SELF-REGULATION AND CONSUMER GOAL-DIRECTED BEHAVIOR: THE ROLE OF THE FEARED SELF IN MOTIVATING BEHAVIOR AND MODERATING PERSUASION

Transcription

1 SELF-REGULATION AND CONSUMER GOAL-DIRECTED BEHAVIOR: THE ROLE OF THE FEARED SELF IN MOTIVATING BEHAVIOR AND MODERATING PERSUASION Rana Sobh, Biljana Juric and Christina Lee The University of Auckland Track: Conceptual Papers / Marketing Theory Key words: Goal-directed behavior, implicit self-regulation, possible selves Abstract There is an emerging stream of research in consumer behavior that attempts to examine the role of self-regulation in consumer goal-directed behavior (Aaker and Lee, 2001; Lee and Aaker, 2002; Avnet and Pham, 2002; Pennington and Roese, 2002). This research builds on regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1987, 1998), which considers the different approaches people use to attain two types of goals ideals and oughts. However, these studies have not considered different approaches people use to move away from an anti-goal (a feared possible self). Consequently, the implications of a regulation away from a negative self-guide on consumer goaldirected behavior are still unknown. Building on and integrating some of the central proposals of three related theories in social psychology: cybernetic control theory (Carver and Scheier, 1999), regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1987, 1997) and the concept of possible selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986), this paper develops a conceptual framework that examines the role of regulating away from an anti-goal (a feared possible self) in moderating consumers evaluations of the message and the product, influencing their behavioral intentions, and the temporal proximity with which they are likely to take decisions. The proposed research would greatly enhance our understanding of one of the most puzzling, yet crucial areas of consumer behavior the role of positive and negative possible selves in influencing and guiding consumers purposive behavior. Introduction Despite its relevance in shaping consumers decision making and influencing their evaluations (Aaker and Lee, 2001), consumer research about the role of implicit selfregulation is still in its infancy. Studies on consumer goal-directed behavior appear to have focused mainly on the structural relations between different goal levels (e.g. Pieters et al., 1995; Bagozzi and Dholakia, 1999) and failed to consider the role of affective and motivational processes that explain why explicitly similar higher order goals are translated and fulfilled differently into certain lower order consumption goals. Self-regulation theories and regulatory focus theory in particular, provide the answer. Self-regulation theories noted the motivational significance of representation of selves as standards (e.g., Weiner, 1948; Duval and Wickland, 1972; Carver and Scheier, 1990, 1999; Higgins, 1987, 1997). Self-regulation theories propose that goals serve as standards for evaluation or reference values. People continually monitor how much ANZMAC 2003 Conference Proceedings Adelaide 1-3 December

2 discrepancies exist between their current state (actual self) and standards for evaluations. Discrepancies from standards generate negative psychological states, thus people try to reduce it (Higgins, 1987). This process is called self-regulation and underlies people s motivations to act and reduce the discrepancy. Self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987) has identified two distinct types of goals or self-guides that individuals are motivated to match: ideals and oughts. The first relates to people s aspirations, hopes, or wishes, such as being attractive or successful. The second type relates to people s duties and responsibilities, such as being a good parent or a dependable employee. Owning a beautiful car would be an example of consumer ideals, whereas eating healthily would be a typical example of consumer ought goal. The theory also holds that individuals are chronically motivated to move as close as possible from these goals. Yet, the most significant contribution of Higgins s theory is that it differentiates between the two types of negative effect generated by failing to achieve these goals. That is, failing to achieve an ideal would generate sadness and disappointment (dejection-related emotions), whereas failing to keep up with an ought engenders anxiety (agitation-related emotion). More recent research has shown that these two types of goals are associated with different self-regulation strategies (Higgins et al., 1994). Regulation along ideals is associated with approach types of strategies (approaching matches to desired end states) whereas regulation along oughts is associated with an avoidance type of strategy (avoiding mismatches to desired end states). In a recent extension of self-discrepancy theory regulatory focus theory (Higgins 1997) these two self-regulation systems are called promotion focus and prevention focus. In many empirical studies conducted by Higgins and his colleagues, promotion vs. prevention focus have been shown to influence people s problem-solving and performance on tasks (e.g., Crowe and Higgins, 1997; Higgins et al., 1997; Shah et al., 1998), decision making (Higgins, 2000; Higgins et al., 2001; Freitas et al., 2002), and persuasion (e.g., Brendl, Higgins, and Lemm, 1995). Recent regulatory focus theory (1997) proposes different strategic ways of attaining goals or approaching desired end-states (attainment of aspirations vs. attainment of responsibilities). Despite their importance in a consumer context anti-goals or undesired end states have been ignored in research. The role a negative self plays in motivating and guiding behavior has been first highlighted by the concept of possible selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986). Indeed, according to the concept of possible selves, as we try to navigate our journey through life we are to a large extent guided by the representation of what is possible for us in the future representations of how we might act, look, or feel in the future. These representations or potential selves can be positive (hoped-for selves) or negative (feared selves). They are vivid and individualized representations of goals to be approached or to be avoided that are inherently motivating. A representation of a feared self, for instance, motivates people to move away from it and ensures that the qualities the negative representation encompasses never materialize. For instance, envisioning the feared self (fat me) of a dieting person may stop him or her from succumbing to the temptation of a chocolate bar. In consumer research, Morgan (1993) argues that the consumption of products and services is one way people can use as means of reducing (amplifying) the discrepancy or gap between the actual self and a positive possible self/negative possible self, and strongly recommends integrating the concept of possible selves in consumer research. Conceptual Papers / Marketing Theory Track 616

