Distinguish between aspects of a promotion focus and aspects of a prevention focus.

Regulatory Focus

Regulatory focus theory describes how people engage in self-regulation, the process of bringing oneself into alignment with one’s standards and goals (Higgins, 1997). According to regulatory focus theory, people may adopt a promotion focus (a focus on growth, attaining desired outcomes, and realizing ambitions), or a prevention focus (a focus on safety and security, avoiding undesirable outcomes, and fulfilling one’s responsibilities).

Regulatory focus has been linked to creative idea generation (e.g., Friedman & Förster, 2001), people’s willingness to make risky decisions (Crowe & Higgins, 1997), and the degree to which organizational teams engage in the promotion and selling of their creative ideas (Rietzschel, 2011). Therefore, it might plausibly be related to idea evaluation as well. This indeed appears to be the case. In a recent study on interpersonal idea evaluation, for example, Zhou, Wang, Song, and Wu (2017) showed that people’s regulatory focus affected their novelty perception as well as their interpersonal evaluation accuracy: on the whole, people with a strong promotion focus, as compared to people with either a weak promotion focus or a strong prevention focus, were better able to recognize the novelty and creativity of an idea. Similar effects have been found with regard to intrapersonal idea evaluation. Herman and Reiter-Palmon (2011) found that participants with a strong promotion focus were better able to assess the originality of self-generated ideas, whereas participants in a prevention focus were more accurate in assessing idea “quality” (i.e., how coherent and “workable” the idea was). In line with these results, Fürst, Ghisletta, and Lubart (2016) found that convergence and conscientiousness—both associated with a prevention focus, although this was not directly assessed in this study—were related to individuals’ tendency to critically evaluate and correct their own ideas.

Promotion/prevention

A similar division to the approach-avoidance distinction is the promotion-prevention focus in regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997). Regulatory focus theory addresses the motivations that people have in goal pursuit, particularly as those motivations address achievement of desired end-states. Individuals with a prevention focus are concerned with negative consequences and are sensitive to goal impediments (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1997). They are concerned with safety, responsibility, and failures of commission (making a mistake, doing something wrong), and their goals involve avoiding negative outcomes. They focus on an “ought self-guide,” which represents desired end states as duties or responsibilities, or a minimum goal they must attain.

Individuals with a dominant promotion focus, on the other hand, are concerned with potential positive consequences of their behavior and are sensitive to opportunities for goal advancement (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1997). They are concerned with improvement and accomplishments, and their goals involve striving for positive outcomes. They focus on an “ideal self-guide,” which represents desired end states as hopes or aspirations, or a maximum goal they hope to attain.

While it may be tempting to frame promotion focus as approach (focusing on achieving positive outcomes) and prevention focus as avoidance (focusing on preventing negative outcomes), such a comparison is misleading (Molden, Lee, & Higgins, 2008). It would be just as accurate to characterize promotion focus as avoiding nonpositive outcomes and prevention focus as striving for nonnegative outcomes. Despite the language that suggests promotion/approach and prevention/avoidance alignment, either regulatory focus can be achieved with an approach or an avoidance focus.

Furthermore, since promotion and prevention are two independent dimensions, everyone has promotion and prevention motives, though there does tend to be a chronic orientation that individuals typically prefer. Despite their independence, many studies have focused on classifying individuals by their dominant orientation and comparing prevention focus and promotion focus on self-regulatory success.

One area of study in promotion/prevention research has examined task initiation. Researchers have demonstrated that individuals with a prevention focus prefer to initiate work toward goals sooner than individuals with a promotion focus (Freitas, Liberman, Salovey, & Higgins, 2002). Additionally, when given a series of tasks framed in a prevention or promotion focus, individuals preferentially complete the tasks with a prevention focus before the tasks framed with a promotion focus. This earlier initiation is likely due to prevention-focused individuals perceiving their goals as minimum standards they must meet. As a result, these prevention-focused individuals feel more pressure to begin than promotion-focused individuals who perceive their goals as maximums that they hope to attain.

These differences in task initiation based on promotion or prevention focus may have measurable consequences on academic outcomes. College students with a prevention focus performed better on laboratory-based exams and on their actual midterms and finals than students with a promotion focus (Rosenzweig & Miele, 2016). However, it is important to note that task initiation is distinct from behavior while completing a task. Thus, studies that demonstrate that promotion-focused individuals are “faster” at completing tasks than prevention-focused individuals (e.g., Förster, Higgins, & Bianco, 2003) are measuring how quickly participants move through a task, not latency for beginning the task.

