
Self coaching
Coaches trained to deliver both conditions.
Study also measured and controlled for
causality orientation
18. Taking coachee’s feelings and perspectives
into account, providing choice, encouraging
initiative and independent action, providing
feedback in an informational manner, and
providing a meaningful rationale.
Discuss how you might create a coaching
condition
That is “high autonomy supportive”...
That is “standards (control) supportive”...
19. Condition Autonomy Support GROW SMARTER
Autonomy
Support
(AS)
Autonomy support high.
Coachees with complete
autonomy in all aspects of
the coaching program such
as selection of goals and goal
attainment strategies.
Coaches enact provisions of
autonomy support.
e.g. “Are there any specific
goals that you would like to
focus on?”
Goal - coachee chooses
specific objective of
coaching.
Reality – what is happening
at the moment?
Options – options from
coachee.
Wrap-up – commit to action,
agree on support, next
steps.
Specific.
Measurable: how will
others / coachee
know?
Attractive: to coachee.
Realistic.
Timely.
Ethical.
Recorded: by coachee.
Standards
Support
(SS)
Autonomy support low.
Coaches act as expert advice
givers, suggest goals and
objectives, and use evidence
from leadership literature to
influence and evaluate
coachee strategies.
e.g. “Based on our
discussion, I think that you
should focus on improving...”
Goal - coach suggests
specific objective of
coaching.
Reality – what is happening
at the moment?
Options – options (advice)
from coach.
Wrap-up – commit to action,
agree on support, next
steps.
Specific.
Measurable: coach will
measure / know.
Accountable: to coach.
Realistic.
Timely.
Ethical.
Recorded: by coach.
20. Remember that questionnaire
you completed...
Use the scoring guide...
Higher scores (closer to 100) reflect a more
autonomy supportive orientation and a lower
score or negative scores reflect a more
controlling orientation.
21. Satisfaction of all three basic psychological
needs was found to be significantly and
strongly related to autonomous motivation.
Perceived autonomy support was
significantly associated with satisfaction of
the three needs and increased coachee
autonomous motivation.
Autonomy support and standards support
conditions did not differ significantly in
relation to autonomous motivation.
22. Means over time in
the low autonomy
supportive condition
actually increased to
a greater extent than
means in the
autonomy supportive
condition
Note: (not a
statistical significant
difference).
23. Autonomy supportive coaching processes may
facilitate coachee internalisation of
behaviours, and increased self-determined
regulation.
Relationships expected from research in
relation to causality orientation, needs
satisfaction and self-determined motivation
were shown to also exist within a coaching
context.
No significant differences between coaching
conditions.
24. You completed an assessment earlier.
Think about a development goal related to
developing autonomy support within your
own coaching practice.
Please think about something you ideally
would like to do in relation to your
development as a practitioner.
In other words, please think about a hope or
aspiration you currently have.
25. SDT addresses the reasons for pursuing a
goal...
RFT addresses the purpose of pursuing a goal...
Goals serve a more general purpose that is
thought to be related to different motivational
dispositions or internal drives rather than
external demands.
Goal pursuit itself is motivational and
increasing the strength of engagement.
Feedback in coaching that matches goal
pursuit can increase motivation and strength
of engagement?
26. Promotion focus: individuals are dispositionally
motivated to minimize discrepancies between
actual and ideal end states.
Success is represented as the presence of positive
outcomes (achieving goals), while failure is the
absence of positive outcomes (not achieving goals).
Prevention focus: individuals are dispositionally
motivated to minimize discrepancies between
actual and ought end states.
Success is represented as the absence of a negative
outcome (not missing a goal) while failure is
represented as presence of a negative outcome
(missing a goal).
(Higgins, 1997, 1998)
27. Individuals will have a
higher level of
motivation if they
apply an eagerness
approach when in
promotion focus
or if they apply a
vigilant approach when
in prevention focus
…compared to the non-
fit situations.
28. Complete a written report:
“capture as many details as
possible to make the report
vivid and interesting”
(eagerness)
“avoid forgetting detail and
being careful not to make the
report bland and boring”
(vigilance).
Participants in the regulatory
fit condition were 50
percent more likely to
hand in the report than
participants in the non-fit
condition
Recommended to eating
more fruit and
vegetables:
Achieving health (promotion
focus)
Avoiding illness (prevention
focus)
Participants in the fit
condition were found to
eat 20 percent more
fruit the following week
than participants in the
non-fit condition.
