特质性与情境性调节定向匹配效应的一致性

研究试图探讨基于不同性质的调节定向(特质性调节定向和情境性调节定向)而达成的匹配所导致的效应是否一致。实验一、二均采用2(调节定向：促进、防御)×2(信息框架：积极、消极)被试间设计, 分别考察了两种匹配对信息说服效果(包括信息价值评价、情绪强度、行为意向3项指标)的影响。MANOVA检验表明, 实验一中信息价值评价、情绪强度2项指标上的交互作用显著, 实验二中信息价值评价、情绪强度和行为意向3项指标上的交互作用显著; 这表明, 基于两种不同性质的调节定向所达成的匹配在对信息价值评价和情绪强度的影响上具有一致的效应, 但在对行为意向的影响上具有不一致的效应。这一结果对于理解两种不同性质的调节定向之间的差异以及基于两者而达成的两种调节匹配之间的差异具有较为重要的意义。     

Rethinking Regulatory Engagement Theory

We offer a constructive critique of Regulatory Engagement Theory (Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review, 113(3), 439–460.; Higgins, E. T., and Scholer, A. A. (2009). Engaging the consumer: The science and art of the value creation process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2).). After highlighting the major tenets of the theory and its main contributions, we identify some of its conceptual ambiguities. We then argue that the hedonic and intensity components of value may not be psychologically separable in that experiences acquire their hedonic quality through their intensity. We next discuss why the various determinants of strength of engagement proposed by the theory may not all operate through the same process. Even the regulatory fit phenomenon seems to involve more than one process. We conclude by suggesting that many strength-of-engagement effects may reflect feelings-as-information inferences consistent with the Generalized Affect-as-Information Model of judgment (GAIM; Pham, M. T. (2008). The lexicon and Grammar of Affect-as-Information: The GAIM. In M. Wanke (Ed.), Social psychology of consumer behavior. New York: Psychology Press.).     

Value From Regulatory Fit

Abstract— Where does value come from? I propose a new answer to this classic question. People experience regulatory fit when the manner of their engagement in an activity sustains their goal orientation or interests regarding that activity. When there is fit, people engage more strongly in what they are doing and "feel right" about it. Fit influences the strength of value experiences—how good or how bad one feels about something—independently of the pleasure and pain experiences that are associated with outcomes. It uniquely contributes to people's experience of the value of things. Fit is shown to influence judgments and decision making, attitude and behavior change, and task performance.     

调节性匹配理论述评

在决策、动机领域,Higgins（2000）提出了一种新的理论——调节性匹配理论。所谓调节性匹配（regulatoryfit）,指的是个体的自我调节定向与其行为策略之间的匹配。该理论认为,调节性匹配能增强个体在目标追求过程中的动机强度、主观评价和情绪体验,从而对个体的行为决策产生重要影响。文章围绕调节性匹配的概念、产生、效应及应用价值等问题对相关研究进行综述,并在此基础上提出了现有研究存在的问题及未来的研究方向     

个体及同伴调节聚焦对目标追求的影响

探讨个体与同伴的调节聚焦对目标追求的影响及感知相似性在其中的作用。回归分析显示,个体促进聚焦×同伴促进聚焦交互项显著预测同伴作用评价、求助意愿及动机水平,简单斜率分析表明,同伴为高促进聚焦时个体促进聚焦的积极效应更明显。中介分析表明,感知相似性是个体促进聚焦×同伴促进聚焦交互项与同伴作用评价、求助意愿之间关系的中介变量。总的来说,同伴调节聚焦能调节个体调节聚焦与目标追求的关系,且这一作用部分受到感知相似性的中介。     

Regulatory foci and organizational commitment

We use regulatory focus theory to derive specific predictions regarding the differential relationships between regulatory focus and commitment. We estimated a structural equation model using a sample of 520 private and public sector employees and found in line with our hypotheses that (a) promotion focus related more strongly to affective commitment than prevention focus, (b) prevention focus related more strongly to continuance commitment than promotion focus, (c) promotion and prevention focus had equally strong effects on normative commitment. Implications of these findings for the three-component model of commitment, especially the ‘dual nature’ of normative commitment, as well as implications for human resources management and leadership are discussed.     

European Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine

The paper is intended to focus on peculiarities of nanomedicine and the importance of social concerns implicated, in order to understand if existing regulations are appropriate to maintain its safety or if a new ad hoc regulatory framework is needed. Consideration of social challenges will underline the crucial role of medical ethics in regulatory discussion.

Regulatory focus and temporal distance

Four studies identify and examine a temporal component to regulatory focus. Results support the assertion that promotion focus tends to predominate for temporally distant goals, whereas proximal goals are characterized by more balanced consideration of both promotion- and prevention-focused concerns. In Study 1, students rated the importance of promotion and prevention goals at two points in time: 2 weeks before and a few minutes before an examination. Promotion goal importance increased with temporal distance, whereas prevention goal importance remained constant over time. Study 2 replicated this pattern holding the actual time-span constant (3.5 weeks) and varying only the psychological sense of proximity/distance. In Study 3, subjects rated the regulatory focus of goals at varying points in time, both future and past. The temporal effect was replicated for both time periods. Study 4 provided evidence for the reverse effect, that of regulatory focus on the perceived temporal distance of future goals. Taken together, these findings suggest an integration across research domains that links regulatory focus to temporal perspective for both prospective and retrospective judgments.     

Regulatory focus and affective recall

In two studies, we tested the impact of regulatory focus on recalled affect for past academic outcomes. Because promotion focus concerns achieving gains, it should be related to greater recalled positive affect. In contrast, prevention focus concerns avoiding losses, and should be related to greater recalled negative affect. In Study 1, promotion focus led to greater recalled positive affect for positive events, while prevention focus led to greater recalled negative affect regardless of event valence. In Study 2, promotion focus increased recalled positive affect for both positive and negative events, whereas prevention focus increased recalled negative affect for both positive and negative events. These studies demonstrate that current motivation can alter memory for past affective experiences; the regulatory focus ascribed to a previous event changes the extent to which people remember their emotional experience. Implications are discussed.     

Regulatory foci and organizational commitment

We use regulatory focus theory to derive specific predictions regarding the differential relationships between regulatory focus and commitment. We estimated a structural equation model using a sample of 520 private and public sector employees and found in line with our hypotheses that (a) promotion focus related more strongly to affective commitment than prevention focus, (b) prevention focus related more strongly to continuance commitment than promotion focus, (c) promotion and prevention focus had equally strong effects on normative commitment. Implications of these findings for the three-component model of commitment, especially the ‘dual nature’ of normative commitment, as well as implications for human resources management and leadership are discussed.     

近视发展的整体调节方式

近视发展是一个复杂而精细的整体调节过程.运用一种全新的整体思维模式描述近视发展中整体和要素之间相互影响及相互作用,合理推论近视发展的整体调节机制,使人们从整体上了解近视的产生-发展-稳定机制.通过对视觉系统整体调节方式的研究,使我们突破了以往孤立看待组织和疾病的传统观念,而更加注重整体调节方式的调整,这将成为我们及早预防和治疗疾病的新的前景.     

Regulatory Fit and Voting1

The problem of many democracies is low voter turnout. One reason is the voting procedure, which only allows voting for a party or candidate. Introduction of voting against could bring more voters to the polls. The concept of regulatory focus ( Higgins, 1998 ) suggests that people who focus on prevention would vote more eagerly if they are given the opportunity to blackball disliked candidates. This article describes 2 studies that verify this hypothesis. In the first study, over two thirds of participants declared that they would vote more willingly if they had a “for or against” choice at the election. The second study shows that the “pro or anti” formula is especially attractive to participants with a prevention regulatory focus.     

The Regulatory Easy Street: Self-Regulation Below the Self-Control Threshold Does not Consume Regulatory Resources

We present and test a theory in which self-control is distinguished from broader acts of self-regulation when it is both effortful and conscious. In two studies, we examined whether acts of behavioral management that do not require effort are exempt from resource depletion. In Study 1, we found that a self-regulation task only reduced subsequent self-control for participants who had previously indicated that completing the task would require effort. In Study 2, we found that participants who completed a self-regulation task for two minutes did not evidence the subsequent impairment in self-control evident for participants who had completed the task for four or more minutes. Our results support the notion that self-regulation without effort falls below the self-control threshold and has different downstream consequences than self-control.     