Once they have initiated goal pursuit, there are differences in how promotion or prevention-focused individuals pursue a task that will affect overall task performance. For instance, when completing a boring task, promotion-focused individuals will choose more often than prevention-focused individuals to vary the task more when given the opportunity to do so (Smith, Wagaman, & Handley, 2009). Similarly, promotion-focused individuals prefer changing tasks over resuming a previous task more frequently than prevention-focused individuals (Liberman, Idson, Camacho, & Higgins, 1999). Prevention-focused individuals may perceive their set goal as a necessity or find that their performance so far is preventing failure and therefore be reluctant to switch to a different and potentially less successful task, while promotion-focused individuals may view the chance to switch tasks as another potential opportunity to advance performance even when the original task is satisfactory.

Furthermore, not only do promotion-focused individuals prefer task switching more than prevention-focused individuals, they also outperform prevention-focused individuals when they are required to switch tasks (Zhang & Chan, 2013). Prevention-focused individuals, on the other hand, perform better on tasks that involve perseveration and are less susceptible to distraction during tasks. Overall, it appears that a dominant promotion focus may be associated with greater cognitive flexibility and increased ease of changes during a task, while a dominant prevention focus may be associated with consistent and persistent task behavior.

This focus on loss/nonloss rather than gain/nongain in prevention-focused individuals, while potentially good for initiating tasks or remaining on-task, may come with less positive real-world consequences. Focusing on potential gains (or nongains) versus nonlosses (or losses) may affect perceived well-being. Individuals with a promotion focus report higher subjective well-being than those with a chronic prevention focus, even when controlling for trait self-control (Ouyang, Zhu, Fan, Tan, & Zhong, 2015). Similarly, the positive association between trait self-control and happiness is partially mediated by regulatory focus (Cheung, Gillebaart, Kroese, & De Ridder, 2014). Specifically, increased promotion focus and decreased prevention focus were associated with this positive relation. Overall, it appears that a promotion focus is beneficial for subjective well-being, while a prevention focus may be detrimental.

Future Directions

Different types of motivationally oriented theoretical models from social psychology indicate that creative performances can be directly influenced by the simplest of instructions, for instance manipulating emotional states of the subjects. Tory Higgins proposed two modes of self-regulation, in order to regulate pleasure and suffering, that is, to direct behavior towards promotion or prevention targets (‘regulatory focus theory’). More specifically, a focus on accomplishments and aspirations is labeled as a promotion focus, and a focus on safety and responsibilities is called a prevention focus. In addition, there is no prior advantage of either motivational orientation in terms of performance. According to this approach, the performance on a given task may depend on the fit between people's regulatory focus (promotion or prevention) and people's chronic regulatory orientation (promotion or prevention). This idea of better performance and a more positive effect via regulatory fit has already received some empirical support in the domain of cognitive tasks and sport-related settings.

Numerous studies show that different cognitive performances can be influenced through motivational states or the ‘regulatory focus theory.’ For instance, a series of experiments strikingly document that a happy mood can positively influence creative performances, encourage the generation of innovative ideas, and promote the generation of exceptional free associations. At the moment neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the flow experience like happiness or fulfillment are discussed and investigated. Beyond this, Ronald Friedman and Jens Förster presented further experiments that underlined the influence of attitude on achieving positive outcomes (promotion focus) and creative performances. Recent results of studies in sport science suggest that it is worthwhile examining in more detail, in sport-specific settings, the dependent-variable divergent tactical thinking in line with the ‘regulatory focus theory.’

Aside from the aforementioned further studies necessary on the link between motivation and creativity, the largest gain in insight is expected in the future exploration and experimental examination of attention theories. Unconscious processes serve as an early selection mechanism, which favors useful or emotionally interesting information for further processing.

