Academic motivation and well-being: regulatory focus or fit?

Previous studies find inconsistent results regarding the relationship between regulatory focus and academic motivation and well-being. The present study seeks to address this by considering the thinking style demands of each course. For instance, a course that emphasizes drawing skills may necessitate the utilisation of more experiential thinking, whereas a physics course may necessitate the utilisation of more rational thinking. Regulatory focus theory posits that promotion-focus is associated with intuitive and experiential thinking, while prevention-focus is associated with analytic and rational thinking. As such, the present study aims to investigate how the interaction between thinking style demands and regulatory foci influence motivation and well-being. The study was conducted with a cross-sectional, correlational research design and included a survey of 186 Singaporean undergraduate students. The findings indicate that when the student’s dominant regulatory focus aligns with the thinking style demands of a course, the student experiences regulatory fit and consequently, higher motivation in that course. Generally, students’ motivation in their studies are also determined by the level of fit between regulatory focus and the thinking style demands of their major. In contrast, well-being seems to be only determined by regulatory focus, with promotion-focused students experiencing greater well-being, regardless of thinking styles. Lastly, promotion-focused students are more prone to persuasion by wellbeing messages, regardless of message framing. Identity-specific regulatory focus was employed in this study. Theoretical and practical implications were discussed.Bachelor of Social Sciences in Economics and Psycholog