3 Social psychologists, Carver et al. (1999) investigated for the first time the emotional implications of feared self-discrepancy as opposed to those of ideal and ought discrepancies. Their results showed that once a person is close to his or her feared self, the escaping or avoiding motive becomes more pressing than the approaching motive and what matters most is to escape danger. That is, when the person s actual self is very close to his or her feared self he or she becomes more concerned with escaping the feared self than with attaining positive standards (ought and ideal). Their findings suggest that the feared self is another self-guide operating along with the two other self-guides, the ideal and the ought, suggested in self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987). Further, they suggest that the feared self underlies the avoidance motivational system which has been associated with the ought self in self-discrepancy theory. Guided by the concept of possible selves (Markus and Nurius, 1986) we suggest that a feared possible self is a negative self-guide from which individuals are motivated to move away by undertaking activities or consuming products and services. Furthermore, building on the findings of Carver et al. (1999) and guided by regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997) we propose that regulation along feared selves is more strongly linked with the prevention regulatory focus typically associated with regulation along oughts. Recent studies in consumer behavior indicated that regulatory focus moderates the persuasiveness of promotion-focused versus prevention-focused appeals (Aaker and Lee, 2001; Lee and Aaker, 2002; Avnet and Pham, 2002) as well as the temporal perspective with which individuals view events and goals (Pennington and Roese, 2002). Expanding on these empirical findings, we suggest that a prevention-focused appeal (emphasizing the presence or absence of negative outcomes) is more effective for individuals concerned with moving away from their feared selves, whereas a promotion-focused appeal is more effective for individuals concerned with attaining their hoped-for selves. We also expect the feared self-regulation system to be more associated with the immediacy in decisions than a hope-for self-regulation system. This paper begins with the theoretical foundations that constitute the points of departure for developing our propositions. The three theories that have guided our work will be briefly discussed first. Next, the different related propositions related to our conceptual framework will be advanced and potential contributions discussed. Theoretical foundations Cybernetic control theory (Carver and Scheier, 1990, 1999) Unlike self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987, 1997), which considers only positive self-states, cybernetic control theory is a self-regulation theory that distinguishes between approaching positive self-states, and avoiding negative self-states. The theory attempts to answer the question of how these end states or goals are used in action. More specifically, when a self-regulatory system has a desired end state as a reference value, the system reduces discrepancies and involves attempts to move the currently perceived actual self-state as close as possible to the desired reference point. When a self-regulatory system has an undesired state as a reference value, the system amplifies discrepancies and involves attempts to move the currently perceived actual self-state as far as possible from the undesired reference point. As such, approach and ANZMAC 2003 Conference Proceedings Adelaide 1-3 December

