Looking Towards the Past or the Future Self: How Regulatory Focus Affects Temporal Comparisons and Subsequent Motivation

Abstract

Temporal selves are a rich source of potential comparison standards, yet little is known about the preference for specific temporal selves. We examine whether regulatory focus influences to what extent people compare themselves to future or past selves. Promotion-focused individuals, who focus on positive outcomes, were more likely to compare themselves to their future selves (Study 1), specifically while appraising themselves in a domain in which the future self was seen as superior to the current self (Study 2). However, prevention-focused individuals, who focus on negative outcomes, did not orient themselves towards their past, inferior, selves. Supporting a cognitive fit hypothesis, individuals in a promotion-mindset were more motivated to improve when comparing with their future (vs. past) self (Study 3).

Keywords::

• Temporal comparisons
• Regulatory focus
• Self
• Time

Notes

^1. Our primary dependent variables are the self-rated foci and not the content of the self-descriptions. However, coding of the thought listing content revealed that participants who mentioned a temporal comparison in their description also self-reported a higher focus on the respective temporal self both in Study 1 [Those who mentioned a past comparison in their description rated their thought focus on past selves higher (M = 5.08) than those who did not (M = 3.15), t(61.62) = 5.03, p < .001. Those who mentioned a future comparison in their description rated their thought focus on future selves marginally higher (M = 4.44) than those who did not (M = 3.68), t(37.61) = 1.89, p = .066.] and Study 2 [Those who mentioned a past comparison in their description rated their thought focus on past selves higher (M = 5.21) than those who did not (M = 3.10), t(87.47) = 6.90, p < .001. Those who mentioned a future comparison in their description rated their thought focus on future selves higher (M = 5.00) than those who did not (M = 3.25), t(31.92) = 4.65, p < .001.].

^2. The sample of the pilot study includes the participants of Study 1 (n = 90) plus 38 participants of another study on general self-appraisal. In both cases, the pilot questions were asked at the end of the main study.

^3. Age and the individual regression coefficient are significantly negatively correlated in both the social skill domain and the athletic ability domain. However, including age as covariate in a repeated-measurement ANOVA with Domain (social skills vs. athletic ability) as within-participant factor and regression coefficient as dependent variable indicates no significant interaction between age and Domain (F < 1) and the main effect of Domain remains significant, F(1, 125) = 5.07, p = .03. Regardless of age, participants expected a more positive development of their social skills than of their athletic ability over time.

^4. Including age as covariate in these regression analyses did not alter the results. Promotion and prevention focus remain significant predictors of future comparison focus in the social skill domain, but not in the athletic ability domain.

^5. The direct effect of the interaction term (Regulatory Focus × Temporal Comparison Focus) on behavioral intentions did not reach significance. Notably, however, t-tests showed that when in a promotion-oriented mindset, participants reported stronger intentions in the future focus condition (M = 5.19, SD = 0.70) than in the past focus condition (M = 4.69, SD = 1.04), t(53) = 2.03, p = .05. In contrast, when in a prevention-oriented mindset, participants reported equally strong intentions to improve in the future condition (M = 5.18, SD = 1.33) and the past condition (M = 5.30, SD = 1.21), t(56) = − 0.36, p = .72.