| The current research explores factors that affect the likelihood that people will commit to change in the deliberation phase of self-regulation, particularly when deliberating about difficult, ambivalence-evoking change decisions. Above and beyond the content of the deliberation (i.e., what people deliberate about), my research examines how an individual's motivational orientation in deliberation (i.e., how people deliberate) affects the likelihood that they will decide to change. Building on the insights of Regulatory Mode Theory (Higgins, Kruglanski, & Pierro, 2003; Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah, & Spiegel, 2000), I propose that increased commitment to change can result from increased strength of locomotion motivation in the deliberation phase. Four studies provide evidence that locomotion motivation is related to increased goal commitment arising either from a chronic orientation (Studies 1-3) or from a deliberation tactic that intensifies that orientation (Studies 1-2, 3b). Studies 2 and 3 provide evidence that the locomotion effect on commitment is not mediated by the subjective value of the new state of by self-efficacy beliefs. Instead, Study 3a provides evidence that locomotion motivation leads to increased commitment to a goal to change because predominant locomotors value change as an end in itself. Study 3b uses the logic of self-regulatory hierarchies to test this mechanism within the assessment system, providing evidence that a deliberation tactic can be designed that increases goal commitment for both high locomotors and high assessors. By demonstrating the role of locomotion motivation in deliberation, the current work highlights the value of decoupling regulatory mode from regulatory phase. |
