调节定向视角下在线评论感知有用性的眼动研究

本研究采用2评论类型(属性型VS体验型)×2调节定向(促进VS预防)的眼动实验,深入探讨消费者对在线评论的加工过程和感知有用性的认知机理。研究发现：(1)与属性型评论相比,个体对体验型评论的认知过程更短,感知有用性却更高。(2)相对于预防定向个体而言,促进定向个体对在线评论的认知加工过程更短,感知有用性更高。(3)评论类型和调节定向的交互效用,在属性型评论情境中显著,但在体验型评论情境中不显著。研究结果揭示了评论类型和调节定向影响消费者对在线评论认知评估的作用机理。     

会员身份对在线评论感知有用性的影响：ERPs研究

采用事件相关电位技术，探讨会员身份和评论效价对在线评论感知有用性的影响。行为结果表明，VIP的评论比非VIP的更加有用，差评比好评更加有用。脑电结果显示，与VIP比，非VIP条件诱发更大的N2成分，表明个体对非VIP的评论信息投入更多的注意资源；评论效价诱发的LPP效应受到会员身份的调节，即VIP的差评比其好评诱发了更大的LPP波幅，表明VIP身份强化了在线评论的情绪唤醒水平。研究结果为评论有用性感知的身份特征加工提供了神经数据支撑。     

评论不一致性对消费者的双面影响:产品属性与调节定向的调节

以往有研究指出在线评论的不一致性会给企业带来负面影响,也有研究发现存在正面影响。之所以会存在两种截然相反的结论是因为,以往研究没有深入分析评论内容,忽略了造成不一致性的根源所在。通过引入产品属性及消费者调节定向,力图解释以往两种看似冲突的结论。结果表明:评论不一致性会通过影响消费者对产品的风险和独特性感知进而影响其购买意向;垂直属性评论(水平属性)不一致性越高,越会激发消费者的风险感知(独特性感知),进而降低(提高)购买意向;并且消费者调节定向对产品属性的调节作用会进一步调节。     

谁该成为体验型产品网络评论的主角,图片还是文字?

图片、文字是体验型产品网络评论的两种主要形式,但关于两者对消费者影响的研究结论尚存在分歧。本研究基于解释水平理论,通过系列实验揭示了图片、文字评论在不同购买可行性情境下对消费者产品评价的影响,及产品类型(怀旧/非怀旧)的调节作用。结果表明:(1)购买可行性低情境下的消费者受文字评论的影响更大,而购买可行性高情境下的消费者受图片评论的影响更大(实验1a、实验1b和实验2);(2)购买怀旧产品时,购买可行性低情境下的消费者仍受文字评论的影响更大,而购买可行性高情境下的消费者受两类评论的影响无差异;购买非怀旧产品时,购买可行性高情境下的消费者仍受图片评论的影响更大,而购买可行性低情境下的消费者受两类评论的影响无差异(实验3)。本研究表明,当图片、文字评论与购买可行性在解释水平上一致时,影响力最大,且怀旧/非怀旧产品类型会调节这种效应。本研究还讨论了如何在实际中运用此结论。     

网络环境下第三方评论对冲动购买意愿的影响机制：以产品类别和评论员级别为调节变量

采用问卷调查和实验研究的方法, 构建了以情感为中介的第三方正面评论与网络消费者冲动购买意愿的关系模型, 并检验了产品类别和评论员级别对该模型的调节效应。研究结果表明：第三方评论的好评度、好评数、时效性直接正向影响冲动购买意愿; 好评度以快乐和唤起情感为中介、好评数以快乐情感为中介间接正向影响冲动购买意愿; 消费者购买低涉入度(VS：高涉入度)产品和阅读高级(VS：初级)评论员发布的评论时, 第三方正面评论对冲动购买意愿的影响更强。     

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。     

在线评论数量和质量对网络购物意愿的影响:认知需要的调节作用

为探讨在线评论数量和质量以及认知需要对个体网络购物意愿的影响及其作用机制。以320名有网购经历的在校大学生为被试,采用2(在线评论质量:高vs.低)×2(在线评论数量:多vs.少)×2(认知需要水平:高vs.低)的实验设计。结果发现:(1)在线评论质量和数量对网络购物意愿都有着积极影响;(2)在线评论质量和数量对网络购物意愿的影响会受到认知需要的调节,即在线评论数量和质量对不同认知需要水平个体的影响不同:低认知需要个体会受到在线评论数量的影响,而高认知需要的个体则会受到在线评论质量的影响。研究结果深化了在线评论对网络购物购买决策影响的研究。     

越努力去忘就越能忘记吗？—情绪材料定向遗忘的"剂量效应"

