This paper aims to explore and contribute to an understanding of how the psychological concept of self-regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997; 1998) is relevant to simulation and experiential learning in general, and classroom settings in particular. An overview of self-regulatory focus theory, which describes how people pursue pleasure and avoid pain, is presented. The implications of self-regulatory focus for setting goals and giving feedback are reviewed in light of previous findings related to motivation in each literature. Some practical applications and recommendations are offered for ABSEL educators. Overall, this paper asserts that ABSEL scholars would do well to be aware of the concept of self-regulatory focus in both the design and execution of simulation and experiential learning exercises.

1. James Carlson
J. Duane Hoover
Ronald K. Mitchell
Texas Tech University
Implications of Regulatory Focus Theory
for Simulation and Experiential
Learning
March 7, 2013, ABSEL Conference in Oklahoma City, OK

2. 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).

3.  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

4. Motivation, informedby 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)

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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

8. Need Nurturance Security
Self-regulation occurs in
relation to
Ideals
(e.g. hopes, aspirations)
Oughts
(e.g. duties, obligations)
Overarching goal Accomplishment Safety
Focus of self-regulation Promotion Prevention
Sensitivities toward Positive outcomes Negative Outcomes
Success (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:‡
Hits
Errors of omission
Eagerness
Correct Rejections
Errors of commission
Vigilance
*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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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”

18. 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.)

19. Questions