29. Prevention and promotion states can be
primed..
Will framing feedback to recipient‟s
particular regulatory focus (after priming)
increase motivation?
30. You have now spent a few weeks focusing
on a particular goal relating to your
leadership style development.
Now, you are asked to think about an
additional goal. Please think about
something you ideally would like to do in
relation to your leadership development.
In other words, please think about a hope
or aspiration you currently have.
31. Congratulations, you have achieved an ideal score on the Leadership
Skills test by successfully finding the majority of correct answers. You
have achieved above 90 percent of the correct answers.
Your score indicates that you are considering the full range of
leadership behaviours in order to achieve an optimal match between
your skills and a particular situation.
32. Congratulations, you have met the performance standard set by the
test producers and successfully avoided most of the incorrect
answers. You avoided 90 percent of incorrect answers.
Your score indicates that you are carefully considering which type of
leadership behaviour is appropriate for a particular situation in order
to avoid substandard performance.
33. Level of motivation
increased following
feedback that
contained
promotion goals and
eagerness means
(fit) compared to
feedback that
contained
prevention goals
and vigilance means
(non-fit).
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
Before feedback Post feedback
MotivationLevel
Fit
Non-Fit
35. Feedback effectiveness can be increased by
framing feedback to the individuals‟
regulatory (promotion) focus.
In situations where it would be difficult or
impossible to frame feedback, the coach
may induce a regulatory promotion focus
that matches the feedback to be provided.
The organisational context may provide cues
for the coach about the coachee‟s goal
orientation and how to frame feedback to
increase motivation accordingly.
Notas do Editor
Warm Up activityStand up – find two other people in the room you share two things in common with.Outline of the presentationDescription of 3 studies activities – requires your participation – will help you understand the studies that I am presenting implications for coaching practice
Person - coach
CALM aims to explain factors that enable or thwart this innate tendency within the system of integration as it applies in a coaching context.This is where the coaching relationship and process becomes important.
Goal regulation has been conceptualized along a motivational gradient the reasons goals are pursued Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985b) is a theory of motivation which posits that social environments and relationships are vital for positive human growth and functioning. An organismic dialectical theory, SDT recognises that humans have an innate need for growth and development, but also that there are socio-contextual factors which can either facilitate or inhibit this growth (Deci & Ryan, 2002). As a theory of motivation, SDT describes a construct that is of high relevance in any coaching relationship. Furthermore, SDT has been proposed as a theory from which coaching could form a conceptual evidence base (Oades, Caputi, Robinson, & Partridge, 2005) . SDT also posits that it is possible to promote internalisation of extrinsic goals when our basic needs for autonomy and competence and to a lesser extent relatedness are satisfied.Basic psychological needs are essential for growth and if thwarted or enhanced, can influence motivation, integrity and wellbeing.Autonomy: sense of volition, behaviour coming from the self. Autonomy as a personCompetence: feeling capable and confident in our environment and also having the opporutnity to utlise our capabilitiesRelatedness: feeling belonging and understanding, of feelings of community, but not necessarily in a proximal sense.
Need satisfaction has been found to positively predict factors such as engagement, work satisfaction, psychological health, self-esteem, and self-determination (Deci, et al., 2001; Ilardi, Leone, Kasser, & Ryan, 1993; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkist, De Witte, & Lens, 2008). Richer, Blanchard and Vallerand (2002) tested a motivational model of work turnover. Utilising structural equation modelling with alumni from a school of administration, they found that competence and relatedness, as well as intrinsic job rewards, predicted self-determined work motivation, which in turn positively predicted work satisfaction and negatively predicted emotional exhaustion.
SDT separates motivation into six motivational states: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation (split into integrated, identified, introjected and external regulations) and, finally, amotivation. The model is defined conceptually as a continuumAmotivation refers to non-regulation, or the absence of intention to act (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Extrinsic motivation refers to doing something where the reward is not inherent within the task itself, that is, for an independent outcome. At external regulation, the most controlled form of extrinsic motivation, behaviour is motivated by external reward or punishment. Introjected behaviour is regulated by internal pressure to act in a specific way, for example, to feel esteemed or avoid guilt. During identified regulation, behaviour is largely internally regulated and valued by the individual. Once integrated, behaviour becomes completely internalised and part of an individual’s self-concept. Although experienced volitionally, when integrated, behaviour is still extrinsically motivated because it is nevertheless performed to some end. To be intrinsically motivated is to do something purely for interest and enjoyment. At this level of motivation, behaviour is performed for its own sake. Thus behaviour can be categorised as controlled (regulated externally or by introjection) or autonomous (motivated intrinsically or by integrated or identified regulations).
