In this study, we approximately replicated Papi and Khajavy’s (2021) investigation into the regulatory focus in second language acquisition, applying their approach to a significantly larger cohort of 855 Chinese second language (L2) learners. In contrast with the original study, our research employed the College English Test Band 4 (CET-4), a standardized English test, to better align with the Chinese educational context. This methodological shift allowed for a nuanced exploration of the regulatory focus’s role in language learning among Chinese students. Our results predominantly reinforce the crucial role of regulatory focus in language learning, echoing Papi and Khajavy’s findings. We discovered notable parallels in how promotion positively influences ideal own and ideal other, and how prevention negatively impacts ought own and ought other. However, a unique finding of our study was the stronger impact of ought selves on L2 anxiety and enjoyment in the Chinese context. This highlights the nuanced influence of socioeducational environments on regulatory focus strategies, suggesting contextual variability in language learning strategies.

Regulatory focus theory (RFT) postulates two cognitive-motivational systems for personal goal pursuit: the promotion system, which is associated with ideal goals (an individual’s hopes, dreams, and aspirations), and the prevention system, which is associated with ought goals (an individual’s duties, responsibilities, and obligations). The two systems have been studied extensively in behavioral research with reference to differences between promotion and prevention goal pursuit as well as the consequences of perceived attainment versus nonattainment within each system. However, no study has examined the neural correlates of each combination of goal domain and goal attainment status. We used a rapid masked idiographic goal priming paradigm and functional magnetic resonance imaging to present individually selected promotion and prevention goals, which participants had reported previously that they were close to attaining (“match”) or far from attaining (“mismatch”). Across the four priming conditions, significant activations were observed in bilateral insula (Brodmann area (BA) 13) and visual association cortex (BA 18/19). Promotion priming discriminantly engaged left prefrontal cortex (BA 9), whereas prevention priming discriminantly engaged right prefrontal cortex (BA 8/9). Activation in response to promotion goal priming was also correlated with an individual difference measure of perceived success in promotion goal attainment. Our findings extend the construct validity of RFT by showing that the two systems postulated by RFT, under conditions of both attainment and nonattainment, have shared and distinct neural correlates that interface logically with established network models of self-regulatory cognition.

People generally tend to stay consistent in their attitudes and actions but can feel licensed to act less-than-virtuously when an initial moral action provides an excuse to do so (i.e., moral self-licensing). A handful of studies have tested how relevant initial attitudes moderate the self-licensing effect but yielded mixed findings: Initial attitudes either decrease, increase, or do not influence licensing dynamics. To account for these inconsistent findings, we propose that the effect of attitudes could itself interact with other factors, notably motivational orientation. We conducted two studies taking into account initial attitudes, absence/presence of moral credentials, and participants’ chronic regulatory focus. Drawing from self-completion theory, we expected self-licensing to occur specifically amongst prevention-focused participants holding positive intergroup attitudes. Results supported this prediction. Prevention-focused participants with positive intergroup attitudes supported affirmative action policies to a lesser extent when they had acquired moral credentials, as compared to when they had not (i.e., self-licensing), t(329) = –3.79, p < .001, d = –.42, 95% CI [–.64, –.20]. Additionally, promotion-focused participants holding positive intergroup attitudes supported affirmative action policies to a greater extent when they had acquired moral credentials (i.e., behavioral consistency), t(329) = 2.44, p = .015, d = .27, 95% CI [.05, .49].

This paper investigates the impact of leader feedback on followers’ knowledge-sharing behavior through a regulatory focus theory perspective. Data were collected through an experiment with 129 college students. Results showed that compared with leader’s prevention feedback style and negative feedback valence, promotion style and positive feedback valence inspire employee knowledge-sharing behavior better. These two positive relationships are mediated by promotion situational regulatory focus. The negative relationship between prevention leader feedback style and knowledge sharing is mediated by prevention situational regulatory focus, while negative leader feedback valence has its negative effect on knowledge sharing directly.

Regulatory focus theory is proposed as offering an explanation for the influence of ethical leadership on organizational citizenship behaviors and employee commitments. The prevention focus mindset of an employee is argued to be the mechanism by which an ethical leader influences extra-role compliance behavior as well as normative commitment, whereas the promotion focus mindset of an employee is argued to be the mechanism by which an ethical leader influences extra-role voice behavior as well as affective commitment. Moreover, leader-member exchange is proposed as a moderator of the relationship of ethical leadership to regulatory focus mindsets and employee behavior and commitments. Using the data collected in two waves from 250 working adults, we tested the proposed relationships with moderated mediation bootstrap procedures. The findings generally support the hypothesized relationships and point toward important implications for ethical leadership in work settings.

Power influences the way people set and pursue their goals. Recent Studies have shown that powerful people, when compared with powerless individuals, have greater accessibility of their promotion goals (for instance, their ideals, their aspirations, etc.). In the current research we aim to explore the moderating role of power's legitimacy in such effect. In Study 1, after manipulating power and legitimacy, the accessibility of ideals was measured. Results showed that in the legitimate condition, the powerful, compared to the powerless people, showed greater accessibility of their ideals. However, in the illegitimate condition the opposite was true. In Study 2, the accessibility of a different type of goal: oughts, was explored. Results showed that the illegitimate powerholders, when compared with legitimate ones, had their oughts more accessible. The importance of these results is discussed in line with recent theorizing within social psychology of power.