Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSummerville, Amyen_US
dc.contributor.authorRoese, Neal J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-02-07T21:06:47Zen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-07-10T15:09:40Z
dc.date.available2011-02-07T21:06:47Zen_US
dc.date.available2013-07-10T15:09:40Z
dc.date.issued2011-02-07en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Research in Personality 42 (2008) 247–254.en_US
dc.identifier.uri
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2374.MIA/4410en_US
dc.description.abstractRegulatory focus theory distinguishes between two independent structures of strategic inclination, promotion versus prevention. However, the theory implies two potentially independent definitions of these inclinations, the self-guide versus the reference-point definitions. Two scales (the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire [Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3–23] and the General Regulatory Focus Measure [Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive and negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 854–864]) have been widely used to measure dispositional regulatory focus. We suggest that these two scales align respectively with the two definitions, and find that the two scales are largely uncorrelated. Both conceptual and methodological implications are discussed.en_US
dc.subjectapproachen_US
dc.subjectavoidanceen_US
dc.subjectregulatory focusen_US
dc.subjectaffecten_US
dc.subjectmotivationen_US
dc.titleSelf-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: a cautionary noteen_US
dc.typeTexten_US
dc.date.published2007-05-21en_US
dc.type.genreArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record