Importantly, factors within the socio-contextual environment can facilitate growth and autonomous motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Contexts are expressed as being informational, promoting autonomy and internalisation, or controlling, undermining internalisation and autonomous or self-determined motivation. One aspect of the socio-contextual environment relevant to SDT is the interpersonal context. An autonomy supportive interpersonal context supports autonomous motivation and is associated with, for example, managers taking a subordinate’s feelings and perspectives into account, providing choice, encouraging initiative and independent action, providing feedback in an informational manner, and providing a meaningful rationale (Baard & Baard, 2009; Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994; Williams, 2002). People who are at more self determined levels of motivation may need more informational, autonomy supportive coaching, whereas people who are less self determined may respond better to a more controlling environment. We are currently conducting experiments to investigate these relationships
SDT separates motivation into six motivational states: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation (split into integrated, identified, introjected and external regulations) and, finally, amotivation. The model is defined conceptually as a continuumAmotivation refers to non-regulation, or the absence of intention to act (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Extrinsic motivation refers to doing something where the reward is not inherent within the task itself, that is, for an independent outcome. At external regulation, the most controlled form of extrinsic motivation, behaviour is motivated by external reward or punishment. Introjected behaviour is regulated by internal pressure to act in a specific way, for example, to feel esteemed or avoid guilt. During identified regulation, behaviour is largely internally regulated and valued by the individual. Once integrated, behaviour becomes completely internalised and part of an individual’s self-concept. Although experienced volitionally, when integrated, behaviour is still extrinsically motivated because it is nevertheless performed to some end. To be intrinsically motivated is to do something purely for interest and enjoyment. At this level of motivation, behaviour is performed for its own sake. Thus behaviour can be categorised as controlled (regulated externally or by introjection) or autonomous (motivated intrinsically or by integrated or identified regulations).
Mainly cross-sectional and correlation studies
A total of 58 individuals participated in the study (74.1% female, 25.9% male, mean age range 25 – 34 years). However, due to the rate of attrition over the period of the study, 36 participants completed the study in its entirety. Participants included students and professionals from 12 industries, with most (20.7%) working in Health. The majority of participants were employed on a casual basis (34.5%), followed by full time (25.9%), part time (19%), and 20 percent were unemployed. Only individuals over the age of 18 were eligible to participate. Free coaching, information on leadership, and a professional report detailing participant’s leadership style were used as incentives for participation.Coaching context was ‘coaching for leadership’.Causality orientations influence individual’s interpretations regarding the initiation and regulation of behaviour. Three orientations are specified: autonomy, control and impersonal. Individuals with an autonomy orientation have a tendency to interpret stimuli as facilitating the regulation of their own self-determined behaviour. They seek out situations of greater opportunity for self-determination and also have a tendency to interpret situations as informational. Individuals with a high level of autonomy orientation also experience greater levels of self-determined motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Control oriented individuals have a tendency to organise behaviour through internal or external controls. They are also more likely to interpret situations as controlling and seek out environments which offer greater pressure or control of their regulatory events. An impersonal orientation refers to experiencing a lack of intention. That is, individuals with an impersonal orientation have a tendency to feel like they are incompetent, unable to regulate behaviour, or have control over outcomes.*Like Locus of Control but not the same.
Discuss - What does it mean to be autonomy supportive OR NOT, in coaching?Remember An autonomy supportive interpersonal context supports autonomous motivation and is associated with, for example, managers taking a subordinate’s feelings and perspectives into account, providing choice, encouraging initiative and independent action, providing feedback in an informational manner, and providing a meaningful rationale (Baard & Baard, 2009; Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994; Williams, 2002). How do we reflect this in coaching?This study was the first to attempt to develop a ‘treatment condition’ in a coaching context.
