This paper reviews the history of the distinctions that have been made, and the differences discovered, between promotion and prevention self-regulation. These include, respectively: (1) Nurturance versus security; (2) ideal (hopes) versus ought (duties) self-guides; (3) presence and absence of positive outcomes versus absence and presence of negative outcomes; (4) approaching matches to a desired end-state versus avoiding mismatches to a desired end-state; (5) eager for "hits" versus vigilant

more »

... gainst "errors of commission"; (6) speed versus accuracy; (7) global/abstract versus local/ concrete; and (8) intuitions versus reasons. A fundamental, "story of 0", distinction between promotion and prevention self-regulation is then discussed: attaining "+1" from "0" versus maintaining "0" against "-1", where "0" is a nongain in the former and a non-loss in the latter. The paper then shows how each of the earlier distinctions and differences between promotion and prevention can be understood in terms of this fundamental distinction. Over the years, promotion and prevention selfregulation have been distinguished in many different ways. In this section, I will review these different ways in roughly historical order, including promotion versus prevention differences that were empirically discovered. Nurturance Versus Security Regulatory focus theory began by assuming that the hedonic principle should operate differently when serving fundamentally different needs; specfically, the distinct survival needs of nurturance (e.g., nourishment from breast feeding) and security (e.g., protection from predators). Human survival requires adaptation to the surrounding environment, especially the social environment (see Buss, 1996) . To obtain the nurturance and security they need to survive, children must establish and maintain relationships with caretakers who provide them with nurturance and security by supporting, encouraging, protecting, and defending them (see Bowlby, 1969 Bowlby, , 1973 . To make these relationships work, children must learn how their appearance and behaviors influence caretakers' responses to them (see Bowlby, 1969; Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934; Sullivan, 1953) . As the hedonic principle suggests, children must learn how to behave with others in order to approach pleasure and avoid pain. But what is learned about regulating pleasure and pain is different for nurturance and security needs. Nurturance is about encouraging growth and development. Security is about being free from danger or threat. Regulatory focus theory proposes that nurturancerelated regulation involves a promotion focus whereas security-related regulation involves a prevention focus. Ideal Versus Ought Self-Guides Regulatory focus theory developed from selfdiscrepancy theory (e.g., Higgins, 1987), which proposed that different modes of caretaker-child interaction increase the likelihood that children will acquire specific kinds of goals and standards used in self-regulation -distinct selfguides. These self-guides represent either (a) their own and significant others' hopes, wishes, and aspirations for them -ideals; or (b) their own and significant others' beliefs about their duties, obligations, and responsibilities -oughts. Regulatory focus theory proposes that self-regulation in relation to ideals versus oughts differs in regulatory focus. Self-regulation in relation to ideal self-guides involves a promotion focus. Self-regulation in relation to ought selfguides involves a prevention focus.