4 avoidance concern the direction of the movement in relation to either a desired end state (goal) or an undesired end state (anti-goal) respectively. In their recent work, Carver and Scheier (1999) proposed that a feared possible self can be an example of anti-goals. The authors suggest that avoidance behavior often leads into approach behavior. That is, an avoidance loop creates pressure to increase distance from the anti-goal. The movement away occurs until the tendency to move away is captured by the influence of an approach loop. For instance, the woman trying to move away from an anti-goal such as being wrinkled (avoidance behavior) will soon find herself attending beauty salons or using anti-wrinkle creams etc (approach behavior). This is what makes a strong case for the relevance of feared selves in motivating behavior, including approaching the consumption of certain products or services. The concept of possible selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986) The central proposal of the concept of possible selves is similar to cybernetic control theory in the sense that future oriented selves function as personalized goals that mediate overt behavior and are inherently implicated in self-regulation and actionelicitation (Markus, 1983). In other words, they are motivating because they imply undertaking specific plans and strategies for becoming/never becoming those possible selves. Many consumer behaviors are guided and motivated by the desire to attain an envisioned possible hoped-for self and/or avoid an envisioned feared possible self, and do not only involve a current representation of self (Morgan, 1993). For instance, purchasing an anti-wrinkle cream is less likely to implicate a current self; rather, one or more envisioned potential selves (either hoped for or feared) are more likely to be salient and guide the decision process (Markus and Nurius, 1986). Positive versus negative self-conceptions can be activated by the social context or certain circumstances and form what is called the working self (Markus and Wurf, 1987). For instance, circumstances viewed as stressful might be more associated with negative possible selves, whereas reassuring or comforting ones might be associated more with positive possible selves (Markus, 1983). Positive vs. negative possible selves can also be activated by a framing condition such as a guided imagery task (Markus and Ruvolo, 1987). Thus, depending on the situation and circumstances, the working self of a woman thinking of buying anti-wrinkle cream can include a variety of negative self-conceptions (wrinkled, ugly, lonely) or positive (eternally young, beautiful and loved). The activated possible self will guide many aspects of information processing, judgment, and decision-making (Markus and Wurf, 1987). In consumer behavior, an exploratory study conducted by Patrick et al. (2002) revealed that consumers use products and services to approach hoped for-selves or avoid possible selves. According to the concept of possible selves, in order to be highly motivated a feared possible self needs to be balanced by an expected positive self in the same domain. This seems very close to the positive feedback loop in cybernetic control theory (Carver and Scheier, 1999) according to which the avoidance motive is directionless, unless it is captured and given an affirmative form by the approach tendency. The possible selves model also shares substantial ground with self-discrepancy theory. Both hold that people relate their perceptions of their actual selves to other selfrepresentations. Both posit a working model of the actual self, depending on which self-conception is being activated as a reference value. Both assume a hoped-for self Conceptual Papers / Marketing Theory Track 618