采用项目法定向遗忘研究范式,在两个实验中分别使用情绪性语词和图片材料,考察主观努力程度影响情绪材料定向遗忘的心理机制。研究采用2(语词或图片情绪效价：正词/负词)×2（指示符：记住/忘记)×3（努力程度：20%/60%/100%）的被试内设计,因变量为情绪性语词或图片的再认率和定向遗忘效应。结果表明,正效价词在三种努力程度忘记条件的再认率无差别,而越努力去忘记负效价词,反而越能记住;正负效价的图片材料都呈现出越努力去忘记反而越能记住的特点。以上结果表明,语词与图片分别适合有意识加工和无意识加工,记住指令导致对情绪性语词和图片的选择性复述,符合选择性复述/被动衰退理论,而不同努力程度的忘记指令又引发了对情绪性语词和图片的主动抑制,符合注意抑制/执行控制理论。     

依恋类型对主动遗忘的影响

成人依恋可以在依恋回避和依恋焦虑两个维度进行分析。不安全依恋的个体在依恋关系中持续感受到一种不安全感,因此个体往往采用心理防御策略来摆脱这种不安全感。对于许多不愉快的事件,个体常常也会采用类似的防御策略进行抑制,以减少自身的消极体验。主动遗忘是指个体有意识地避免回想某一目标对象而导致的遗忘现象,其可能与高回避个体的停用策略十分相似。为探讨对于依恋相关的记忆内容,高回避个体是否能够成功进行主动遗忘以规避负面情绪,或是防御失败引起依恋系统激活,反而更多回忆起相关记忆内容,本实验采用Think/No-Think(TNT)范式进行研究,以依恋相关故事作为对被试的依恋启动操作,设计了2(启动:依恋启动vs.依恋未启动)×3(主动遗忘:Think vs.No-Think vs.Baseline)×2(依恋维度得分:高vs低)混合设计研究不同依恋类型主动遗忘能力的影响。实验结果显示,TNT操作与回避类型与启动操作的交互作用显著,高依恋回避个体在受到依恋相关启动时表现出优秀的主动遗忘能力,而在未受到启动时则不能有效地遗忘依恋相关负性词对; 而低依恋回避个体则表现相反,在受到启动材料威胁时无法成功主动遗忘,而在未受启动条件下可以成功遗忘要求内容。对于不同焦虑类型的被试来说,其主动遗忘能力与启动操作无关,高焦虑类型被试表现出更强的主动遗忘能力,并从依恋内部工作模型角度进行了分析。     

调节定向和调节匹配对情感预测中影响偏差的影响

现实生活中,人们在决策前需要对决策可能带来的结果进行预测。人们往往会高估未来事件对其情绪的影响,这被称为影响偏差。本研究从自我调节理论的视角出发,考察了调节定向和调节匹配对情感预测中影响偏差的影响。实验1和实验2分别在积极和消极情景中考察了调节定向对情感预测偏差的影响;实验3和实验4分别在消极和积极情景中考察了调节匹配对情感预测偏差的影响。结果发现:(1)在对积极情感的预测中,促进定向个体比防御定向个体出现更大的影响偏差;在对消极情感的预测中,防御定向个体比促进定向个体出现更大的影响偏差。(2)调节匹配比调节不匹配条件下,个体会出现更大的影响偏差。因此,情感预测中的影响偏差是个体实现目标的一种自我调节策略,会受到调节定向和调节匹配的影响。     

调节聚焦对期限效果的影响

结合调节聚焦探讨了期限的时长、结果框架及效价对期限效果的影响。结果表明,防御聚焦个体认为期限的阻碍效果更大,且调节聚焦对前述变量与期限效果的关系具有调节作用:4分钟期限中防御聚焦组认为期限的阻碍效果更大,8分钟期限中则相反,12和16分钟期限中均无显著差异;收益框架下促进聚焦组认为期限对任务表现的阻碍作用更大,促进聚焦组在正效价条件下认为收益框架下期限对策略使用的阻碍作用更大,但在负效价条件下则相反。     

Creativity and Imitation: Effects of Regulatory Focus and Creative Exemplar Quality

In creative settings, exposure to creative exemplar products may invite imitation and as such influence creative performance. In understanding creativity, it, therefore, is important to be able to predict imitation of creative exemplar products. Regulatory focus theory can do so, and leads to predictions that deviate from the existing body of knowledge concerning regulatory focus and creativity in the absence of exemplar products. In this study, we proposed that high creative exemplar quality elicits more imitation—and thus lowered creativity—for promotion-focused individuals, whereas creative exemplar quality does not affect the creative process for prevention-focused individuals. To enable a relatively objective measurement of creativity and imitation, these predictions were tested in a laboratory experiment. Results supported predictions, indicating that knowledge about how strongly people engage in imitation in the face of a creative exemplar product leads to more adequate predictions how creative people really are.     