Deliberate Motivation

Different types of motivationally-oriented theoretical models from social psychology indicate that creative performances can be directly influenced by the simplest of instructions, for instance manipulating emotional states of the subjects (Friedman & Förster, 2001; Higgins, 1997). Tory Higgins proposed two modes of self-regulation, in order to regulate pleasure and suffering, i.e. to direct behavior toward promotion or prevention targets (“Regulatory Focus Theory”). More specifically, a focus on accomplishments and aspirations is labeled as a promotion focus, and a focus on safety and responsibilities is called a prevention focus. In addition, there is no prior advantage of either motivational orientation in terms of performance. According to this approach, the performance on a given task may depend on the fit between people's regulatory focus (promotion or prevention) and people's chronic regulatory orientation (promotion or prevention). This idea of better motor performance and a more positive effect via regulatory fit has already received some empirical support in the sports (Plessner et al., 2009). Beyond this, Ronald Friedman and Jens Förster presented further experiments that underline the influence of attitude on achieving positive outcomes (promotion focus) and creative performances. Recent results of studies in sport science suggest (Memmert et al., 2013) that promotion instruction could foster tactical creativity in sport-specific settings.

5.1.1 Which valued outcomes matter?

Individuals vary in value effectiveness motivation. Having valued outcomes improves well-being, but it does so particularly for individuals who place an emphasis on material possessions (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002). Moreover, individuals vary in which outcomes they want to attain or maintain (e.g., Higgins, 1997; Scheier & Carver, 1985). Regulatory focus is one important way of classifying two different outcome categories. It describes the motivational difference between focusing on accomplishments or advancements (a promotion orientation) and maintenance of security or an acceptable status quo (a prevention orientation; Higgins, 1998; Scholer & Higgins, 2011). Within the effectiveness framework, therefore, regulatory focus theory distinguishes between a state (either chronic or temporary) where the individual's motivation centers on outcomes relating to gains versus a state where the individual's motivation centers on outcomes relating to non-losses. Importantly, differential emphasis on type of value effectiveness has important consequences for well-being, including vulnerability to different affective disorders.

First, a promotion versus prevention orientation leads to distinct types of emotional well-being (Higgins, Shah, & Friedman, 1997). When people experience a significant discrepancy between their actual state and their promotion ideal self—when their promotion goals are not met—they feel dejected and depressed (Strauman & Higgins, 1987, 1988). On the other hand, when people experience a significant discrepancy between their actual state and their prevention ought self—when their prevention goals are not met—they feel agitated and anxious (Strauman & Higgins, 1987, 1988). Conversely, attaining promotion goals leads to cheerfulness, whereas fulfilling prevention goals leads to quiescence (Higgins et al., 1997). Thus, the final well-being state is dependent on the type of outcome that an individual is pursuing; there is not a single flavor of well-being.

Second, individual differences in the types of outcomes pursued interact with goal pursuit strategy—that is, a specific type of value effectiveness will work better (or worse) with a specific type of control effectiveness. For example, research has shown that promotion goals work together better with eager than vigilant strategies, whereas prevention goals work together better with vigilant than eager strategies (Cesario, Grant, & Higgins, 2004; Freitas, Liberman, & Higgins, 2002; Koenig, Cesario, Molden, Kosloff, & Higgins, 2009). This value-control effectiveness interaction is known as regulatory fit. Regulatory fit applies not just to regulatory focus differences in value effectiveness but to the relation between any valued goal orientation and control process. For example, research has discovered that the fit between fun versus important goals and, respectively, an enjoyable versus serious way of doing an activity enhances performance (Bianco, Higgins, & Klem, 2003) and increases interest in doing the activity again (Higgins, Cesario, Hagiwara, Spiegel, & Pittman, 2010).

Moreover, the fit (vs. nonfit) between value and control effectiveness enhances the value of the outcome, the value of the process, and even health and well-being (Aaker & Lee, 2006; Cesario et al., 2004; Higgins, 2006; Higgins, Idson, Freitas, Spiegel, & Molden, 2003; Uskul, Keller, & Oyserman, 2008). This interaction has broad implications. For example, because cultures tend to vary in their regulatory focus predominance (Higgins, Pierro, & Kruglanski, 2008), individuals can experience a fit or nonfit with their culture. A promotion-oriented person living in a prevention-oriented culture, for example, would continuously experience nonfit. Critically, this individual-cultural nonfit (or fit) has consequences for the person's well-being. In two large-scale studies, researchers found that individuals had diminished well-being when their regulatory focus was discrepant with that of their culture (Fulmer et al., 2010).

In sum, there are different types of value effectiveness that vary by situation, individual, and culture. Furthermore, these types of value effectiveness interact with the other ways of being effective, such as their fit with control effectiveness, to impact well-being.