5 (ideal self). Both argue for the existence of other types of self-representations that may be implicated in self-regulation; Markus and her colleagues emphasize the feared self whereas Higgins considers the ought self. Both agree that different discrepancies or possible selves are motivating only in the domains of importance, judged central in self-definition. Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1987, 1997) Regulatory focus theory holds that all goal-directed behavior is regulated by two distinct motivational systems: a promotion focus system focused on hopes and accomplishment (gain), and a prevention regulatory focus focused on safety and responsibility (non-losses). Higgins and Siberman (1998) suggest that differences in chronic regulatory foci can be the result of differences in the quality and style of parenting. A parenting style focussing on protection and using punishment as discipline produces strong oughts representing concerns with safety and security. In contrast, a parenting style encouraging accomplishment and withdrawing love as discipline produces strong ideals representing concerns with accomplishment and advancement. This means that based on the parenting style people will be prone either to promotion or prevention focus. However, a large discrepancy between the actual self and a particular self-guide (ideal versus ought) may also cause the individual to be concerned with attaining that self-guide and thus have the self-regulation system related to that self-guide (promotion versus prevention). Besides being influenced by chronic tendencies, this predisposition can be influenced by situational factors that may temporarily induce a promotion or a prevention regulatory focus (Crowe and Higgins, 1997; Higgins et al., 1994; Roney, Higgins, and Shah, 1995). For instance, negative feedback from a lecturer or a parent will temporarily activate a prevention regulatory focus regardless of chronic tendencies. Similarly, positive feedback will temporarily activate a promotion regulatory focus. In many studies Higgins and his colleagues (e.g., Higgins et al., 1994; Freitas and Higgins, 2002) successfully activated prevention vs. promotion regulatory focus by getting subjects to think about their hopes vs. responsibilities or by giving them negative feedback vs. positive feedback about their performance on a task regardless of their real performance. The theory interestingly posits that promotion-focused people (chronic or situational) are more sensitive to the presence or absence of positive outcomes, and are more inclined to use approach as strategic inclination (approaching matches to desired end states). In contrast, prevention regulatory people are more sensitive to the presence or absence of negative outcomes, and are more inclined to use avoidance as strategic inclination (avoiding mismatches to desired end states). Someone who wants to keep fit could either exercise and take food supplements (approaching a match to desired end states) or avoid eating junk and fatty food (avoiding a mismatch to desired end states). A growing body supports these premises (Higgins, 1987, 1997; Higgins and Tykocinski, 1992; Higgins et al., 1994). In consumer behavior literature, Aaker and Lee (2001) were the pioneers in applying regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1977) in a marketing context. More specifically, the authors investigated the implications of self-regulatory focus both chronic and situationally primed on information processing and persuasion. They argue that the accessibility of independent versus interdependent self-views is the antecedent of approach and avoidance strategies, respectively. They also argued that independent ANZMAC 2003 Conference Proceedings Adelaide 1-3 December

6 self-view is particularly nurtured in certain cultures that endorse and encourage values of personal fulfilment (e g., United States). On the other hand, interdependent selfview is nurtured in cultures that encourage values of fulfilling obligations and responsibilities over achieving personal goals. Although the authors did not consider the strength of self-guides (ideals versus oughts) as antecedents of approach versus avoidance strategies, their findings provide evidence that information processing under goal-compatible conditions (fit between the persuasive appeal and the selfregulatory focus) underlies the persuasion effects through better recall of the message content and better discernment between strong and weak arguments. In the same vein, in a more recent work, Lee and Aaker (2002) found that the role of framing (presence/ absence of promotion-focused outcome versus presence or absence of preventionfocused outcome) on yielding favourable attitudes towards an advertisement was moderated by perceived risk (high vs. low) and regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention). A similar study conducted by Avnet and Pham (2002) examined more closely the role of activated ideals versus oughts in changing the weighting of information in information processing. In three studies, Pennington and Roese (2002) examined the link between regulatory focus and temporal perspective with which individuals view events and goals. All studies together clearly highlight the temporal immediacy with which prevention goals are perceived. They also suggest that consumers are likely to value differentially certain outcomes and products depending on the temporal perspective adopted at the time of judgement. Although explicitly standing apart, the reviewed theories appear to be intimately related. After highlighting their similarities and discussing their differences we can now integrate some of their central proposals and put forward our research propositions. Development of propositions Cybernetic control theory (Carver and Scheier, 1999) posits that when individuals have an undesired state as a reference value, the self-regulatory system amplifies discrepancies and involves attempts to move the currently perceived actual self-state as far as possible from the undesired reference point. As such, avoidance concerns the direction of the movement in relation to an undesired end state. In addition, Carver et al. (1999) examined the type of emotion generated from being close to a feared self as opposed to failing to achieve an ideal or ought self. Their findings revealed that escaping a feared self generates agitation-related emotion which is typically associated to failing to keep up to an ought. As such, we argue that regulation away from a feared self underlies the prevention regulatory focus typically associated with ought self-regulation in regulatory focus theory (Higgins 1987, 1997). Proposition 1: Activating a feared possible self would trigger the prevention regulatory focus, whereas activating a hoped-for self would trigger the promotion regulatory focus. Carver and Scheier (1999) argue that regulation towards or away from a self-guide occurs when the behavior has been accepted by the individual as personally important and meaningful; that is, integrated within a person s sense of self. This is very similar to the idea of possible selves being important in motivating behavior only in critical Conceptual Papers / Marketing Theory Track 620

