情绪劳动策略与工作满意度关系的元分析

采用元分析方法探讨情绪劳动策略(包括表层扮演和深层扮演)与工作满意度的关系。经筛选, 共有120篇文献226个独立样本符合元分析标准(N = 79659)。元分析结果发现, 表层扮演与工作满意度有显著负相关, 深层扮演与工作满意度有显著正相关。调节效应检验发现, 不同表层扮演测量工具、文化背景差异、行业类型差异对表层扮演与工作满意度的关系没有显著影响; 不同工作满意度测量工具对表层扮演与工作满意度的关系有显著影响, 表现为单维的JSS工作满意度量表的调节效果高于多维的MSQ量表。不同深层扮演测量工具、不同工作满意度测量工具、文化背景差异对深层扮演与工作满意度的关系有显著影响, 分别表现为深层扮演量表Grandey (2003)、Diefendorff, Croyle和Gosserand (2005)、Brotheridge和Lee (2003)调节效应依次减小, 单维的JSS工作满意度量表的调节效果低于多维的MSQ量表, 东方文化背景的调节效果高于西方; 行业类型的差异对深层扮演与工作满意度关系的影响不显著。     

职业召唤前因与后果的元分析研究

通过对78篇实证文献的191个效应值和84805个独立样本进行元分析,较为全面地厘清了职业召唤的来龙去脉。结果显示：外在因素在职业召唤的生成中起主导作用,且外在资源禀赋是其最强诱因。职业召唤对个体职业准备、职业态度和职业成果均具有正向影响,效应强度依次递增,且主观职业成功是其最强效能。地区文化和测量方式对职业召唤与其前因和后果间关系的调节效应具有一致性,且东方文化下采用多维量表测量职业召唤时上述关系均更强。     

青少年调节聚焦对心理复原力的影响：元情绪和应对方式的链式中介

研究旨在考察应对方式、元情绪在不同类型调节聚焦与心理复原力关系中的中介效应。使用简易应对方式量表、调节聚焦量表、特质性元情绪量表和心理复原力量表对随机抽取的安徽省四所初高中899名青少年进行调查。结果发现：（1）调节聚焦、应对方式和元情绪能显著预测心理复原力。（2）促进聚焦不仅能够直接正向预测心理复原力,还能够通过元情绪、积极应对以及消极应对间接预测心理复原力。（3）防御聚焦能够通过消极应对、元情绪以及积极应对间接预测心理复原力。本研究结果显示,元情绪与应对方式能够解释青少年调节聚焦与心理复原力关系的内在机制。     

青少年情绪调节策略的结构与测量

情绪调节策略是个体应对消极情绪的重要手段,对个体身心发展起着重要的作用。通过采用文献综述和实证分析相结合的方法编制符合我国青少年实际的情绪调节策略量表。量表包括认知重评、积极设想、求助他人、行为转移、自我责备、沉思默想、自我压抑、发泄不满和攻击他人九个维度。对量表进行信效度检验的结果表明,该量表具有良好的信度效度指标。     

父母教养方式对青少年心理复原力的影响：自我控制与调节聚焦的链式中介

研究旨在考察青少年自我控制、调节聚焦在父母教养方式与心理复原力关系中的中介效应。使用父母教养方式量表、自我控制量表、调节聚焦量表和心理复原力量表对安徽、江苏、山东四所初高中922名青少年进行调查。结果发现:(1)父母教养方式、青少年自我控制、调节聚焦均能够直接显著预测青少年心理复原力;(2)父母积极教养方式能够通过青少年自我控制、调节聚焦间接正向预测心理复原力;(3)父母消极教养方式能够通过青少年防御聚焦间接负向预测心理复原能力。结论:青少年的自我控制与调节聚焦在父母教养方式与青少年心理复原力之间存在链式中介作用。     

大学生过度消费量表编制

在文献分析和半结构化访谈的基础上编制大学生过度消费初始量表。以250名大学生为被试进行项目分析和探索性因素分析,以401名大学生为被试进行信效度检验,最终形成的正式量表包含透支、计划和享乐三个维度,共11个条目。结果发现,用于测量大学生过度消费的多维量表、各维单项目量表和单项目量表均具有较高的内部一致性信度以及良好的结构效度和效标效度,可以作为后续相关研究的测量工具。     

青少年学生疏离感的理论构建及量表编制

通过文献分析和实证研究 ,构建了疏离感的理论维度 ,并据此编制了青少年学生疏离感的测量量表。对量表进行探索性因素分析和验证性因素分析后表明 :疏离感是一个多层次、多维度的体系 ,本身包含 2个层次和 9个维度 ,该研究所构建的疏离感理论体系比较合理。疏离感量表具有较好的信度和效度 ,可以作为青少年学生疏离感研究的测量工具     