4 Implications

Chronic regulatory focus

Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997, 1998) is an extension to the basic principle of avoiding pain and approaching pleasure, which underlies all motivational models in psychology (Higgins, 1998). According to regulatory focus theory, avoiding pain (prevention focus) and approaching pleasure (promotion focus) are two fundamentally distinct self-regulatory orientations (Johnson, Smith, Wallace, Hill, & Baron, 2015; Stam, van Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2010a). Chronically promotion-focused individuals aim to maximize their gains by means of eager strategies, whereas chronically prevention-focused individuals try to protect themselves from potential threats by using vigilant strategies (Higgins, 1997; Hamstra et al., 2011). In other words, because they are “concerned with advancement, growth, aspirations and accomplishment” (Shah, Higgins, & Friedman, 1998, p. 287), chronically promotion-focused individuals are inclined to try to reach maximal goals (Pennington & Roese, 2003; Wu, McMullen, Neubert, & Yi, 2008) by “insur[ing] ‘hits’ and insur[ing] against errors of omission” (Crowe & Higgins, 1997, p. 120). On the other hand, because they are “concerned with security, responsibilities and safety” (Shah et al., 1998, p. 287), chronically prevention-focused individuals have the inclination to reach minimal goals (Pennington & Roese, 2003; Wu et al., 2008), through “attain[ing] correct rejections and avoid[ing] errors of commission (i.e. making a mistake)” (Crowe & Higgins, 1997, p. 120).

This simple but powerful distinction has been examined as an antecedent of various behaviors relevant for leadership. For example, regulatory focus is an antecedent of transformational and transactional leadership, with promotion focus being associated with transformational leadership and prevention focus with transactional leadership (Kark & van Dijk, 2007). Promotion-focused leaders increase the creativity of followers (Wu et al., 2008), whereas prevention-focused leaders are better at recognizing impending threats (McMullen, Shepherd, & Patzelt, 2009). The regulatory focus of the CEO affects the performance level of small firms such that firms with a promotion-focused CEO are better off in more dynamic environments while those with a prevention-focused CEO fare better in more stable environments (Wallace, Little, Hill, & Ridge, 2010). Leaders' chronic regulatory foci are also associated with their exploration and exploitation activities (Tuncdogan et al., 2015). More specifically, regulatory focus mediates the effect of leaders' personality traits on their exploration and exploitation activities. Hence, regulatory focus is also related to personality traits. In particular, according to a recent meta-analysis, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness are antecedents of promotion focus, whereas conscientiousness and neuroticism are antecedents of prevention focus (Lanaj et al., 2012). Other leadership-related constructs with which regulatory focus is associated include leader–member exchange, innovative performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, counterproductive behaviors, continuance commitment, affective commitment, and job satisfaction (Gorman et al., 2012; Lanaj et al., 2012).

The fit or mismatch between leaders' and followers' chronic regulatory foci is also found to have important effects. For example, a promotion-focused appeal tends to be more effective with a promotion-focused follower, whereas a prevention-focused appeal is more effective with a prevention-focused follower (Stam, van Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2010b). Similarly, non-verbal cues (e.g., body language) that suggest a certain type of regulatory focus also increase the effectiveness of the message being conveyed when they match the recipient's own regulatory focus (Cesario & Higgins, 2008). Furthermore, as previously indicated, there is a relationship between promotion focus and transformational leadership as well as between prevention focus and transactional leadership (Kark & van Dijk, 2007). In line with this, another study has shown that the fit between the leadership style and the followers' regulatory focus makes followers less inclined to leave the organization (Hamstra et al., 2011). For instance, when a leader has a transformational leadership style (associated with promotion focus – e.g., Kark & van Dijk, 2007), promotion-focused followers are less likely to leave.

In brief, the widespread interest in regulatory focus theory within the leadership literature is relatively recent, and the effects of chronic regulatory focus on a range of leadership behaviors and styles have not yet been investigated. Likewise, we have very little knowledge regarding the consequences of the interaction between leaders' chronic regulatory foci and different external influences. For instance, while we know that promotion-focused leaders are better in dynamic environments (Wallace et al., 2010), there are many other environmental, contextual and organizational characteristics that may interact with chronic regulatory focus and affect performance. Moreover, there are many outcomes other than performance that may be affected by the interaction between a leader's chronic regulatory focus and the external environment (e.g., leadership emergence). Finally, more research is needed regarding how different compositions of chronic regulatory focus and various moderating factors affect relationships between leaders and their followers, between leaders and other leaders (e.g., the behavioral integration of a management team), and between groups of leaders and groups of followers (e.g., between the national committee of a ruling political party and different groups of citizens).

