Creation and validation of the Chinese regulatory focus in relationships scale across multiple relationships context

A regulatory focus in relationships motivates individuals to be concerned about the presence/absence of positives (promotion focus)/negatives (prevention focus) in social interactions. How to capture the regulatory focus in relationships remains unclear. Based on regulatory focus theory, we created a regulatory focus in relationships scale (RFRS) with a sample of Chinese undergraduates. The RFRS included four subscales of interpersonal relationships (parent–child, teacher-student, friend, classmate), each of which consists of a model of promotion-prevention focus. With a series of interviews and tests, we found that the RFRS had acceptable validation and reliability. And promotion-prevention focus in relationships is context-dependent: Chinese undergraduates hold high promotion and low prevention focus for parents, friends, and classmates, while they hold high prevention focus and low promotion focus for teachers. The regulatory focus in relationships newly created can be used for future studies to test relational motivation in the specific interpersonal context.

Introduction

In the social interactions, regular focus theory proposed that promotion-prevention focus can influence people to adopt different strategy to react (Higgins et al., 1994). For example, to maintain friendship, individuals high in promotion focus try to be a good friend, whereas individuals high in prevention focus try not to be a bad friend. Such chronic trait of the sensitivity to positives/negatives in the interpersonal context can be termed as regulatory focus in relationships (Winterheld and Simpson, 2011).

People can hold different pattern of regular focus according to whom they interact with. For example, people can be sensitive to not to fail the responsibility for parents (prevention focus in relationships with parents), while they can be sensitive to gain friends’ support (promotion focus in relationships with friends). This phenomenon is particularly pronounced in some relational-oriented societies, such as China. For instance, the harmonious relationships is particularly important in Chinese social interactions, requiring Chinese to adopt different social reactions in different social interactions. According to the famous Chinese relationship theory, Chinese relationships are basically included two components: affection and instrument, which classifies into three types of relationships: expressive ties (e.g., families, close friends), mixed ties (e.g., classmates, colleagues, and teachers), and instrumental ties (e.g., salesmen and customers) (Hwang, 1987). The incentives inherited by these types of relationships can result in variations of regulatory focus in different relationships. Moreover, the social relationship structure that how we construct social relationships would determine the meaning and manifestations of regular focus in relationships.

Currently, the regulatory focus on relationships has been mostly tested with general self-regulatory measurement in one specific relationships context (e.g., partnership or friendship) (e.g., Winterheld and Simpson, 2016; Gao et al., 2017; Rodrigues et al., 2017), which may not well tap the interpersonal context. Thus, how to test regulatory focus in relationships context requires further explorations of measurement. With the sample of Chinese undergraduates, the current study has attempted to create a new scale of regular focus in relationships, which hopefully can provide a new perspective and tool for the measurement of social motivation in future study.

Regulatory focus theory: The model of promotion-prevention focus

Regulatory focus theory conceptualizes two regulatory systems, promotion focus and prevention focus, which motivates individuals to adopt different orientation styles to meet the desired ends (Brockner and Higgins, 2001; Higgins, 2002). To address the needs for advancement and accomplishment, promotion-focused individuals are concerned with the presence/absence of positive outcomes, striving for the ideal self; therefore, they are motivated to pursue gains and success with positive strategies (Roney et al., 1995; Higgins and Crowe, 1997). In contrast, to address the needs for security and protection, prevention-focused individuals are concerned about the presence/absence of negative outcomes, striving for the ought self; therefore, they are motivated to avoid losses and fulfill obligations and maintain the status quo with a conservative strategy (Higgins and Crowe, 1997; Liberman et al., 1999; Idson et al., 2000; Lockwood et al., 2002). According to regulatory focus theory, regulatory focus has developed from repeated experienced interactions with caregivers (Higgins, 1997). The responses of caregivers to their children’s actions and performance guide children toward attaining desired end states, leading to concerns about the presence and absence of positive/negative outcomes (promotion concerns/prevention concerns). These caregiver-child interactions occur over long periods and may manifest in other communications.

In recent decades, overwhelming evidence has documented that regulatory focus is associated with individual cognitive processes (e.g., Liberman et al., 1999; Friedman and Förster, 2001; Forster and Higgins, 2005; Lisjak et al., 2012) and emotional responses (Higgins, 1997; Molden et al., 2008).

Contextualization of regulatory focus in relationships

Evidence has documented that promotion focus/prevention focus, functioning as a chronic trait, could relate to people social behavior in the interpersonal context (e.g., Sassenberg et al., 2003; Shah et al., 2004; Righetti et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2011; Gao et al., 2017; Rodrigues et al., 2017). For example, interacting with romantic partners, friends, or group members, promotion-focused partners hold stronger commitments, perceive partners as supportive, use creative conflict resolution, experience cheerfulness-dejection emotions, and show approach (e.g., Shah et al., 2004; Winterheld and Simpson, 2011; Gao, 2017; Rodrigues et al., 2017); in contrast, prevention-focused partners perceive partners as distant, display withdrawal and conflict engagement, experience quiescence and agitated emotions, and show avoidance (Shah et al., 2004; Winterheld and Simpson, 2011; Gao et al., 2017). These studies have tested a general regulatory focus: promotion focus is operationalized in terms of the ongoing accessibility of a person’s hopes and aspirations (ideal strength), and prevention focus is operationalized in terms of the ongoing accessibility of a person’s beliefs about his or her responsibilities and obligations (ought strength) (Higgins et al., 2001). Because general regular focus emphasizes goal pursuit strategies for achieving personal goals, its suitability to test motivation in the social interaction cast researchers’ doubt.