Coaching Conditions
Distribute scoring sheet.Group activity – reflect on your score with the person next to youShow scoring guide on slideshow and show them how to translate their responses
Satisfaction of all three basic psychological needs was found to be significantly and strongly related to autonomous motivation.Perceived autonomy support was significantly associated with satisfaction of the three needs and increased coachee autonomous motivation.Autonomy support and standards support conditions did not differ significantly in relation to autonomous motivation after adjusting for the covariates of autonomy need, relatedness need, and impersonal causality orientation
Means over time in the low autonomy supportive condition actually increased to a greater extent than means in the autonomy supportive condition.This was in the opposite direction to what we expected!
Through autonomy supportive coaching processes, coaches may facilitate coachee internalisation of behaviours, and increased self-determined regulation.Relationships expected from research in relation to causality orientation, needs satisfaction and self-determined motivation were shown to also exist within a coaching context.HOWEVER these findings were only from cross sectional analysesThere were no significant differences between coaching conditions.Study Limitations.Did we get the conditions rightSmall sample – not enough power to achieve results – possibility of Type 2 error?
RF Prime for coaches in the roomMake sure they spend at least 5 minutes doing this.Encourage them to think about strategies to acheivetheor goals, dont be limited just brainstorm here – its your time to reflect on what you have learned so far in this session and at this conference and what development need you would like to really work on after these 2 days.
SDT addresses the reasons for pursuing a goal and RFT addresses the purpose of pursuing a goal. Reasons for pursuing a goal addresses ‘what am I trying to do?’ The purpose of pursuing a goal addresses implicit motives about ‘why am I generally trying to do this?’ The answers to these questions have been shown to impact on how people think and act in relation to their goals.RFT differs from SDT by proposing that goals serve a more general purpose that is thought to be related to different motivational dispositions or internal drives rather than external demands.
PAIN AND PLEASURE - two distinct motivational self-regulatory orientations (foci), The approach or avoidance motive is a form of self regulation. There are different ways people will regulate pleasure and pain – this is called Regulatory Focus. Regulatory Focus Theory proposes that people with a promotion focus are dispositionally motivated to minimize discrepancies between their current situation and an ideal situation. People with a prevention focus are dispositionally motivated to minimize discrepancies between their current situation and an imposed minimum standard (Vaughn, Baumann, & Klemann, 2008). Promotion focused goals tend to satisfy a nurturance need and are concerned with hopes and aspirations. Prevention focused goals tend to satisfy a security need and are concerned with duties and obligations. whereas when people have with a prevention focus they are dispositionally motivated to minimize discrepancies between actual and ought end states . Therefore, their motivational state would be one of vigilance to ensure the absence of negative outcomes and ensure against the presence of negative outcomes. For each preference, it is the ability to sustain the orientation that is important for motivation rather than attaining the end state itselfIn promotion focus an individual is focused on achievements and fulfillment of ideals, while in prevention focus they are focused on avoiding mistakes and fulfilling requirements.Need for nurturance creates a promotion focus; need for safety (security) promotes a prevention focus.Tell my story about the heritage planner and the statutory planner.
- Silver medallist Gemma Gibbons celebrates her win in Women's -78kg judo. We saw how the torch ignited excitement in every corner of the land. Now our task must be to maximise the Games’ impact in the UK For each regulatory focus there is a preferred manner during goal pursuit (Shah, Higgins, & Friedman, 1998). The nature of this preference is derived from the ability of a strategy to either support gains or prevent losses. Motivation can be sustained or increased via regulatory fit (Higgins, 2000). Eagerness strategies (eg actively approaching a goal) are preferred in promotion focus.. Vigilance strategies (eg carefully avoiding mistakes) are preferred in prevention focus.Any given behaviour can be based on either an approach motive or an avoidance motive (or some combination of the two). it is important to understand how someone is likely to respond to a particular situation when under pressure arising from specific variables which might, for example, include peer disapproval, a reduced sense of personal autonomy, or a loss of direct control.RFT suggests that motivation can be sustained or increased via regulatory fit (Higgins, 2000). Regulatory fit occurs when an individual applies their preferred strategy during goal pursuit. The effect of fit is a subjective sense of “feeling right” about the goal-directed behavior which in turn increases strength of commitment, engagement and motivation towards the goal (Higgins, 2005). Regulatory fit predicts that individuals will have a higher level of motivation if they apply an eagerness approach when in promotion focus or if they apply a vigilant approach when in prevention focus, compared to the non-fit situations (promotion/vigilance or prevention/eagerness) (Freitas & Higgins, 2002; Higgins, Idson, Freitas, Spiegel, & Molden, 2003).