4.2 Trait and state: chronic and momentary foci

In Higgins' RFT, systemic self-regulation orientations can be manifested either as chronic dispositional traits or as momentary situational states preferences that influence motivated behavior across the lifespan (Higgins, 2000; Higgins et al., 1994; Higgins, Shah, & Friedman, 1997; Higgins & Spiegel, 2004). Chronic orientations characterize individual differences that are stable traits and natural tendencies. Momentary orientations or states refer to moment-to-moment inclinations that are temporarily activated by specific situations.

Contrary to momentary states that can change from situation to situation, chronic preferences for a promotion or a prevention focus are shaped over the development by social interactions taking place between developing individuals and their caretakers, friends, partners, etc. (Higgins et al., 2001; Higgins & Silberman, 1998). Specifically, a chronic promotion focus develops when caretakers consistently direct children's attention to the fulfillment of their needs for nurturance and emphasize that aspirations are end states worth striving for (Higgins, 1997; Manian, Papadakis, Strauman, & Essex, 2006). These early social interactions build the foundation for a lifelong preference for end states related to one's ideal-self—in other words, for a chronic promotion focus (Higgins, 1997). Over time, individuals with a chronic promotion focus generally display traits such as ambition, proactivity, and proneness to attaining their objectives. In contrast, a chronic prevention focus develops when caretakers consistently direct children's attention to their needs for security and emphasize the meeting of obligations, responsibilities, and duties as preferred end-states (Higgins, 1997; Manian et al., 2006). These social interactions, in turn, build the foundation for a lifelong preference for fulfilling obligations—in other words, for a chronic prevention focus (Higgins, 1997). Over time, individuals with a chronic prevention focus are generally prone to displaying traits such as a predisposition for avoiding negative consequences or risky endeavors, as well as a high sense of duty and responsibility.

5.4 Self-regulation and being regulated by others

Further models place the valence systems within a context of emotion regulation. Higgin’s Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT; Higgins, 2000) and Carver and Scheier’s (1998, 2001) self-regulatory models provide a theoretical framework for investigating the interface between motivational, cognitive and affective systems involved in goal-directed action and emotion (Higgins, 2000; Carver and Scheier, 1998, 2001).

Rooted in self-regulatory motivational sensitivities, approach and avoidance goal striving actions represent sustained activity towards desirable outcomes and away from undesirable outcomes, respectively. Goal-directed action is guided by the process of ongoing self-regulation that modulates an individual’s thoughts, affect and attention (e.g., Dickson et al., 2017; Winch et al., 2015). In sum, a two-system view of motivation has persisted over time, even though different labels have been put forward to define approach and avoidance systems. Approach- and avoidance-oriented actions and emotional sensitivities in response to rewarding or threatening stimuli are seen as rooted in specific neurological brain systems (Gentry et al., 2016; Steinman et al., 2018). Laricchiuta (2015) posits that brain networks are implicated in instigating approach and avoidance behaviours in reaction to salient stimuli. Such networks include cerebral nodes interconnected as prefrontal cortex, amygdala, hypothalamus, striatum and cerebellum.

There is also evidence that the dopaminergic system and interconnected brain regions process positive and negative stimuli to reinforce approach and avoidance behaviours (Gentry et al., 2018). Although sensorimotor reactions to appetitive or aversive stimuli are typically spontaneous and automatic, goal-directed conflict, lack of goal progress or unpleasant emotions may stimulate reflective awareness, goal planning and more effortful cognitive control. McNaughton and Corr (2014) draw an important distinction between underlying orthogonal motivational systems and possible approach and avoidance interactive surface level behavioural conflicts.