Thus, to precisely describe how promotion-prevention focus relates to social interaction, Winterheld and Simpson (2011) conceptualized a relationships-level regulatory focus. Individuals with a predominantly promotion focus on relationships are concerned about the enhancement and growth of relationships, seeking positive experiences, and working toward their ideal relationships, while individuals with a prevention focus on relationships are concerned about the security needs of the relationships, striving to protect and stabilize their relationships and feeling anxious about negative outcomes (Winterheld and Simpson, 2011; Rodrigues et al., 2017). To test this construct, Winterheld and Simpson (2011), based on the general regulatory focus scale, used ‘relationships’ to induce participants’ concerns in romantic relationships (e.g., promotion focus, ‘I often think about how I can achieve a successful relationships’; versus prevention focus, ‘I am often anxious that I am falling short of my duties and obligations in my relationships’, Winterheld and Simpson, 2011). Using this scale, Rodrigues et al. (2019) found that a promotion focus in relationships (versus a prevention focus in relationships) was associated with more constructive resolution strategies to maintain a relationships.

Although Winterheld and Simpson (2011) has tried to tap the regular focus in relationships by stressing ‘relationships’, such measurement probably cannot activate promotion/prevention focus without clear situational information to interpersonal outcomes. According to regular focus theory, the situational accessibility to the positive/negatives information determines the dominant type of regulatory focus (Higgins et al., 1986). In the experiment, feedback on promotion/prevention focus can temporarily induce promotion/prevention focus (Roney et al., 1995). It also documented that feedback from a boss to an employee or from a teacher to a student can motivate individuals to attain the desired/undesired end states (Higgins, 2002; Higgins et al., 2003). The accessibility of interpersonal context suggests that the pattern of regular focus should be varied by the contexts.

Accessibility to regulatory focus in different relationships in Chinese society

The accessibility to a certain type of regulatory focus depends on its frequency of activation, meanings of the stimulus event (Higgins, 1987). Consistent with this proposition, in the social interactions, the interaction pattern frequently activated, and the meaning of the interpersonal situation can decide the accessibility to regulatory focus in this relationship context. Relevant studies also have found that people’s interaction patterns in different interpersonal relationships are greatly determined by the systematic cultural differences in the relational mobility (Yuki and Schug, 2020), residential mobility (Oishi and Kesebir, 2012), and prevalence of independence versus interdependence (Adams, 2005). In the relational-oriented society, such as China, people’s social interaction patterns are particularly affected by the relationship structure. According to the famous Chinese relationship structure theory, Chinese relationships are basically included two basic incentives: affection and instrument, which classifies into three types of relationships: expressive ties, mixed ties, and instrumental ties (Hwang, 1987). The incentives of different relationships can motivate Chinese people to adopt different interaction strategies, which will affect the accessibility to different regulatory focus in different relationships.

Firstly, the expressive ties are permanent and stable (e.g., relationships with families and close friends), satisfying feelings of warmth and safety (Hwang, 1987). The strong affection of relationships can stably provide unconditional support and intimacy, motivating individuals to frequently concern the positives of relationships and relieve worries on negatives of the relationships. Moreover, the “meaning” of affection guides Chinese people to interpret their social interactions as a mean to strengthen their expressive relationship. Such interaction pattern frequently used and meanings of the expressive interactions can be more easily to activate the accessibility to promotion focus in these relationships.

Secondly, the instrumental relationships (e.g., salesmen and customers) stresses material goals. The benefit of instrumental ties motivates individual to consider the relationships only to attain other goals (Hwang, 1987). Interacting with instrumental others, people will unconsciously consider the maximization of self-interest by reacting fairly to others. Thus, the perception of “gains of benefit” is frequently acted, thereby it will be used subsequently to perceive their instrumental relationship. Meanwhile, out of the self-interest, the concerns of “not to lose benefit” can also frequently occur to the interactions, which activates the accessibility to the prevention focus as well. In this case, the accessibility to the positive and negative outcomes would be more likely to be activated (promotion and prevention focus in relationships).