抑郁症计算机化治疗的效果及其影响因素：基于RCT的元分析与元回归分析

运用元分析和元回归分析的方法考察抑郁症计算机化治疗的效果及其影响因素。来源于50篇文献,42项RCT研究的67个样本满足了元分析标准（N=7920）。结果发现：（1）整体效果量为0.53,三个月追踪效果量为0.14;6个月追踪效果量为0.16;（2）在年龄段、抑郁严重程度、支持方式和测量量表四个亚组分析中,其效果量存在显著差异。干预方式、干预取向和分析方法对效果量的影响不显著;（3）出版年份显著影响治疗效果量,脱落率和干预单元数对整体效果量的影响不显著。结果表明：抑郁症的计算机化治疗具有中等的效果量;年龄段、抑郁严重程度、支持方式、测量量表和出版年份对其整体效果量有调节作用。将来抑郁症计算机化治疗的研究应重视上述调节变量对治疗效果的影响。     

青年大学生自信的理论建构研究

通过文献分析与实证研究,构建了自信的理论维度,并据此编制了青年大学生自信的测量量表。对量表进行探索性因素分析和验证性因素分析后表明:大学生自信是一个多维度、多层次的心理系统,具有复杂的结构,包含4个层次和13个维度,该研究所构建的理论体系比较合理。量表具有较好的信度和效度,可以作为青年大学生自信研究的测量工具。     

青少年校园欺凌行为量表编制

编制青少年校园欺凌行为量表,为校园欺凌的评估、分类、干预工作提供依据。采用文献分析、结构化访谈与问卷调查确定量表维度并编制初始量表,通过项目分析、探索性因素分析、验证性因素分析形成正式量表。青少年校园欺凌行为量表包含26个项目,共5个维度,分别是身体欺凌、关系欺凌、财物欺凌、性欺凌与网络欺凌;量表具有较高的内部一致性信度、分半信度与良好的内容效度、结构效度、效标效度。青少年校园欺凌行为量表符合心理测量学标准,可作为测量校园欺凌行为的工具。     

Self-Report Measures of Individual Differences in Regulatory Focus: A Cautionary Note

Regulatory 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 al., 2001, and the General Regulatory Focus Measure, Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002) 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.     

调节定向的测量维度及其问卷的信度和效度检验

采用RFQ、B IS/BAS和LOT-R对331名企业新员工和920名在校大学生施测,以探讨H iggins等提出的调节定向测量维度在中国文化中的适应性及其问卷（RFQ）的信度和效度。结果表明：（1）在删除1个偏重从策略角度测量调节定向的项目后,得到由10个项目组成的调节定向问卷,可有效测量促进定向和预防定向两个基本维度;（2）调节定向问卷具有较好的内部一致性信度和区分效度,可作为开展相关研究的评定工具。     

Assessment of Individual Differences in Regulatory Focus among Cigarette Smokers

Smoking cessation programs might benefit from tailoring messages to individual differences in regulatory focus (see Higgins, American Psychologist, 52:1280–1300, 1997), but there is little evidence on the stability or convergent validity of regulatory focus measures. In two studies, smokers completed four measures of regulatory focus: (a) Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ); (b) actual–ideal and actual–ought self-discrepancies; (c) response duration in naming ideal or ought self-guides; and (d) reaction time for lexical decisions about one’s ideal or ought self-guides. Study 1 included a 1-month retest. Retest reliability was adequate, but convergent validity was poor. Questionnaire and self-discrepancy measures were unrelated to each other or to the reaction time measures. To facilitate future studies of tailored health behavior change interventions, research is needed to determine whether weak convergent validity resulted from (a) invalidity of some or all of the regulatory focus measures or (b) validity of each for measuring a different aspect of the construct.     

Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride

A new task goal elicits a feeling of pride in individuals with a subjective history of success, and this achievment pride produces anticipatory goal reactions that energize and direct behavior to approach the task goal. By distinguishing between promotion pride and prevention pride, the present paper extends this classic model of achievement motivation. Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997 ) distinguishes between a promotion focus on hopes and accomplishments (gains) and a prevention focus on safety and responsibilities (non‐losses). We propose that a subjective history of success with promotion‐related eagerness (promotion pride) orients individuals toward using eagerness means to approach a new task goal, whereas a subjective history of success with prevention‐related vigilance (prevention pride) orients individuals toward using vigilance means to approach a new task goal. Studies 1–3 tested this proposal by examining the relations between a new measure of participants' subjective histories of promotion success and prevention success (the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ)) and their achievement strategies in different tasks. Study 4 examined the relation between participants' RFQ responses and their reported frequency of feeling eager or vigilant in past task engagements. Study 5 used an experimental priming technique to make participants temporarily experience either a subjective history of promotion success or a subjective history of prevention success. For both chronic and situationally induced achievement pride, these studies found that when approaching task goals individuals with promotion pride use eagerness means whereas individuals with prevention pride use vigilance means. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