7 domains that are judged by individuals as important for their self-definition (e.g., Markus and Wurf, 1987). Carver et al.'s (1999) work indicates that keeping away from a feared self is seen as a basic requirement. Their results showed that once a person is close to its feared self the escaping or avoiding motive becomes more pressing than the approaching motive and what matters most is to escape danger. As such, the authors argue that an avoidance goal is more pressing than the approach goal and only when some distance has been attained between actual and feared self do approach goals become salient. This idea of urgency associated with moving away from a feared self is further supported by the concept of possible selves according to which each self-conception (hoped-for self and feared self) has an effect attached to it, and activating a particular conception will generate that associated effect and impact subsequent behavior. That is, activating a hoped-for possible self will activate the positive effect tied to it (e.g., joy). This anticipated effect will motivate individuals to act to get closer to the positive state in order to experience it. On the other hand, visualizing a feared possible self would generate the linked negative effect (e.g., fear). This negative effect would motivate people to act and move away from the feared self associated with it. The theory also posits that people will not be driven by experiencing joy unless they feel fear is reasonable distant (Markus and Wurf, 1987). In addition, an exploratory study conducted by Patrick et al. (2002) revealed that consumers use products and services to approach hoped-for selves or avoid possible selves. Therefore, we propose: Proposition 2: In domains considered important to their self-definitions, individuals are more motivated to approach activities, products, and services to avoid an activated feared self, than to approach activities, products, and services to attain an activated hopedfor self. Studies that have examined the role of chronically or temporally accessible selfguides (ideal vs. ought) in moderating persuasion (e.g., Tykocinski et al., 1994; Brendl et al., 1995; Aaker and Lee, 2001; Lee and Aaker, 2002) indicate that the fit between the regulatory system and the message frame leads to enhanced evaluations and more effective persuasion. That is, promotion-focused people appear more persuaded by events or messages representing the presence or absence of positive outcomes (gains or benefits), whereas prevention-focused people appear more persuaded by events or messages representing the presence or absence of negative outcomes (losses). Thus, we propose: Proposition 3: The fit between individuals temporally activated self-regulation systems and the message frame leads to more favorable attitudes and higher behavioral intentions. More particularly, promotion-focused messages (e.g., emphasizing positive outcomes or gains associated with buying or using a product or service) will be more effective when a hoped-for self is activated. On the contrary, prevention-focused messages ANZMAC 2003 Conference Proceedings Adelaide 1-3 December

8 (e.g., emphasizing negative outcomes or losses associated with buying or using a product or service) will be more effective when a feared possible self is activated. In three studies Pennington and Roese (2002) indicated that a concern with regulating towards an ideal (promotion regulatory focus) tends to be associated with temporally distal goals and distal decisions, whereas a concern with regulating towards an ought (prevention regulatory focus) tends to be associated with temporally proximal goals and proximal decisions. In addition, based on the argument advanced above that puts forwards proposition 1, we suggest that the feared self underlies the prevention regulatory focus and thus is associated with temporally proximal decisions. That is, individuals concerned with avoiding a feared possible self will be inclined to adopt recommendations more quickly than those concerned with attaining a hoped-for outcome. Therefore, we propose: Preposition 4: Individuals for whom a feared possible self is activated are more inclined to take temporally proximal decisions (e.g., adopt recommendation to buy or use a product and service) than are those for whom a hoped-for self is activated. Theoretical and practical contributions The proposed research aims to contribute to self-regulation literature in social psychology as well as to consumer goal-directed research. Highlighting the differences and similarities between three theories that have long stood apart (cybernetic control theory, regulatory focus theory, and the concept of possible selves), and integrating them in the same conceptual framework would undoubtedly complement and contribute to each of these theories. Further, applying this framework in a consumer context would greatly enhance a clearly under- researched area in consumer goal-directed research the role of implicit self-regulation in influencing consumer evaluations and behavior. Yet, the most novel and original contribution of this research resides in considering for the first time the role of a negative self-guide (feared possible self) as opposed to a positive self-guide (hoped-for self) in influencing purchase motivation and decision making. Demonstrating that a feared possible self is a stronger predictor of consumers behavioral intentions and action initiation would provide further insights that fall from the principles of self-regulation in a consumer context. Overall, the cross-discipline perspective we propose to take will definitely contribute to fertilizing each of the disciplines, and hence to theory building. In addition to theoretical contributions, this research also suggests potentially important practical implications by assisting both marketers and policy makers in the development of more effective communications. For instance, if marketers or public policy makers need a quick decision to be made or a recommendation to be adopted without delay, they should activate a feared possible self and the message should be prevention focused (emphasizing the presence or absence of negative outcomes). If the communication aims at persuading the audience to adopt a recommendation that suggests long-term outcomes, a hoped-for self would be more appropriate to activate and the appeal should be promotion-focused (emphasizing the presence or absence of Conceptual Papers / Marketing Theory Track 622