Thirdly, in the mixed relationships (e.g., classmates, colleagues, teachers), people know each other and keep certain affective feelings, their relationships are not as strong as expressive ties. In the mixed relationships, affection, and instruments work together to impact Chinese social interactions. And face (i.e., “a person can claim for himself from others by virtue of the relative position he occupies in his social network and the degree to which he is judged to have functioned adequately in that position,” Ho, 1976, p.883) is the major instrumental incentives in the mixed relationships. Face is more vulnerable to loss than gain because it is successfully managed only when the individual can live up to social expectations. If one fails to meet, they will lose face, which can have negative effect on social interactions, or puts them at risk of being ostracized by society (Chow, 2004, see for a review). In this case, their self-regulation should be oriented toward not to lose of face (Hamamura and Heine, 2008), namely the prevention focus. For an instance, in relationships with teachers, Chinese teachers command students’ great respect and obedience in the school context. The great social power and status of teachers can prime college students’ fear of teachers’ negative evaluations (Ma and Han, 2009); and students try to miss mistakes. For another instance, in the interactions with classmates, Chinese undergraduates mainly consider their face, trying not to damage the relationships and maintaining the harmony. Then, in the relationships with teachers and classmates, the interaction patterns of “not to lose face, avoid mistakes” is frequently activated, leading to high accessibility to prevention focus.

Above all, the typical relationships exert differently on Chinese people’s interaction patterns and meaning of dyadic interactions, which leads to the accessibility of different regulatory focus in different relationships.

The present study

Accumulating evidence has revealed that individuals with a promotion/prevention focus display different social behavior. In the social relationships, the social interaction patterns frequently activated, and meanings of the context can decide the accessibility to promotion/prevention focus in relationships. Thus, the patterns and meanings of regular focus may vary by the relationships context. Nonetheless, most of the studies mainly used the general regular focus questionnaire to test the regulatory focus in relationship. Even the newly regular focus in relationship scale revised by Winterheld and Simpson (2011) just used the “relationship” word to specify the interpersonal context to stimulus regular focus in relationships. These testing methods cannot well capture the interpersonal concerns of the promotion-prevention focus in relationships.

Thus, a new measurement of regulatory focus in relationships should be created and developed, which can describe the variant patterns and meanings of regulatory focus across relationships. The current study is based on a model of promotion-prevention focus and the Chinese relationship structure to create a new regulatory focus in relationships scale (RFRS) in multiple relationships context. We would like to use a sample of Chinese undergraduates. College students experience important transitions in their major interpersonal relationships during the stage of emerging adulthood. Exploring undergraduates’ regulatory focus in relationships can be beneficial for interpersonal interactions. The most common relationships that occur to college students are relationships with parents, close friends, classmates, and teachers. We based on Chinese relationships structure and undergraduates’ most common relationships to set up four types of relationships: parent–child relationships scale (PCR), teacher-student relationships scale (TSR), friend relationships scale (FR), and classmate relationships scale (CR). These four types of relationship belong to the expressive relationships and mixed relationships. Because the instrumental relationships (e.g., salesman and customer) does not frequently occur to Chinese undergraduates, we do not primarily consider in the current study. With the sample of Chinese undergraduates, and a series of qualitative interviews and quantitative analyses, we attempted to make the following assumptions:

Firstly, the RFRS has good reliability and validation. Specifically, we assumed that the model of promotion-prevention focus exists in each type of relationships. Secondly, we assumed that the pattern of the promotion-prevention focus is context-dependent, varying across four types of relationships context. Based on Chinese relationship model mentioned above in the literature, in the expressive relationships, strong and stable affection can easily motivate undergraduates to consider enhancement of relationships, such interaction pattern frequently activated can lead the accessibility to promotion focus. In the mixed relationships, when interact with teachers, the great social power and status of teachers can prime undergraduates’ fear of teachers’ negative evaluations. Such responses frequently activated will easily lead to the accessibility to prevention focus. Similarly, interacting with classmates, face of the mixed relationships can be more likely to motivate undergraduates to concern on the negatives (e.g., not to lose face). This frequent interaction pattern will lead to high accessibility to prevention focus.

Materials and methods

We used qualitative and quantitative methods to create and validate the regulatory focus in relationships scale (RFRS). We primarily conducted semi-structured interviews to create an item pool. Then, we conducted a series of quantitative tests to analyze the psychometric proprieties of the scales.

Sample

We recruited all the participants by fliers through the university bulletin board system and university clubs. The participants signed an agreement to participate in the interviews. Participants were paid 30 RMB (approximately equal to 5 dollars) when the interviews ended. The interview studies were conducted with the sample of 51 participants (17 participants for the pilot interviews, 34 participants for the formal interviews). The quantitative studies also included pilot studies and formal studies. Specifically, with the sample 758 undergraduates, we conducted two runs of pilot test. Then, in the formal test, we primarily used the sample of 477 participants to run exploratory factor analysis (EFA), the sample of 85 undergraduates for the re-test reliability, and another sample of 1,349 undergraduates for the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Table 1 shows the participants’ basic information.

TABLE 1

Table 1. Number of samples collected in the different study phases.

