James CarlsonJ. Duane Hoover

Ronald K. MitchellTexas Tech University

Implications of Regulatory Focus Theory for Simulation and Experiential Learning

March 7, 2013, ABSEL Conference in Oklahoma City, OK

Motivation in the classroom

Educational settings are highly complex environments (Davis & Sumara, 2010). • Interactions between teachers and students, students and the

environment, teachers and the environment, etc.

One of the variables that adds to the complexity of educational processes is learner motivation (Colquitt, Lepine, & Noe, 2000)• Impacts educational processes because it is related to how individuals

process tasks and to what extent they will pursue a task (Grimm, Markman, Maddox, & Baldwin, 2008).

• Motivation varies between and within groups, and across time (Noe, 1986).

Experiential learning methods and simulations (though superior to traditional, lecture-only instruction methods) are impacted, for better or worse, by learner motivation

So what is motivation?• Historically, motivation for everyone has been

characterized as “approaching pleasure” and “avoiding pain”

• Yet, if we all have the same basic motivations, why is there so much variability in student motivation, within classrooms, between classrooms, and over time?

Motivation in the classroom

Motivation, informed by Higgins’ Regulatory Focus Theory

Aim of Regulatory Focus Theory is “to move beyond the simple assertion of the hedonic principle that people approach pleasure and avoid pain.” (Higgins 1997: 1280)

Theory examines “how people approach pleasure and avoid pain in substantially different strategic ways that have major consequences” (Higgins 1997: 1280)

Regulatory Focus Theory: Overview

Different individuals can employ different strategies to approach pleasure and avoid pain. Broadly:• A strategy of focusing on accomplishments and aspirations

is called a promotion focus

• A strategy of focusing on safety and responsibilities is called a prevention focus.

Implication: “pleasure” and “pain” may not be the same for everybody

Has received empirical support (Higgins, 1998; Higgins et al 1994)

A Promotion Focus

If you have a promotion focus…

Self-regulation occurs in relation to ideals Overarching goals are characterized as

accomplishments Sensitivities toward positive outcomes Success (pleasure) is thought of as a “gain” Failure (pain) is thought of as a “non-gain”

• Sensitivity to the presence of positive outcomes Strategies:

• Strive for gains, insure against errors of omission Pursuit of goals characterized by eagerness

If you have a prevention focus…

Self-regulation occurs in relation to oughts (i.e. duties, obligations)

Overarching goals are characterized as safety Sensitivities toward negative outcomes Success (pleasure) is thought of as a “non-loss” Failure (pain) is thought of as a “loss”

• Sensitivity to the absence of negative outcomes Strategies

• Correctly reject “losses”, insure against errors of comission Pursuit characterized by vigilance

A Prevention Focus

Need Nurturance SecuritySelf-regulation occurs in relation to

Ideals (e.g. hopes, aspirations)

Oughts(e.g. duties, obligations)

Overarching goal Accomplishment SafetyFocus of self-regulation Promotion PreventionSensitivities toward Positive outcomes Negative OutcomesSuccess (pleasure) Gains

(i.e. presence of positive outcomes)

Non-losses (i.e. absence of negative outcomes)

Failure (pain) Non-gains (i.e. absence of positive outcomes)

Losses (i.e. presence of negative outcomes)

Strategies†

Insure:Insure against:

Pursuit characterized by:‡

HitsErrors of omissionEagerness

 Correct RejectionsErrors of commissionVigilance

*Unless otherwise noted, table created from summary of regulatory focus theory in Idson, Liberman, Higgins, 2000 (pp. 252–254). † Higgins, 1997 (p. 1285). ‡ Higgins, 2000 (p. 1219).

Regulatory Focus Theory: Summary

Implications

Understanding regulatory focus can help educators understand student motivation, which can in turn empower educators to design more effective learning experiences

Areas of particular relevance:

• Goals

• Feedback

Implications - Goals

Goal setting is central to motivational research (Elliot, 1999) and is an inherent part of learning for students and teachers, whether explicitly or implicitly

Goals can be either broad (“do well in this class”) or narrow (“I want at least an 85 on this exam”).

Educators influence the mix of projects, assignments, exams, and essays that form opportunities for setting goals

Educators also influence the framing of goals, i.e. whether the goal is cast in terms of promotion or prevention

Implications - Goals

Achievement-motivation goals have been central to educational research on approach-avoidance motivation and learning (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988)

Two types of achievement motivation goals exist:• Performance goals (e.g. outperforming fellow students in Spanish

class)

• Mastery goals (e.g. becoming totally fluent in a foreign language)

Students are more likely to pursue a goal that fits with their focus of self-regulation (i.e. prevention or promotion)

Implications - Feedback

Feedback is an inherent part of education (through grading, etc.)

Feedback can also have important implications for motivation Van-Dijk and Kluger (2004) found that self-regulatory focus

could explain the variability in individual motivation based on feedback sign:• Negative feedback will be more likely to be motivating to the

prevention-focused, and less motivating to the promotion-focused

• Positive feedback will be more likely to be motivating to the promotion-focused, and less likely to be motivating to the prevention-focused

Value from Regulatory Fit

Regulatory fit is an experience that individuals have when the means they use to pursue their goals match their regulatory focus. (Higgins 2000, 2005, 2006).

Importantly, individuals tend to remember information that is framed in a way that fits their regulatory focus (Higgins 1998)• Implications for the delivery of class content and testing

Value from Regulatory Fit

Learning about student’s regulatory fit• The most widely used instruments, the General Regulatory Focus

Measure (Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002) and the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ - Higgins et al., 2001) are available for free in their entirety.

• Could be completed as a “getting to know you” exercise

Look for promotion/prevention language in syllabi, instructions to assignments, classroom discussion, student to student interactions, student to teacher interactions, etc.

Other implications

Regulatory focus develops on a cultural level• For example, students from North America more likely to be promotion

focused, whereas students from East Asia tend to be more prevention focused

Goal attainment versus goal maintenance• Attainment may be best served by the promotion focus

• Maintenance (i.e. continually performing at a certain level) may be best served by a prevention focus

Discussion

Educators may do well to reflect on their own regulatory focus, and the regulatory focus of the different components (e.g., simulations, activities, etc.) of their classes

Regulatory focus mis-match may be a fruitful variable to consider when resolving motivational, performance, or interpersonal problems

Discussion

While some argue that motivation is a concern that lies outside the responsibility of teachers, teachers should not inhibit motivation wherever possible

Greater alignment of regulatory foci has the potential to increase progress for students in various avenues

It is possible that even entire schools or educational philosophies are rooted in a certain regulatory focus—most likely a prevention focus• Easier to teach “oughts” than “ideals”

Conclusion

Regulatory focus is a new variable of interest to ABSEL scholars

Exploration into specific simulations and experiential learning exercises is needed

Many questions remain (e.g. Is it possible to engage both types of regulatory focus with one set of language?, etc.)

Questions