Regulatory fit effects on stimulus identification.
This article examines the effects of a fit between a person's global regulatory focus and the local task reward structure on perceptual processing and judgment. On each trial, participants were presented with one of two briefly presented stimuli and were asked to identify it. Participants were placed in a promotion focus (a situationally induced sensitivity to gains) or a prevention focus (a situationally induced sensitivity to losses) and were asked to maximize gains or minimize losses. An asymmetric payoff ratio biased the overall reward toward one identification response over the other. Two experiments tested the role of regulatory fit when internal familiarity and perceptual sensitivity were low or high. When familiarity and sensitivity were low, participants in a regulatory fit (promotion focus with gains or a prevention focus with losses) showed greater perceptual sensitivity but no response bias differences, relative to participants in a regulatory mismatch. When familiarity and sensitivity were high, participants in a regulatory fit showed a response bias toward the high-payoff stimulus but no differences in perceptual sensitivity. Speculations are offered on the neurobiological basis of this effect, as well as implications of this work for clinical disorders such as depression.
Department of Psychology, University of Texas, 1 University Station, A8000, Austin, TX 78712, USA. glass@mail.utexas.edu
Brian D
BD
Glass
W Todd
WT
Maddox
Arthur B
AB
Markman
D001288:Attention; D003657:Decision Making; D004056:Differential Threshold; D004192:Discrimination, Psychological; D006801:Humans; D007389:Internal-External Control; D007600:Judgment; D009042:Motivation; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D011594:Psychometrics / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012201:Reward; D017603:Signal Detection, Psychological
Biol Psychiatry. 2005 Feb 15;57(4):319-27
15705346
Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Dec;9(4):625-36
12613670
Am Psychol. 2002 Sep;57(9):705-17
12237980
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1998 Nov;24(6):1459-82
9835061
J Cogn Neurosci. 2005 Nov;17(11):1728-43
16269109
Neural Netw. 2003 Sep;16(7):973-84
14692632
J Abnorm Psychol. 2001 Aug;110(3):488-93
11502092
Psychol Rev. 1984 Apr;91(2):153-84
6571423
Psychol Rev. 1999 Jul;106(3):529-50
10467897
Mem Cognit. 2008 Dec;36(8):1460-9
19015505
J Exp Soc Psychol. 2008 May;44(3):920-927
19412324
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001 Nov;27(6):1367-84
11713873
J Abnorm Psychol. 1995 Feb;104(1):3-14
7897050
Mem Cognit. 2003 Mar;31(2):181-98
12749461
Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2010 Apr 1;19(2):106-110
20556228
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1999 Oct;25(5):1189-206
10531661
Am Psychol. 1997 Dec;52(12):1280-300
9414606
Psychophysiology. 1998 Sep;35(5):607-14
9715104
Psychol Sci. 2005 Nov;16(11):852-5
16262768
Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Dec;14(6):1125-32
18229485
Annu Rev Psychol. 1989;40:109-31
2648973
Am Psychol. 2000 Nov;55(11):1217-30
11280936
J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Nov;32(3):373-86
512570
J Clin Child Psychol. 1999 Sep;28(3):366-75
10446686
Mem Cognit. 2006 Oct;34(7):1377-97
17263064
J Cogn Neurosci. 2001 Oct 1;13(7):937-51
11595097
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2005 Jun;5(2):202-11
16180626
J Exp Anal Behav. 2002 Nov;78(3):567-95
12507020