Materials

Interview outlines

The interview outlines constituted undergraduates’ most common interpersonal context, namely, i.e., interactions with parents, teachers, friends, and classmates. Participants answered the interview questions based on the most common interactions (parents, teachers, friends, and classmates). According to regulatory ‘fit’ theory, when individuals recall their means to deal with desired/undesired ends, the match between means and ends can activate a promotion/prevention focus (Higgins et al., 1994; Förster et al., 1998). With this paradigm, we activated participants’ promotion/prevention focus in relationships context (happy/unhappy/neutral context) by recalling possible means to realize relational goals (negative/positive outcomes) (e.g., “Recalling one of the happy/unhappy experiences you had together, and what kinds of measures have you taken to realize happy/avoid unhappy outcomes”). We also set up the neutral context, i.e., conflict. Even in the neutral traits of outcomes, promotion/prevention focus still chronically motivate individual to adopt certain means to the outcomes. In this way, we could collect the comprehensive sample of manifestation in promotion prevention for the item pool.

General regulatory focus

Participants completed an 11-item measure of their persistent concerns with promotion (e.g., “I feel like I have made progress toward being successful in my life”) and prevention (e.g., “Not being careful enough has gotten me into trouble at times” (Higgins et al., 2001). Participants filled out the items on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly disagree).

Procedure

Phase 1: Semi-structured interviews and item pool

The semi-structured interviews were conducted individually in a separate and quiet room at Beijing Normal University, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, China. We conducted a series of pilot and formal interviews to produce the item pool. We invited 17 participants into the pilot interviews, which is used to identify the appropriateness of interview outlines. From the perspective of grounded theory, the sampling process was completed when participants’ answers reached theoretical saturation and no new emergent themes or concepts were generated (Higginbottom, 2004). Based on this guideline, we eventually conducted formal interviews with 34 participants. Thirty-three participants signed the agreement to record the interviews, which were translated by the XunFei Translator (i.e., software that can translate the audio file to script). One participant disagreed with recording the interview but agreed for notes to be taken during the interview. Each interview took 30–45 min.

All the interviews were transferred into the item pool (promotion focus prevention focus in relationships). Based on the definitions of the promotion-prevention focus proposed by previous studies (Winterheld and Simpson, 2011), we clarified manifestations of regular focus in relationships primed by the frame of outcomes. Specifically, in the happy outcome, the promotion focus on relationships was defined as the motivation to realize or avoid missing the positives (e.g., promote relationships). In the unhappy outcome, prevention focus was defined as the motivation to avoid or dismiss the negatives (e.g., to avoid fighting). In the conflict outcome, definitions of promotion focus and prevention focus were the same as those in the happy/unhappy context. We based on this definition to abstract participants’ answers in the interviews (some examples in the Table 2). We combined all the manifestations of promotion focus and prevention focus activated by happy/neutral/negative event, then abstracted and coded items. According to these definitions, another three assistants who were blinded to the interviews independently selected the items to the corresponding dimensions. We also invited an expert in regulatory focus theory to check the appropriateness of the item pool. By analyzing the interviews, we obtained original descriptive items of promotion-prevention focus in relationships from three kinds of context as much as possible. With a series of interviews and analyses, all the scripts and notes were eventually abstracted into the items pool, which included a total of 110 items at four subscales. The original items were presented in the scales.

TABLE 2

Table 2. Promotion-prevention focus in different relationship context from the interviewing.

To ensure the prime effect by the relationships context, participants were instructed to think of a certain target (parents, teachers, close friends, classmates) before answering the questionnaire. Regarding the response method for two dependent constructs, to reduce social desirability and improve the objectiveness of the response (Leung, 2011), we used a 6-point Likert scale (1 = ‘not me’ to 6 = ‘very true of me’) for each item.

Phase 2: Psychometric analysis of scales and modification

We conducted two runs of pilot studies to analyze and modify original 110 items. Specifically, with the sample of 758 participants, we conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for two pilot studies to analyze reliability, factor loading, and model fitness indicators. In each pilot study, items were deleted if at least three of the following criteria occurred: (1) factor loading of an item on both dimensions were quite similar; (2) factor loading was lower than 0.4; (3) if an item was deleted, Cronbach’s α increased; and (4) if an item was deleted, then CFA model fitness increased. In these psychometric criteria, we deleted 62 items in the first pilot study (sample = 416) from the original 110 items and deleted 9 items in the second pilot study (sample = 342) from the 48 items, such as “I am nice to my classmates because I want to get his or her positive evaluation.” We also deleted some items because of ambiguous meanings, such as “I am nice to my classmates because I do not want to break up the harmonious relationships” and “I tolerate my parents because of the harmonious relationships.” “Harmony” in Chinese words means no conflict, it cannot well differentiate the positive or negative concern so that the description can be too ambiguous to active the promotion focus or prevention focus. Additionally, we rewrote some sentences, such as “I chat with my parents because I want to get closer with them.” We conducted another 10 sample of interviews to check the readability and understanding of the items. We got 39items of total scales,which includes four subscales: 10 items of parent–child relationships subscale (PCR), 10 items of teacher-student relationships subscale (TSR), 10 items of friend relationships subscale (FR), and nine items of classmate relationships subscale (CR)Then we conductedaformal test ofEFAandCFAto decide the final items.

