Recent metamotivation research revealed that Westerners recognize that promotion versus prevention motivations benefit performance on eager versus vigilant tasks, respectively; that is, they know how to create task-motivation fit with respect to regulatory focus. Westerners also believe that, across tasks, promotion is more beneficial than prevention (i.e., a promotion bias). Adopting a cross-cultural approach, we examined whether beliefs about task-motivation fit generalize across cultures, whether Easterners exhibit a contrasting prevention bias, and the role of independence/interdependence in these beliefs. Results revealed cross-cultural similarities in metamotivational beliefs. Moreover, Easterners and Westerners alike often exhibited a promotion bias, suggesting that this effect may not be shaped by culture. One potential cultural difference did emerge: Easterners appeared to recognize how to create task-motivation fit for both independent and interdependent outcomes, whereas Westerners only recognized how to do so for independent outcomes. We discuss the role of culture in shaping metamotivation.
BürknerP. C. (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28.
2.
CarverC. S.ScheierM. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality–social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92(1), 111–135.
3.
CrossS. E.BaconP. L.MorrisM. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 791–808.
4.
ElliotA. J.ChirkovV. I.KimY.SheldonK. M. (2001). A cross-cultural analysis of avoidance (relative to approach) personal goals. Psychological Science, 12(6), 505–510.
5.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.
6.
FischerR. (2004). Standardization to account for cross-cultural response bias: A classification of score adjustment procedures and review of research in JCCP. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(3), 263–282.
7.
FlavellJ. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
8.
FörsterJ.HigginsE. T.BiancoA. T. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 148–164.
9.
FreitasA. L.HigginsE. T. (2002). Enjoying goal-directed action: The role of regulatory fit. Psychological Science, 13(1), 1–6.
10.
FujitaK.ScholerA. A.MieleD. B.NguyenT. (2019). On metamotivation: Consumers’ knowledge about the role of construal level in enhancing task performance. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 4(1), 57–64.
11.
GelmanA.CarlinJ. B.SternH. S.DunsonD. B.VehtariA.RubinD. B. (2013). Bayesian data analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
12.
GibsonJ. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In GibsonJ. J. (Ed.), The ecological approach to visual perception (pp. 119–136). Houghton Mifflin.
13.
HeineS. J.KitayamaS.LehmanD. R.TakataT.IdeE.LeungC.MatsumotoH. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 599–615.
14.
HigginsE. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300.
15.
HigginsE. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1217–1230.
16.
HigginsE. T. (2008). Culture and personality: Variability across universal motives as the missing link. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2), 608–634.
17.
Hoshino-BrowneE.ZannaA. S.SpencerS. J.ZannaM. P.KitayamaS.LackenbauerS. (2005). On the cultural guises of cognitive dissonance: The case of Easterners and Westerners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 294–310.
18.
HubleyC.EdwardsJ.MieleD. B.ScholerA. A. (2020). Metamotivational beliefs about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Manuscript under review.
19.
JeffreysH. (1961). Theory of probability. Oxford University Press.
20.
KruschkeJ. K.LiddellT. M. (2018). The Bayesian New Statistics: Hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 178–206.
21.
KungF. Y.KimY. H.YangD. Y. J.ChengS. Y. (2016). The role of regulatory fit in framing effective negative feedback across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(5), 696–712.
22.
LatimerA. E.Williams-PiehotaP.KatulakN. A.CoxA.MowadL.HigginsE. T.SaloveyP. (2008). Promoting fruit and vegetable intake through messages tailored to individual differences in regulatory focus. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 35(3), 363–369.
23.
LeeA. Y.AakerJ. L.GardnerW. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1122–1134.
24.
LemoineN. P. (2019). Moving beyond noninformative priors: Why and how to choose weakly informative priors in Bayesian analyses. Oikos, 128(7), 912–928.
25.
LockwoodP.MarshallT. C.SadlerP. (2005). Promoting success or preventing failure: Cultural differences in motivation by positive and negative role models. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 379–392.
26.
MacGregorK. E.CarnevaleJ. J.DusthimerN. E.FujitaK. (2017). Knowledge of the self-control benefits of high-level versus low-level construal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(4), 607–620.
27.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.
28.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS.HeimanR. J. (1996). Culture and “basic” psychological principles. In HigginsE. T.KruglanskiA. W. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 857–913). Guilford Press.
29.
MasudaT.KitayamaS. (2004). Perceiver-induced constraint and attitude attribution in Japan and the US: A case for the cultural dependence of the correspondence bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(3), 409–416.
30.
MieleD. B.ScholerA. A. (2018). The role of metamotivational monitoring in motivation regulation. Educational Psychologist, 53(1), 1–21.
31.
MieleD. B.ScholerA. A.FujitaK. (2020). Metamotivation: Emerging research on the regulation of motivational states. Advances in Motivation Science, 7, 1–42.
MurayamaK.KitagamiS.TanakaA.RawJ. A. (2016). People’s naiveté about how extrinsic rewards influence intrinsic motivation. Motivation Science, 2(3), 138–142.
34.
NguyenT.CarnevaleJ. J.ScholerA. A.MieleD. B.FujitaK. (2019). Metamotivational knowledge of the role of high-level and low-level construal in goal-relevant task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(5), 876–899.
35.
NguyenT.TogawaT.ScholerA. A.FujitaK. (2020). A cross-cultural investigation of metamotivational knowledge of construal level in the United States and Japan. Motivation Science, 6(4), 386–400.
36.
NisbettR. E.WilsonT. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259.
37.
NorenzayanA.ChoiI.NisbettR. E. (2002). Cultural similarities and differences in social inference: Evidence from behavioral predictions and lay theories of behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(1), 109–120.
38.
SansoneC.WeirC.HarpsterL.MorganC. (1992). Once a boring task always a boring task? Interest as a self-regulatory mechanism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 379–390.
39.
ScholerA. A.HigginsE. T. (2012). Too much of a good thing? Trade-offs in promotion and prevention focus. In RyanR. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of motivation (pp. 65–84). Oxford University Press.
40.
ScholerA. A.MieleD. B. (2016). The role of metamotivation in creating task-motivation fit. Motivation Science, 2(3), 171–197.
41.
ScholerA. A.MieleD. B.MurayamaK.FujitaK. (2018). New directions in self-regulation: The role of metamotivational beliefs. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(6), 437–442.
42.
SeminG. R.HigginsT.de MontesL. G.EstourgetY.ValenciaJ. F. (2005). Linguistic signatures of regulatory focus: How abstraction fits promotion more than prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(1), 36–45.
43.
SpiegelS.Grant-PillowH.HigginsE. T. (2004). How regulatory fit enhances motivational strength during goal pursuit. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(1), 39–54.
44.
TamirM. (2016). Why do people regulate their emotions? A taxonomy of motives in emotion regulation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(3), 199–222.
45.
TamirM.FordB. Q. (2012). When feeling bad is expected to be good: Emotion regulation and outcome expectancies in social conflicts. Emotion, 12(4), 807–816.
46.
UskulA. K.ShermanD. K.FitzgibbonJ. (2009). The cultural congruency effect: Culture, regulatory focus, and the effectiveness of gain-vs. loss-framed health messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 535–541.
47.
WagnerR. K.SternbergR. J. (1985). Practical intelligence in real-world pursuits: The role of tacit knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(2), 436–458.
48.
WoltersC. A. (2003). Understanding procrastination from a self-regulated learning perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 179–187.
49.
YamagishiT.HashimotoH.SchugJ. (2008). Preferences versus strategies as explanations for culture-specific behavior. Psychological Science, 19(6), 579–584.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