Spiegel, Grant and Higgins (2004)Participants asked to complete a written report: “capture as many details as possible to make the report vivid and interesting” (eagerness)“avoid forgetting detail and being careful not to make the report bland and boring” (vigilance). Motivation was assessed by whether the report was turned in within four weeks. Participants in the regulatory fit condition were 50 precent more likely to hand in the report than participants in the non-fit condition. Where other studies used measures of intentions to infer motivation, Spiegel et. al’s study used an objective measure, the actual performance of turning in the report, as the measure of motivation and effect of fit.Participants are recommended to eating more fruit and vegetables. Achieving health (promotion focus)Avoiding illness (prevention focus) Participants in the fit condition were found to eat 20 precent more fruit the following week than participants in the non-fit condition.
Will framing feedback to recipient’s particular regulatory focus increase motivation? Feedback framing involves maintaining the overall outcome information (success or failure) but emphasising, for example, “you achieved an ideal score by identifying correct answers” (promotion goal with eagerness means) or “you met standards by avoiding incorrect answers” (prevention goal with vigilance means).Specifically, this study will examine two types of positive feedback, framed to either fit or not fit a recipient’s promotion focus. It is hypothesised that:Positive feedback framed in a manner that emphasises promotion goals and eagerness means (fit), will lead to increased levels of motivation compared to feedback framed in a manner that considers prevention goals and vigilance means (non-fit). There will be no relationship between level of mood and level of motivation following feedback.Part of larger study – T4: 29 participants took part in this experiment (age ranged between 18-55 years; 5 participants were over 35years of age; 22 were women; 7 were unemployed). Participants were divided into two experimental conditions. There were 17 participants in the fit feedback condition and 12 in the non-fit condition. - Online
RF Induction.The experimental RF induction procedure (Freitas & Higgins, 2002) was modified to fit the coaching for leadership context. It has been used in numerous studies (for example, Cesario, et al., 2004; Leder, et al., 2010; Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002) and was chosen based upon the similarities to typical reflections undertaken in a coaching session.Promotion induction:You have now spent a few weeks focusing on a particular goal relating to your leadership style development. Now, you are asked to think about an additional goal. Please think about something you ideally would like to do in relation to your leadership development. In other words, please think about a hope or aspiration you currently have. Participants were asked write down their goal in the survey, along with the description of five strategies which would support achievement of that goal. In alignment with previous studies, participants were asked to spend approximately 10 minutes on the goal and strategy selection.Research suggests taht 10 mins is effective amount of time for priming.
Look familiar!! – Separate people in the room into Fit and Non Fit condition – Please stand up and make sure you have your feedback sheet.Create a living frequency table...GET MICHAEL AND ROB TO HELPIf you had this type of feedback stand in the right aisle.If you had the other type of feedback stand in the left aisle.Now look at the scores on the two questions you answered – average them.If you got a 5 stand at the front of the room.If you got a -5 stand in the back of the room.Everyone else distribute yourself along the scale from -5 to +5.Then reveal which group was in a regulatory fit condition and which was in a non fit conditon. Explain again how they were primed for promotion focus.
the effect of fit was unrelated to the level of positive mood experienced after feedback, that is, level of motivation was not higher in individuals that reported higher level of positive mood. The ANOVA results showed a significant interaction between time and type of feedback, Wilks Lambda = .79, F (1, 27) = 7.14, p = .01, with a small effect size of partial eta squared = .21, observed power .73. There was a significant main effect for time, Wilks Lambda = .79, F (1, 27) = 7.14, p = .01, with a small effect size of partial eta squared = .21, observed power .73. There was no main effect for type of feedback, F(1, 27) = 1.32, p = .26, partial eta squared = .05. This finding suggests that mean motivation scores increased in the feedback fit condition but not in the non-fit condition at Time 2 compared to Time 1 A paired sample t-test revealed a significant increase in motivation scores in the fit-condition between T1 and T2 (refer back to Table 1for descriptive data), t (16) = -3.56, p <.01 (two-tailed). The mean increase in motivation scores was .79 with a 95 % confidence interval ranging from .32 to 1.27. The eta square statistics indicated a large effect size (.48). There was no increase in motivation scores in the non-fit condition, from T1 to T2, t (11) = .00, p =1.00.
A regulatory fit effect was found when level of motivation was assessed according to individuals’ induced but not dispositional regulatory focus.
Further research – to do with priming prevention focus