Results

Exploratory factor analysis

With the sample of 477 undergraduates, we used the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) approach to decide the factor validity of the four subscales with SPSS version 25, respectively. Using the principal axis factoring method, we expected two factors to emerge. The factor structure of the four-subscale indicated that Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.75, 0.80, 0.79, 0.82, respectively. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity was all significant for four subscales: χ ²_{parent–child} (45,477) = 1005.62, χ²_{teach-student} (36,477) = 1289.00, χ²_friend (36,477) =1327.48, χ²_classmate (55,477) = 1664.07, respectively, which indicated that relations between items were large enough to conduct an EFA. The initial eigenvalue indicated that the two factors in four subscales (PCR, TSR, FR, CR) accounted for a cumulative variance of approximately 47.79, 55.81, 58.72, 52.51%, respectively. However, according to the criterion mentioned above, we deleted four items of parent–child scale, three items of teacher-child subscale, one item of friend scale, one item of classmate subscale. Based on the formal test, we eventually obtained 30 items the regulatory focus in relationships scale, which consisted of four subscales: parent–child relationships subscale (6 items, PCR), teacher-student relationships subscale (7 items, TSR), friend relationships subscale (8 items, FR), and classmate relationships subscale (9 items, CR). Each subscale consisted of the dual dimensions of promotion-prevention focus in relationships.

Construct validity

The formal scale with 30 items was administrated to 1,349 undergraduate students to test the validity and reliability of the scale. The total scale includes four subscales, each of which consists of the model of promotion-prevention focus. We conducted a multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) model with CFA approach to test how well the structure of the scale fit the data with MPLUS 7 (Figure 1). The model fitness index was χ²/df = 2155.113, CFI = 0.886, TLI = 0.863, RMSEA = 0.060, SRMR = 0.044. Overall, based on the conventional cut-off values of the indicators for assessing model fit (i.e., CFI > 0.90, RMSEA <0.10, and SRMR <0.10 to indicate good fit) (Marsh et al., 2004), our construct validity of the model is acceptable.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Multi-method, multi-trait analysis for the regular focus in relationships scale.

The results suggested that the scale can test individual traits (promotion focus and prevention focus) across relationships context. Additionally, we found that in the multi-trait model, the factor loading of prevention focus on relationships with teachers, friends, and classmates were negative for general prevention focus, while the factor loading of promotion focus in relationships with parents were positive for general promotion focus. This result indicates that prevention focus was not consistent but rather varied across relationships context.

Because relationship types are independent of each other, we separated four relationships context to test the structure of promotion-prevention focus by CFA (parent–children relationships scale 0.940, teacher-student relationships scale 0.938, friend relationships scale 0.931, classmate relationships 0.884, respectively) (Table 3). The acceptable modeling indicator suggests that the data fit the promotion-prevention focus model of each subscale.

TABLE 3

Table 3. Construct validation analysis with CFA analysis for promotion-prevention focus model at each context.

Moreover, we tested the correlations between promotion-prevention focus in relationships and the general promotion-prevention focus (Table 4). We found that, in relationships with parents, promotion focus in relationships positively related to general promotion focus (p < 0.01), it also positively related to general prevention focus (p < 0.01). In relationships with teachers, promotion focus in relationships only positively and significantly related to general promotion (p < 0.01), but did not relate to general prevention focus (p > 0.05). In the relationships with friends and classmates, promotion focus in relationships positively correlated with general promotion focus, but negatively related to general prevention focus. As for the prevention focus in each relationship, it positively related to general promotion focus and prevention focus (ps < 0.01). And it seems that prevention focus in relationships would be more likely to relate to general prevention focus (we did not test the significance of correlations).

TABLE 4

Table 4. Correlations, descriptive statistics of promotion-prevention focus in relationships and general regulatory focus, and reliability test, re-test reliability for scales.

Item analysis for discriminant validity

We tested discriminant validity with the item-total correlation tests. It showed that all items had significant correlations with the associated factor but low or no correlation with the other factor (ps < 0.05) (Table 5). These results suggest that items of each subscale displayed acceptable discriminant validity. Moreover, to test the discriminant validity of each item, we descended dimension scores (i.e., relational promotion focus/relational prevention focus) of each subscale and assigned the top 27% of participants to the high-score group, the bottom 27% of participants to the low-score group. Then we compared each item score between the high-score group and the low-score group with the T-test. We found that across four subscales, all each item of high-score group were significantly higher than low-score group (ps < 0.001), indicating these items can differentiate promotion-prevention focus in relationships. These results supported that the discriminant validity was acceptable.

TABLE 5

Table 5. Item correlations.

