Collective fit increases team performances: extending regulatory fit from individuals to dyadic teams

Team Regulatory Strategies and Performance in Elite Handball

Purposes: The purposes of this research were: 1) in a preliminary study, to identify regulatory strategies used by players and coaches according to situation reward structure (Gains vs. Losses); and 2) in the main study, to analyze the effect of the interaction between situation reward structure (Gains vs. Losses) and regulatory strategy (Prevention vs. Promotion) on team performance (scoring a goal) in real-world settings. Methods and Results: In the preliminary study, 25 adult male handball players and 19 coaches playing and coaching at national level in the French championships completed a version of the Regulatory Focus Strategies Scales after reading four handball game scenarios (two gain-oriented and two loss-avoidance oriented). Two-way ANOVA with repeated measures revealed that when the reward structure was gain-oriented, participants had higher scores in promotion regulatory strategy than in prevention regulatory strategy, and conversely. For the main study, a sample of 199 game phases was selected from 84 games played in the Lidl Star League (2017-2018 season). Mixed method analysis revealed a significant team regulatory fit effect, that is an interaction effect between reward structure and regulatory focus strategy on team performance. When there was a fit, both in loss-avoidance oriented and gain-oriented reward structure, performance was higher (OR = 1.64 and OR = 0.86, respectively) than when there was a mismatch (OR = 0.59 and OR = 0.27). Conclusion: These results confirm the applicability of the Regulatory Fit Theory in a real-world setting with professional players, and extend grounded social cognition research regulatory fit literature to team level.

Focus meets motivation: When regulatory focus aligns with approach/avoidance motivation in creative processes

According to Regulatory Focus Theory, two systems determine our strategies to pursue goals – the promotion and the prevention system. Individuals with a dominant promotion system focus on achieving gains, i.e., promoters, and individuals with a dominant prevention system focus on avoiding losses, i.e., preventers. Regulatory Fit Theory suggests that a fit between this focus and the situation causes superior performance and makes individuals feel right. We transfer the fit idea to the interaction of dominant regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention) with motivational direction (approach vs. avoidance motivation). We investigated these interaction effects on individuals’ performance and their experience within creativity workshops. In Study 1 (N₁ = 172), using multi-level analyses, we found that a promotion focus was associated with fluency and a prevention focus with elaborated ideas. This effect was stronger, when preventers also scored high on avoidance motivation. Further, preventers experienced more autonomy support and were more satisfied when they scored high on avoidance. Promoters high on approach motivation reported more autonomy support and more satisfaction than preventers high on approach motivation. For Study 2 (N₂ = 112), we used an experimental design: After measuring regulatory focus, we manipulated approach vs. avoidance motivation in creativity workshops. Using multi-level analyses, we did not find main or interaction effects on fluency or elaboration but we found interaction effects on participants’ experience of the creativity workshop. Preventers were more satisfied when they received the avoidance condition. Promoters reported less autonomy support, lower satisfaction, and more perceived conflicts within their teams in the avoidance condition.

Personality Traits and Emotion Regulation Styles of Elite Beach Volleyball Dyads: Examination of Intra-Team Differences, Performance and Satisfaction Levels

The current study was designed to assess the personality traits and emotion regulation styles of elite beach volleyball players. Intra-team differences were examined with three primary objectives: (i) to create a personality profile of elite beach volleyball players, (ii) to examine the relationship of this profile in relation to performance and satisfaction levels, and (iii) to highlight the similarities in personalities of members of successful teams. A total of 82 elite beach volleyball players were asked to fill out the Big Five Inventory, the Personality Adjective Scale, and the Affective Style Questionnaire. In addition to these, the overall satisfaction and performance level of these athletes were measured. Results indicated a higher manifestation of warmth, liveliness, emotional stability and reasoning, along with lower levels of neuroticism in successful athletes. The players used a variety of emotional regulation styles and reported being moderately to highly satisfied with their team. A repeated-measures MANCOVA revealed no significant differences in personality traits between the team members. This study generates valuable insights into the personality of elite beach volleyball players and can be useful for coaches, sport psychologists, and academics for practical application and further scientific research.

Harbingers of foul play: A field study of gain/loss frames and regulatory fit in the NFL

Do people cheat more when they have something to gain, or when they have something to lose? The answer to this question isn’t straightforward, as research is mixed when it comes to understanding how unethical people will be when they might acquire something good versus avoid something bad. To wit, research has found that people cheat more in a loss (vs. gain) frame, yet research on regulatory focus has found that people cheat more in a promotion focus (where the focus is on acquiring gains) than in a prevention focus (where the focus is on avoiding losses). Through a large-scale field study containing 332,239 observations including 27,350 transgressions, we address the contradictory results of gain/loss frames and regulatory focus on committing unethical behavior in a context that contains a high risk of detecting unethical behavior (NFL football games). Our results replicated the separate effects of more cheating in a loss frame, and more cheating in a promotion focus. Furthermore, our data revealed a heretofore undocumented crossover interaction, in accordance with regulatory fit, which could disentangle past results: Specifically, we found promotion focus is associated with more cheating in a loss (vs. gain) frame, whereas prevention focus is associated with more cheating in a gain (vs. loss) frame. In gridiron football, this translates to offensive players fouling more when their team is losing (vs. winning) and defensive players fouling more when their team is winning (vs. losing).

Rumination and Performance in Dynamic, Team Sport

People high in rumination are good at tasks that require persistence whereas people low in rumination is good at tasks that require flexibility. Here we examine real world implications of these differences in dynamic, team sport. In two studies, we found that professional male football (soccer) players from Germany and female field hockey players on the US national team were lower in rumination than were non-athletes. Further, low levels of rumination were associated with a longer career at a higher level in football players. Results indicate that athletes in dynamic, team sport might benefit from the flexibility associated with being low in rumination.