A key aspect to emotional regulation is the capacity to be regulated by others, whether during childhood by adults or by peers. This requires bridges to be built between codings for one’s own emotion-action states and those of others. We are able to do this by generating sensory changes in our own body state to identify how someone else is feeling (Craig, 2003; Seth, 2013), a process controlled by the somatosensory and prefrontal cortices (Adolphs et al., 2000; de Gelder, 2006; Hornak et al., 2003; Radice-Neumann et al., 2007). Although these internally generated emotional responses generally lack intentional control and awareness, they significantly impact our recognition of nonverbal emotion cues (Naranjo et al., 2011; Neumann et al., 2014). They also reflect our desired outcome for the social interaction we are engaged in and thus modulate our emotional experiences in response to these cues (Naranjo et al., 2011; Soussignan, 2002). Our interoceptive response, desired outcome and ultimate interpretation of the emotional experience are influenced by gender, social roles and culture (Chaplin et al., 2005; Fischer et al., 2004). As outlined in the embodied-contextual model of emotion, our interpretation of others’ feelings is further mediated by previous experience and the environmental context in which the interaction took place (Barrett, 2017; Eder, 2017).

The influence of context becomes more apparent as we develop and gain more sophisticated cognitive skills. With increased cognition, we learn that an emotion expression may have multiple (and often conflicting) meanings depending on the context in which it is produced. In response, we learn to rely upon our prior experience and memories to accurately interpret and respond to the emotion expressions of others (Boone and Cunningham, 1998; Buck, 1991; de Gelder, 2006). Thus, recognising and appropriately responding to emotion operates as part of a feedback system, one in which our analysis of the actions and movements of others as well as our own internally generated sensory changes, leads to learning. The responses we receive during social interactions provide feedback and guide our future behaviour – if the response is a rewarding one, we are more likely to behave similarly in future social interactions, but if the response is a punishing one, we will learn to adjust our behaviour to pursue a more positive emotional outcome (Baumeister et al., 2007; Gendolla, 2017). We are constantly appraising the meaning of the interaction and modifying our emotional actions in response (Ridderinkhof, 2017). We then enact cognitive and motor control to guide future responses in similar contexts through goal striving actions that result in an (usually desirable) outcome (Griffiths et al., 2014; Higgins, 2000). This learning should ultimately contribute to conscious adaptation that leads us to choose actions that are appropriate within a social context (Baumeister et al., 2007).

It is therefore evidence that the 'regulation' of emotion is directly concerned with learning patterns of behavioural responses to environmental stimuli such that they minimise the experience of negative valence and maximise the positive. This requires ongoing and iterative motor learning and conditioning. Emotion regulation for humans, involves constant appraisal and reappraisal through explicit or implicit regulatory processes (Braunstein et al., 2017). People draw from a large number of different strategies in the service of regulating their emotions (Heiy and Cheavens, 2014), but the neural correlates of emotion regulation have been studied primarily through fMRI studies of reappraisal (the cognitive reinterpretation of emotionally evocative events), and sometimes distraction or expressive suppression (Etkin et al., 2015; Frank et al., 2014).

Broadly speaking, explicit emotion regulation through reappraisal recruits frontal cognitive control regions of the brain, including regions involved in sensorimotor control, with concomitant changes in subcortical regions, including the amygdala and ventral striatum (Ochsner et al., 2012). A consistent finding across meta-analyses is that down-regulation of emotions (particularly through reappraisal) recruits the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, and anterior cingulate cortex (Buhle et al., 2014; Etkin et al., 2015; Frank et al., 2014; Kohn et al., 2014).

These findings mesh with psychological models of the process of emotion regulation whereby reappraisal involves working memory and selective attention to generate and maintain the reappraisal representation, inhibition to prevent prepotent responses, and monitoring to assess the effectiveness of the reappraisal response (e.g., Ochsner et al., 2012). For example, Kohn et al. (2014) note that activation of the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex also occurs during emotion generation and appraisal, and, as such may reflect emotional salience as well as the operation of regulatory processes like inhibition. In addition, the anterior middle cingulate cortex has been described as a limbic motor control region, involved in controlling motor responses in situations of reward and punishment (Kohn et al., 2014). In tandem with these regions of activation, explicit down-regulation of negative emotions involves reduced activity in the amygdala, known for signalling the presence of emotionally-arousing stimuli, and the ventral striatum, known for representing the reward value of stimuli. Other regions may also be implicated in explicit emotion regulation. For example, the supplementary motor area, which also is active during emotional mimicry tasks and mental imagery studies, and plays a role in preparatory motor movement, is noted to be active in up-regulation and down-regulation of emotions (Etkin et al., 2015; Frank et al., 2014; Kohn et al., 2014).