Reliability

We tested the internal consistency reliability and retest reliability (Table 4). The Cronbach’s α of the four subscales were 0.690–0.797, suggesting that the items were reliable. To test and retest reliability, we used another sample of 85 undergraduates who finished the scale two times at intervals of 1 month. The correlations between the two tests were significantly positive (0.438–0.700, ps < 0.001), suggesting that the scale was stable and reliable.

Promotion and prevention focus across relationships context

To know the predominant pattern of regular focus in specific relationships context, we tested differences between promotion focus and prevention focus across relational context. The repeated variances tests found that in the relationships with parent, friend, and classmate, the promotion focus was higher than the prevention focus [F _parent(1,1,349) = 2806.283, p < 0.01,η² = 0.676; F_friend(1,1,349) = 2816.796, p < 0.01,η² = 0.676; F_classmate(1,1,349) =1339.145, p < 0.01,η² = 0.498, respectively]. In contrast, prevention focus in teacher-student relationships was higher than promotion focus [F_teacher (1,1,349) = 584.783, p < 0.01, η² = 0.303].

Discussion

Creation and validation of regular focus in relationships in China

Based on the regular focus theory, the major study purpose is to create and develop the regulatory focus in relationships. To test the model of promotion-prevention focus across multiple relationships context, the present study conducted a series of interviews and tests to create a new regulatory focus in relationships scale (RFRS). The findings show that the scale has good reliability and validity, and the promotion-prevention focus varies across relationships context.

As we assumed, the RFRS we created has good reliability and validity. In this study, items of promotion-prevention focus in relationship context is evaluated by different context; meanwhile, each item of promotion-prevention focus in regular focus contributed to traits (see Figure 1). The MTMM analysis is appropriate for the construct of RFRS with CFA tests. And the convergent and discriminant validity of individual traits across context can be evaluated within a multirait-multimethod with CFA approach (MTMM; Campbell and Fiske, 1959). And our CFA results suggested that the data fits the model. The construct validity of regular focus in relationships is acceptable with acceptable discriminant and convergent validity.

We found that in the MTMM, the factor loading of prevention focus in the relationships with teachers, friends, and classmates were negative for prevention focus (i.e., set up as the latent variable in the MTMM), while the factor loading of prevention focus in the relationships with parents were positive for prevention focus (i.e., set up as the latent variable in the MTMM). Such differences reflect that the meanings of obligations in prevention can vary across relationships. In China, whether individuals fulfill obligations is considered as an important moral issue (Zhang and Yang, 1998). The obligation inherited in parent–child relationships is based on blood association. Then fulfillment of obligations for parents not only indicate the ‘ought’ state (e.g., responsibility), but also the ‘ideal’ state (e.g., build up moral sense and heritage). In this case, meanings of prevention in parent–child relationships are different from that in friend-relationships, classmates-relationships, teacher-student relationships.

When we tested the correlations between general regular focus and regular focus in relationships, we assumed that general promotion focus consistently and significantly related to promotion focus (not prevention focus) across context, general prevention focus consistently significantly related to prevention focus (not promotion focus) across context. However, the results partially supported our hypothesis. Promotion focus in relationships with teachers, friends, and classmates only significantly and positively related to general promotion focus (not general prevention focus). These results could indicate that to some extent, regulatory focus in relationships have criterion validity. We also found that promotion focus in relationships with parents positively related to both general promotion and prevention focus. As discussed above, parent–child relationships in China can be both accessible to the positives/negatives. Thus, promotion focus is sensitive to both general promotion/prevention focus. The result found that prevention focus in relationships positively related to both general promotion-prevention focus.

Different patterns of regulatory focus in relationships

As for our major assumption, promotion-prevention focus in different relationships is context-dependent rather than consistent. We tested the predominant across relationships context with the repeated variances tests, and found that promotion focus significantly scored higher than prevention focus in the relationships with parents, close friends, and classmates, yet, prevention focus significantly scored higher than promotion focus in the relationships with teachers. These results partially support another assumption.

According to the Chinese relationships model, parent–child relationships and friend relationships belong to expressive ties that satisfy an individual’s feelings of affect and support. The strong affect inherited by this type of relationship can be useful incentives to access to positive outcomes. For example, Chinese college students can spend most of their time on academic learning, which is financially supported by parents, and they do not need to financially support parents. Meanwhile, the stable affection relieves undergraduates’ worry on the negatives (e.g., breakups) to their relationships. Such interaction pattern with parents can frequently activate the positive affect and support, but less worry, thereby increase the likelihood to activate Chinese undergraduates’ promotion focus.

Similarly, the stable friendships can provide strong affective foundations so that college students enjoy and feel free to concern the positives of relationships. Thus, such strong affect component of this relational bond can provide the accessibility for Chinese undergraduates to focus on the positives, displaying high promotion focus; meanwhile, affect and support of the expressive ties can relieve their worry on the negatives to parents and friends. So, relationship with friends tend to be sensitive to higher promotion focus than prevention focus.