期望与绩效的关系:调节定向的调节作用

经典动机理论认为高期望能提高绩效水平,本研究结合调节定向理论进一步回答这种效应"何时"存在或"如何"产生的问题。研究1通过测量期望水平、并用任务框架操作调节定向,检验了情景启动的调节定向对期望与行为间关系的影响;研究2采取更严格的被试内设计通过任务难度操作期望,考察了作为个体长期差异的调节定向的作用。结果表明:①调节定向调节成功期望与绩效之间的关系:对于促进定向,成功期望与绩效正相关;对于预防定向,期望与绩效相关不显著。②动机可以部分解释调节定向与期望的交互作用机制:高水平的成功期望会提高促进定向个体的动机强度,进而产生高的绩效结果;其对预防定向个体的动机强度的影响不显著。     

动机理论的新发展：调节定向理论

Higgins（1997）提出的调节定向理论,独立于享乐主义原则,揭示了人们如何趋近积极目标状态和回避消极目标状态。该理论区分了两种不同的调节定向——促进定向和预防定向,两者在服务的需要类型、对目标的表征、对结果的关注点、情绪体验等方面存在区别,并会产生独立的动机结果。文章介绍了关于两种调节定向的特点、调节定向的测量、调节定向对基本心理过程和调节定向理论在社会生活的应用的研究成果,并提出未来研究应重视对调节定向的测量、调节定向与人格、与时间动力等方面的研究。     

消费行为领域中的调节定向

调节定向理论(Higgins,1997)超越传统享乐主义动机,区分出“促进”和“预防”两种调节性动机系统,近年已成为消费行为领域的研究热点之一.调节定向影响着消费者购物决策整个过程,受被试因素(文化背景、自我建构)、刺激因素(信息框架、解释水平、非言语线索、商品属性)和情境因素(决策时间距离、任务操纵)的影响,通过直接作用、调节关联效应和调节匹配效应三种途径决定信息的说服效果,并且受到精细加工可能性的调节.管理者应特别注意具体营销情境中的调节定向,合理利用调节匹配效应.未来研究应关注调节投入理论、调节定向的前因变量以及同网络购物情境相结合,并探索如何削弱预防定向对营销的不利影响.     

A regulatory focus model of self-evaluation

Regulatory focus theory [Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1-46). New York: Academic Press.] argues that concerns with growth and nurturance (i.e., a promotion focus) and concerns with safety and security (i.e., a prevention focus) produce different motives and perception. The current studies test whether regulatory focus also affects individuals’ strivings for self-evaluation. Specifically, we argue that a promotion or a prevention focus directs the self-evaluation process to self-esteem or self-certainty, respectively. Two studies supported this prediction by demonstrating that regulatory focus affects the strength of self-evaluation goals and individuals’ reactions to goal failure. In Study 1, we found that a promotion focus led to a stronger self-esteem goal (as measured by greater accessibility of esteem-related words), whereas a prevention focus led to a stronger self-certainty goal (as measured by greater accessibility of certainty-related words). In Study 2, a promotion failure led to lower self-esteem than a prevention failure, but a prevention failure led to lower self-certainty than a promotion failure. This research suggests an unrecognized role of nurturance and safety concerns in understanding the self-evaluation process.     

Regulatory focus and investment decisions in small groups

Regulatory Focus Theory was applied to small interactive groups. Based on previous research, it was expected that groups with a promotion focus would discuss gain-relevant information, whereas groups with a prevention focus would be concerned with potential losses. Furthermore, promotion groups were expected to make riskier decisions than prevention groups. Regulatory focus was manipulated by rewarding good or penalizing poor group performance on a preliminary task. Subsequently, three-person groups discussed several investment funds and made a consensual investment decision. Results supported the hypotheses and suggested that regulatory focus requires time to exert its influence in groups.     

Regulatory focus and illusions of control

Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997, 1998) suggests that individuals in a promotion focus emphasize a congruence between an action and an intended outcome, which may foster illusions of control (IOC) even in the absence of an objective relationship between action and outcome. Individuals in a prevention focus should demonstrate a reverse bias that buffers against the development of IOC. Three studies were conducted to test this hypothesis, which either measured chronic individual differences in regulatory focus (Study 1) or manipulated regulatory focus (Studies 2 and 3). All studies found evidence that promotion-focused individuals report higher IOC concerning an uncontrollable outcome than prevention-focused individuals. In addition, Study 3 showed that IOC developed in a promotion focus buffer against the emotional consequences of failure. The results suggest that IOC evolve in a way that increases regulatory fit (Higgins, 2000).