Outcome interdependence shapes the effects of prevention focus on team processes and performance

Although the effects of regulatory focus on individual-level performance have often been studied, relatively little is yet known about team-level effects. Filling this void, we integrate the notion that promotion-focused individuals are concerned with progress and achievement, whereas prevention-focused individuals are concerned with security and vigilance, with the insight that team processes and performance depend on outcome interdependence (individual versus team rewards). The hypothesis that prevention-focused teams react more strongly than promotion-focused teams to differences in outcome interdependence was tested among 50 teams performing an interactive command-and-control simulation. Regulatory focus and outcome interdependence were both manipulated. The results showed that prevention-focused teams working for team rather than individual rewards reported higher work engagement and less error intolerance, coordinated more effectively, and performed better. Promotion-focused teams were not influenced by outcome interdependence. We discuss the implications of our results for theory and effective team management.     

The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: the role of interdependence in regulatory focus

Regulatory focus theory distinguishes between self-regulatory processes that focus on promotion and prevention strategies for goal pursuit. Five studies provide support for the hypothesis that these strategies differ for individuals with distinct self-construals. Specifically, individuals with a dominant independent self-construal were predicted to place more emphasis on promotion-focused information, and those with a dominant interdependent self-construal on prevention-focused information. Support for this hypothesis was obtained for participants who scored high versus low on the Self-Construal Scale, participants who were presented with an independent versus interdependent situation, and participants from a Western versus Eastern culture. The influence of interdependence on regulatory focus was observed in both importance ratings of information and affective responses consistent with promotion or prevention focus.     

A meta-analysis on promotion- and prevention-focused job crafting

The purpose of this study is to present a meta-analytical summary of the job crafting literature. We integrate resource- and role-based job crafting conceptualizations in one job crafting model, which can theoretically account for beneficial and detrimental job crafting effects. Applying reasoning from regulatory focus theory we differentiated promotion-focused (increasing job resources and challenging job demands; expansion-oriented task, relational, and cognitive crafting) from prevention-focused (decreasing hindering job demands; contraction-oriented task and relational crafting) job crafting. We hypothesized that promotion-focused job crafting relates positively and prevention-focused job crafting relates negatively with employee health, motivation, and performance. Results of cross-sectional meta-analytical structural equation modelling showed that promotion-focused job crafting was positively related with work engagement and negatively related with burnout, while prevention-focused job crafting was negatively related with work engagement and positively related with burnout. Moreover, promotion-focused job crafting was positively and prevention-focused job crafting was negatively related with performance through work engagement and burnout. Results of longitudinal meta-analytical structural equation modelling showed that there were reciprocal, positive relationships between promotion-focused job crafting and work engagement, and between prevention-focused job crafting and burnout. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.     

Surviving childhood cancer: quality of life and parental regulatory focus

Applying Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT), the authors predicted that among survivors of childhood cancer, quality of life (QOL) may be compromised by prevention-focused parenting characterized by an overly protective concern with possible mishaps and illness recurrence rather than promotion-focused parenting encouraging expectations of recovery and a normal life. Interviews with parents of 64 survivors (M age = 13.83 years) of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or central nervous system (CNS) tumors were coded for reports of promotion or prevention-oriented parenting and positive and negative expectancies. Overall, parents expressed more promotion than prevention focus, especially in relation to general rather than illness-related contexts. Greater use by parents of prevention focus in general contexts predicted lower QOL for survivors (as rated both by parents and survivors themselves) and less satisfactory parental well-being. These effects were independent of a main effect for type of cancer, with survivors of ALL having higher QOL.     

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 focus theory: Disentangling goals and strategies

The purpose of this research was to develop and test the Regulatory Goals and Strategies Questionnaire (RGSQ) to promote conceptual and empirical clarity in the literature on regulatory focus theory (RFT). According to RFT, construing an end-state as a maximal goal (ideal, gain, and advancement) elicits the adoption of an eager promotion-focused strategy, whereas construing an end-state as a minimal goal (ought, non-loss, and security) elicits the adoption of a vigilant prevention-focused strategy. This means that promotion-focused eagerness and prevention-focused vigilance can be elicited by various goals and that eager and vigilant strategies are in fact separate from goals. However, extant measurement instruments have not treated them as such. The RGSQ was developed to distinguish various maximal and minimal goals and to separate these goals from promotion- and prevention-focused strategies of eagerness and vigilance. Across three studies that combine six samples (total N = 1848), we examined the factor structure and nomological network of the RGSQ (Study 1: four samples of students and adults) and its predictive validity in a task context (Study 2) and working sample (Study 3). Overall, we found support for the RGSQ's validity and demonstrated that the RGSQ operationalizes regulatory focus in accordance with the theory's core assumptions.     

The asymmetric effect of regulatory fit on moral judgments of other-oriented lies

We examined whether regulatory fit effects are asymmetric—namely, whether they occur only among individuals with a promotion focus or a prevention focus. We adopted a task where individuals make moral judgments of other-oriented lies and conducted three studies. The results indicated that prevention-focused individuals judged other-oriented lies based on a vigilant strategy as more moral than lies based on an eager strategy (Studies 1 and 2). Meanwhile for promotion-focused individuals, there were no differences between eager and vigilant strategies on moral judgments of other-oriented lies. Additionally, the results suggested that the feeling of rightness is an underlying mechanism of the regulatory fit effects of prevention focus (Study 3).