We found that Chinese undergraduates hold higher promotion focus on classmates than prevention focus, which does not support our assumption. Among Chinese college students, relationships with classmates belong to mixed ties. The important concern of this tie is to provide potential opportunities to build up social resources and have fewer affect concerns (Hwang, 1987). In daily interactions, Chinese undergraduates do not have frequent interactions and strong affect with classmates, they are more likely to expect the positives (e.g., future social resources, help) by keeping their causal interactions. Then the interactions with classmates-relationships can be more frequently to activate the “benefit” information, thereby increase accessibility to concern the positives (promotion focus).

Interestingly, as we assumed, we found that teacher-student relationships predominantly induced higher prevention focus than promotion focus among Chinese undergraduates. In Chinese society, teachers command students’ great respect and obedience in the school context. The great social power and status of teachers can prime college students’ fear of teachers’ negative evaluations (Ma and Han, 2009). Moreover, face inherited by relationships with teachers motivates undergraduates to be cautious, not to fail teachers’ expectations, avoid mistakes, orienting to the prevention focus. Meanwhile, during college learning phase, undergraduates have casual connections, weak affections with teachers. So, the interactions with teachers frequently activates the information of “avoid the mistakes,” thereby can be more easily to be accessible to the negatives (e.g., bad academic evaluations) than to the positives (e.g., enhance relationships).

To sum up, although relationships with classmates and teachers both belong to mixed ties, they primed the different pattern of regulatory focus in relationships, which again supports the assumption that regulatory focus in relationships is context dependent.

Above all, based on regulatory focus and the Chinese relationship structure, we found that the patterns and meanings of promotion focus and prevention focus did vary across relationships context. The present study makes some contributions. First, at the theoretical level, we used both qualitative and quantitative methods to construct promotion-prevention focus in relationships context, which enriched regulatory theory. It has well known that relationships concerns (e.g., harmony motive) greatly impact Chinese social interactions. Regulatory focus in relationships can provide the perspective of individual differences that Chinese tend to adopt promotion focus/prevention focus to realize the desired/undesired relational concerns in different relationships. Also, previous studies only considered a certain type of relationship (e.g., friend, enemy, etc.). We used the MTMM analysis to test RFRS across the multiple contextual contexts, which helps us know the contextualization of regulatory focus in relationships. Overall, the regulatory focus in relationships scale provides the perspective of context effect that the meaning and style of promotion focus and prevention focus can vary depending on whom we are interacting with. Second, at the measurement level, the current study creates and validate a new scale of regulatory focus in relationships. The scale can capture promotion-prevention focus on relational ends (rather than general ends), which is essential to discuss relationships effect. Particularly, at relationships-oriented society, such as China, the scale can provide measures to test the impact of regulatory focus on social interactions at specific relationships context.

However, some limitations should be discussed. First, although a specific scale for regulatory focus in relationships is more sensitive to the meanings of promotion and prevention focus in relationships, it cannot generalize conclusions for all relationships. Second, we chose only undergraduates’ most common relationships context. Social relationships are more complicated in the real social context. Future studies can include other types of relationships. Thirdly, although we have used multiple criterion to test validity, future study can test more variable to test the convergent and discriminant validity.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Beijing Normal University. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

Author contributions

WWL has made a major contribution to writing and editing. XQH has made some contributions to editing and revising. YW has made contributions to support and supervise the study. XHZ has made major contributions to writing and editing and supervising. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding

This work was supported by MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Project of Humanities and Social Sciences (Project No. 21YJC880039); Guangdong Province 13th Five-Year Plan Philosophy Social Science Youth Project (Project No. GD20YJY08); MOE (Ministry of education in China) Project of Humanities and Social Sciences (Grant Number 17YJCZH014).

Acknowledgments

Great appreciations for all the students and teachers who participated in the studies.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Adams, G. (2005). The cultural grounding of personal relationship: Enemyship in North American and West African worlds. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88, 948–968. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.948

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brockner, J., and Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: implications for the study of emotions at work. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 86, 35–66. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2001.2972

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Campbell, D. T., and Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bull. 56, 81–105. doi: 10.1037/h0046016

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chow, I. H. S. (2004). The characteristics of Chinese personal ties (Guanxi): evidence from Hong Kong. Organ. Stud. 25, 1075–1093. doi: 10.1177/0170840604045092

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Forster, J., and Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychol. Sci. 16, 631–636. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01586.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., and Idson, L. C. (1998). Approach and avoidance strength during goal attainment: regulatory focus and the “goal looms larger” effect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 75, 1115–1131. Available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9866180. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.5.1115

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Friedman, R. S., and Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81, 1001–1013. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gao, Q., and Bian, R., Liu, R. de, He, Y., and Oei, T. P. (2017). Conflict resolution in Chinese adolescents’ friendship: links with regulatory focus and friendship satisfaction. J. Psychol. Interdis. Appl., 151, 268–281. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2016.1270887

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hamamura, T., and Heine, S. J. (2008). “Approach and avoidance motivation across cultures” in Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation. ed. A. J. Elliot (New York, NY: Psychology Press), 557–570.