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。     

Regulatory focus and attitudes to migrants

In two studies we examined the role of two regulatory foci (i.e., prevention and promotion) in predicting Australian's attitudes to different types of migrants. According to regulatory focus theory, promotion-focused self-regulation is concerned with nurturance and accomplishment needs and involves the pursuit of wishes and aspirations. As such, it results in sensitivity to positive outcomes and to relative pleasure from gains. On the other hand, prevention-focused self-regulation is concerned with security needs and is directed at meeting duties and obligations. As such, it results in sensitivity to negative outcome and relative pain from losses. In Study 1, as predicted, the extent of promotion focus (i.e., a concern with accomplishment and the pursuit of ideals) predicted more positive attitudes to culturally similar and economically beneficial migrants, whereas the extent of prevention focus (i.e., concern with security and meeting obligations) predicted more negative attitudes to migrants who are culturally dissimilar. In Study 2 we replicated and extended these findings, showing that the extent of promotion focus and a lack of concern with threats predicted positive attitudes to both culturally similar and economically beneficial migrants, which, in the case of the latter group, was mediated by a focus on the benefits these migrants provide. In the case of culturally dissimilar migrants, the extent of promotion focus and a concern with gains predicted more positive attitudes. However, for economically less beneficial migrants, neither the extent of promotion nor prevention focus was a predictor. Only lower concerns with threat predicted more positive attitudes to this migrant group. The results are discussed with respect to other determinants of attitudes to migrants and the implications for migration and asylum-seeker policy.     

调节性T细胞与肿瘤免疫治疗

调节性T细胞在肿瘤免疫逃逸过程中起着举足轻重的作用.随着人们对肿瘤微环境的认识的加深及治疗思路的改变,调节性T细胞在肿瘤治疗方面的应用将会日趋成熟,为肿瘤的治疗提供了新的机遇,同时,如何平衡调节性T细胞正反两方面的作用,也将会对我们提出新的挑战.     

Regulatory focus systems and personal values

The present studies sought connections between two highly influential, but separate motivational systems: the regulatory foci and personal values. Study 1 (N = 173) showed that promotion focus was positively associated with Achievement and negatively with Tradition values, whereas prevention focus was positively associated with Conformity and Security values, and negatively with Self‐Direction and Stimulation values. Furthermore, interdependent self‐construal moderated trait prevention focus' associations with Power, Benevolence, Universalism, and Conformity values. Study 2 (N = 150) showed that a promotion‐framed message evoked more compliant behavior among those scoring high on Stimulation, Achievement, and Self‐Direction values, but that a prevention‐framed message evoked more compliance among those high in Conformity values. The results suggested that the regulatory foci are associated with certain values, and that these values may increase motivation in promotion‐ versus prevention‐relevant situations. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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).     

Regulatory fit effects on stimulus identification

This article examines the effects of a fit between a person's global regulatory focus and the local task reward structure on perceptual processing and judgment. On each trial, participants were presented with one of two briefly presented stimuli and were asked to identify it. Participants were placed in a promotion focus (a situationally induced sensitivity to gains) or a prevention focus (a situationally induced sensitivity to losses) and were asked to maximize gains or minimize losses. An asymmetric payoff ratio biased the overall reward toward one identification response over the other. Two experiments tested the role of regulatory fit when internal familiarity and perceptual sensitivity were low or high. When familiarity and sensitivity were low, participants in a regulatory fit (promotion focus with gains or a prevention focus with losses) showed greater perceptual sensitivity but no response bias differences, relative to participants in a regulatory mismatch. When familiarity and sensitivity were high, participants in a regulatory fit showed a response bias toward the high-payoff stimulus but no differences in perceptual sensitivity. Speculations are offered on the neurobiological basis of this effect, as well as implications of this work for clinical disorders such as depression.