9 positive outcomes). Furthermore, being aware of the implications that different regulatory systems have on consumers evaluations and decisions would certainly help managers better understand consumers diversity and better meet their expectations. List of references Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). "I" seek pleasure and "we" Avoid pains: The Role of Self-Regulatory Goals in Information processing and Persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, Bagozzi, R. P. & Dholakia. U. (1999). Goal setting and goal striving in consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing 63(Special issue): Brendl, C. M., Higgins, E. T., & Lemm, K. M. (1995). Sensitivity to varying gains and losses: The role of self- discrepancies and event framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6). Carver, C. S., Lawrence, J. W., & Scheier, M. F. (1999). Self-discrepancies and affect: Incorporating the role of feared selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(7 July), Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Principles of self-regulation: Action and emotion. New York: Guilford. Crowe, E., & Higgins, E.T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision-making. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision, 69(2 Feb). Duval, S., & Wickland, R. A. (1972). A theory of objective self-awareness. New York: Academic press. Freitas, A. L., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Enjoying Goal-Directed Action: The role of regulatory fit. American psychological society, 13(1), 1-6. Higgins, T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological review 94(3): Higgins, E. T. and Tykocinski.O., (1992). Self-discrepancies and biographical memory: Personality and cognition at the level of psychological situation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin. 18(5): Higgins, E. T., J. Shah, et al. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72(3): Higgins, E. T., &. Friedman, R.S (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus Prevention Pride. European Journal of Social Psychology. 31: 3-23 Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist 52: Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in experimental social psychology 30: Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), Higgins, E. T., Salovey, P., Liberman, N., & Freitas, A. L. (2002). When to begin? Regulatory focus and initiating goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(1), Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J. R., 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), ANZMAC 2003 Conference Proceedings Adelaide 1-3 December

10 Higgins, E. T., and Israela, S. Eds. (1998). Motivation and self-regulation across the life span. New York, Cambridge University Press Lee, A. Y & Aaker, J. L. (2002) Approach and avoidance: The role of perceived risk and framing in persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research 29(Special session summary): Markus, H., and Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, Markus, H. and Wurf. E (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social Psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology 38: Morgan, A. J. (1993). The evolving self in consumer behavior: Exploring possible selves. Advances in Consumer research, 20, Patrick, V. M., D. J. McInnis, et al. (2002). Approaching what we hope for and avoiding what we fear: The role of possible selves in consumer behavior. Advances in Consumer Research 29: Pennington, G. L., & Roese, N. J. (2002). Regulatory focus and temporal perspective. Advances in Consumer Research 29: Pham, M. T., J. L. Aaker, et al. (2002). Consumers as motivated beings: the influence of self-regulation on judgment and persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research 29(Special session summary): Pieters, R., Baumgartner, H., & Allen, D. (1995) means-end chains approach to consumer goal structures, International Journal of Research in Marketing 12 (Oct): Roney, C., & Higgins, E. T., & Shah, J. (1995). Goals and framing: How outcome focus influences motivation and emotion. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), Shah, J., & Higgins E. T., et al. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: Shah, J. & Higgins E. T., (1997). Expectancy * value effects: Regulatory focus as determinant of magnitude and direction. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 73(3). Tykocinski, O., Tory, H. E., & Shelly, C. (1994). Message framing, selfdiscrepancies, and yielding to persuasive messages: The motivational significance of psychological situations. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(1), Weiner, N. (1948). Cybernetics: Control and communication in the animal and the machine. Cambridge, MIT press. Conceptual Papers / Marketing Theory Track 624