ABSTRACT
M odern humans face a social milieu teeming with possible romantic alter-natives. Even after accounting for individual differences in the ability to attract romantic partners, however, not everybody responds to this social milieu in the same way; people differ markedly in how they attend to, evaluate, and
Romantic Alternatives 320 Commitment and Romantic Alternatives 320 Regulatory Focus Theory: Promotionand Prevention Motivations 321 Do Promotion-Focused and Prevention-Focused Individuals Differ in Their Romantic Standards? 323 Study 1: Regulatory Focus and Self-ReportedAttention to and Pursuitof Romantic Alternatives 324 Study 2: Regulatory Focus and Consideration of Alternatives to an Established Relationship 325 Study 3: Regulatory Focusand Consideration of Alternatives Among the Romantically Unattached 326 Summary of Empirical Results 329 Regulatory Focus and Romantic Relationships 329 Is It Best Not to Date Promotion-Focused Individuals? 330 What About Approach and Avoidance Motivations? 331 Conclusions 332 References 332
pursue romantic alternatives. In the present chapter, we (a) employ the principles of regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997) to examine the strategic motivations that might underlie these differences, and (b) review a recent series of studies investigating the interplay between regulatory focus and individuals’ responses to romantic alternatives (Molden, Finkel, Johnson, & Eastwick, 2008). We explore the idea that individuals who are broadly oriented toward eagerly pursuing gains (promotion-focused individuals) generally attend more closely to romantic alternatives, evaluate them more positively, and pursue them more vigorously than do individuals who are broadly oriented toward vigilantly protecting against losses (prevention-focused individuals).