Google Scholar

Higginbottom, G. M. A. (2004). Sampling issues in qualitative research. Nurse Res. 12, 7–19. doi: 10.7748/nr2004.07.12.1.7.c5927

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: a theory relating self and affect. Psychol. Rev. 94, 319–340. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. Am. Psychol. 52, 1280–1300. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Higgins, E. T. (2002). How self-regulation creates distinct values: the case of promotion and prevention decision making. J. Consum. Psychol. 12, 177–191. doi: 10.1207/S15327663JCP1203_01

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Higgins, E. T., Bond, R. N., Klein, R., and Strauman, T. (1986). Self-discrepancies: distinguishing among self-states, self-state conflicts, and emotional vulnerabilities. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 5–15. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.5

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Higgins, E. T., and Crowe, E. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 69, 117–132. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.2675

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., and Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: promotion pride versus prevention pride. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 3–23. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.27

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Higgins, T. E., Idson, L. C., Freitas, A. L., Spiegel, S., and Molden, D. C. (2003). Transfer of value from fit. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 1140–1153. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1140

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J. R., Crowe, E., and Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance: distinct self-regulatory systems. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 66, 276–286. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.276

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ho, D. Y. (1976). On the concept of face. Am. J. Sociol. 81, 867–884. doi: 10.1086/226145

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hwang, K. (1987). Face and favor: the Chinese power game. Am. J. Sociol. 92, 944–974. doi: 10.1086/228588

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., and Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: a regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 36, 252–274. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1999.1402

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Leung, S. O. (2011). A comparison of psychometric properties and normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-point likert scales. J. Soc. Serv. Res. 37, 412–421. doi: 10.1080/01488376.2011.580697

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, C. J., and Higgins, E. T. (1999). Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of personality and social psychology. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77, 1135–1145. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1135

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lisjak, M., Molden, D. C., and Lee, A. Y. (2012). Primed interference: the cognitive and behavioral costs of an incongruity between chronic and primed motivational orientations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102, 889–909. doi: 10.1037/a0027594

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., and Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83, 854–864. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.4.854

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ma, Y., and Han, S. (2009). Self-face advantage is modulated by social threat - boss effect on self-face recognition. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45, 1048–1051. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.05.008

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., and Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values forfit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Struct. Equ. Model. 11, 320–341.

Google Scholar

Molden, D. C., Lee, A. Y., and Higgins, E. T. (2008). “Motivations for promotion and prevention” in Handbook of motivation science. eds. J. Shah and W. Gardner (New York: Guilford Press), 169–187.

Google Scholar

Oishi, S., Miao, F. F., Koo, M., Kisling, J., and Ratliff, K. A. (2012). Residential mobility breeds familiarity seeking. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102, 149–162. doi: 10.1037/a0024949

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Righetti, F., Finkenauer, C., and Rusbult, C. (2011). The benefits of interpersonal regulatory fit for individual goal pursuit. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101, 720–736. doi: 10.1037/a0023592

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rodrigues, D. L., Huic, A., Lopes, D., and Kumashiro, M. (2019). Regulatory focus in relationships and conflict resolution strategies. Personal. Individ. Differ. 142, 116–121. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.01.041

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rodrigues, D., Lopes, D., and Kumashiro, M. (2017). The “i” in us, or the eye on us? Regulatory focus, commitment and derogation of an attractive alternative person. PLoS One 12, 1–25. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174350

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Roney, C. J. R., Higgins, E. T., and Shah, J. (1995). Goals and framing: how outcome focus influences motivation and emotion. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 21, 1151–1160. doi: 10.1177/01461672952111003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sassenberg, K., Kessler, T., and Mummendey, A. (2003). Less negative = more positive? Social discrimination as avoidance or approach. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39, 48–58. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00519-X

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shah, J. Y., Brazy, P. C., and Higgins, E. T. (2004). Promoting us or preventing them: regulatory focus and manifestations of intergroup bias. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30, 433–446. doi: 10.1177/0146167203261888

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yuki, M., and Schug, J. (2020). Psychological consequences of relational mobility. Curr Opin Psychol. 32, 129–132.

Google Scholar

Winterheld, H. A., and Simpson, J. A. (2011). Seeking security or growth: a regulatory focus perspective on motivations in romantic relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101, 935–954. doi: 10.1037/a0025012

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Winterheld, H. A., and Simpson, J. A. (2016). Regulatory focus and the interpersonal dynamics of romantic partners’ personal goal discussions. J. Pers. 84, 277–290. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12158

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, S., Higgins, E. T., and Chen, G. (2011). Managing others like you were managed: how prevention focus motivates copying interpersonal norms. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100, 647–663. doi: 10.1037/a0021750

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, Z., and Yang, C.-f. (1998). Beyond distributive justice: the reasonableness norm in Chinese reward allocation. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 1, 253–269. doi: 10.1111/1467-839X.00017

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar