To confirm that participants rated typicality according to the Rosch norms, a repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted with typicality rating (good, moderate, and low exemplars) as a within-subjects variable and regulatory focus condition (promotion, prevention) as a between-subjects variable. There was a significant effect of typicality rating F(2, 82) = 723.73, p < .001, !2 = 0.95. Pairwise comparisons revealed that the good exemplar (M = 6.80, SD = .30) ratings were significantly higher than the moderate (M = 5.57, SD = .54), and low (M = 4.03, SD = .72) exemplar ratings (all p’s < .001). Moderate exemplar ratings were significantly higher than poor exemplar ratings (p < .001). This demonstrates that participants rated good exemplars as more typical than moderate and poor exemplars, and moderate exemplars more highly than poor exemplars. Table 4.2 shows the averaged typicality ratings by level (good, moderate, and poor) by each of the ten categories, across all participants.
Table 4.2. Typicality ratings for poor, moderate, and good exemplars across all subjects.
Category Poor Moderate Good
Furniture 3.33 (1.34) 4.71 (1.02) 6.84 (0.38) Fruit 3.36 (1.29) 6.25 (0.90) 6.89 (0.38) Vehicle 3.49 (1.43) 4.72 (1.23) 6.93 (0.27) Weapon 4.00 (1.27) 5.89 (0.82) 6.79 (0.42) Vegetable 4.92 (1.21) 5.91 (1.26) 6.57 (0.82) Carpenter Tools 4.76 (1.18) 5.05 (1.41) 6.79 (0.56) Birds 4.85 (1.18) 6.37 (0.77) 6.85 (0.52) Sports 3.74 (1.23) 6.20 (0.89) 6.91 (0.37) Toys 4.19 (1.46) 4.86 (1.33) 6.57 (0.98) Clothing 3.62 (1.08) 5.73 (1.04) 6.88 (0.30) 4.03 (0.72) 5.57 (0.54) 6.80 (0.30)
4.1.2.3
Regulatory focus and trait motivation effects
4.1.2.3.1
Chronic focus and trait motivation effects
In order to examine whether chronic regulatory focus was related to typicality ratings of poor exemplars, I conducted a series of regressions with chronic promotion focus, chronic prevention focus, and chronic regulatory strength (chronic promotion – chronic prevention) as criterion variables and poor exemplar typicality ratings as the dependent variable. It was not possible to conduct an analysis of variance with the RFQ chronic focus scores because the majority of participants had a promotion scale score greater than their prevention scale score. None of these chronic regulatory focus variables
significantly predicted poor exemplar typicality ratings (all p’s > .05).
To examine a possible influence of trait motivation on poor exemplar typicality ratings, I conducted regressions with the BAS and BIS total scores as the independent variables and poor exemplar typicality ratings as the dependent variable, and again the regression models did not reach significance (all p’s > .05)
4.1.2.3.2
Situational focus effects
Although I predicted that I would find a fit between chronic and situational focus, it is also possible that situational focus alone influenced the poor exemplar typicality ratings. I wanted to test whether participants with a manipulated promotion versus a prevention
focus showed differences on their typicality ratings of poor exemplars. Based on prior research showing that a promotion focus is associated with broadened attention and attentional flexibility, and a prevention focus with narrowed attention and reduced attentional flexibility (Förster & Higgins, 2005; Friedman & Förster, 2005), I predicted that the promotion and prevention conditions would differ in their poor exemplar typicality ratings, with the promotion condition displaying higher typicality ratings than the prevention condition. I also predicted that there would be no differences between the two groups on their ratings of good and moderate exemplar typicality ratings because these exemplars did not tap conceptual breadth or flexibility to the same extent.
I averaged each type of typicality rating for each category across participants and
averaged these ratings by condition. I conducted a repeated measures analysis of variance with typicality rating (good, moderate, and poor) as a within-subjects variable and
regulatory focus condition (promotion, prevention) as a between-subjects variable. There was a significant effect of typicality rating F(2, 82) = 723.73, p < .001, !2 = 0.95,
reflecting the differences in ratings between good, moderate, and poor exemplars, but the interaction between typicality rating and condition was not significant, F(2, 82) = 1.64, p = .20. However because I made the a priori prediction that the promotion and prevention conditions would differ significantly on their poor exemplar typicality ratings only, I conducted a one-way between-subjects analysis of variance and found that the promotion condition (M = 4.18, SD = .75) assigned higher typicality ratings to poor exemplars than participants in the prevention condition (M = 3.87, SD = .67), and this difference was significant, F(1, 84) = 4.30, p = .049, !2 = .041.
Figure 4.2 shows the averaged typicality ratings by type (good, moderate, and poor). Table 4.3 shows these ratings by individual category, between situational regulatory focus conditions.
Figure 4.2. Typicality ratings ordered by exemplar type (good, moderate, and poor). Note: * p < .05.
Good Moderate Poor
Exemplar Type A ver aged T ypicality Rating 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Promotion Prevention
*
Table 4.3. Means (and standard deviations) of typicality ratings by category and between situational regulatory focus conditions.
Promotion Prevention
Category Poor Moderate Good Poor Moderate Good
Furniture 3.26 (1.34) 4.68 (1.08) 6.76 (0.48) 3.41 (1.35) 4.74 (0.97) 6.93 (0.21) Fruit 3.41 (1.34) 6.54 (0.66) 6.87 (0.40) 3.30 (1.26) 5.96 (1.00) 6.90 (0.35) Vehicle 3.80 (1.37) 4.74 (1.40) 6.90 (0.36) 3.17 (1.43) 4.69 (1.06) 6.96 (0.13) Weapon 4.30 (1.34) 6.09 (0.86) 6.80 (0.44) 3.71 (1.15) 5.69 (0.73) 6.79 (0.40) Vegetable 5.17 (1.07) 6.28 (0.96) 6.73 (0.65) 4.66 (1.30) 5.52 (1.42) 6.40 (0.94) Carpenter Tools 4.76 (1.32) 4.93 (1.53) 6.84 (0.42) 4.76 (1.04) 5.18 (1.27) 6.74 (0.68) Birds 5.02 (1.06) 6.35 (0.74) 6.92 (0.34) 4.68 (1.27) 6.40 (0.81) 6.79 (0.66) Sports 3.82 (1.28) 6.18 (0.97) 6.85 (0.49) 3.66 (1.19) 6.23 (0.81) 6.96 (0.17) Toys 4.44 (1.39) 4.94 (1.21) 6.70 (0.63) 3.94 (1.50) 4.79 (1.46) 6.44 (1.23) Clothing 3.82 (1.01) 5.78 (1.02) 6.87 (0.31) 3.40 (1.13) 5.67 (1.07) 6.88 (0.29) 4.18 (0.75) 5.65 (0.61) 6.82 (0.32) 3.87 (0.67) 5.49 (0.46) 6.78 (0.27)
Considered in isolation these results suggest that the situational focus manipulation resulted in a significant difference in participants’ poor exemplar typicality ratings. However due to the significant difference in negative mood reported by participants between the two situational regulatory focus conditions I conducted a final series of analyses to examine the interaction between regulatory focus condition, self reported negative affect, and poor exemplar typicality ratings further.
I conducted a multiple regression with regulatory focus condition (promotion essay, prevention essay) and negative affect ratings as predictor variables and poor exemplar typicality ratings as the criterion variable. The model was significant, F(2,84) = 4.70, p = .01, !2 = .10. An examination of the coefficients revealed that regulatory focus condition did not reach significance, (! = .152, t = 1.40, p = .16), but negative affect ratings did, (!
= -.247, t = -2.28, p = .03). This shows that as negative mood ratings decreased, poor exemplar typicality ratings increased.
Although I had not predicted that there would be differences in moderate exemplar typicality ratings, due to the significant correlation between negative affect ratings and moderate exemplar typicality ratings I wanted to see whether the same pattern held. I again entered regulatory focus condition (promotion essay, prevention essay) and negative affect ratings into a regression with moderate exemplar typicality ratings as the dependent variable. The model significantly predicted the data, F(2,84) = 3.60, p = .03, !2 = .08. An examination of the coefficients revealed that regulatory focus condition did not significantly account for the variability in moderate exemplar typicality ratings, (! = .088, t = 0.80, p = .42), but negative affect ratings did, (! = -.249, t = -2.28, p = .03). Thus for both poor and moderate exemplars, as negative mood decreased, typicality ratings increased.