Narrowing down to open up for other people's concerns: Empathic concern can be enhanced by inducing detailed processing

In three experiments inducing a detailed versus abstract processing style using perceptual (Experiment 1), motivational (Experiment 2), and social (Experiment 3) manipulations, we found that empathic concerns are enhanced in contexts associated with a more detailed processing style (i.e., local perceptual scope, prevention motivation, and low power, respectively). Hence, simple contextual changes known to impact on processing styles may influence empathy beyond individual differences. The present findings are discussed in terms of their implications for empathy research and their relation with research on mood and level of construal.     

Impact of regulatory focus on ambiguity aversion

Although prior research has shown that some people prefer a risky to an ambiguous option, this study further proposes that people's regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention) might influence their ambiguity aversion. Three experiments have tested whether people with promotion focus showed less ambiguity aversion than those with prevention focus: The first experiment revealed that, compared with chronically promotion‐focused individuals, prevention‐focused subjects preferred a risky to an ambiguous option. In the second experiment, priming of the subjects' goal orientations led to similar results. Experiment 3 demonstrated that participants showed less ambiguity aversion for the expected performance of an investment product representative of promotion (e.g., a stock fund) rather than one representative of prevention (e.g., a bond fund). In other words, people showed less preference for a bond fund when the probability distribution of its expected performance was unknown than when it was known, whereas they showed less preference difference between known and unknown probability distributions for the expected performance of a stock fund. This study has integrated research pertaining to regulatory focus and ambiguity aversion, and the results have confirmed that the impact of regulatory focus on ambiguity aversion is robust across different methods and decision tasks. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (Un)ethical behavior

In four laboratory studies, we find that regulatory focus induced by situational cues (such as the framing of an unrelated task) or primed influences people’s likelihood to cross ethical boundaries. A promotion focus leads individuals to be more likely to act unethically than a prevention focus (Studies 1, 2, and 3). These higher levels of dishonesty are explained by the influence of a person’s induced regulatory focus on his or her behavior toward risk. A promotion focus leads to risk-seeking behaviors, while a prevention focus leads to risk avoidance (Study 3). Through higher levels of dishonesty, promotion focus also results in higher levels of virtuous behavior (Studies 2 and 3), thus providing evidence for compensatory ethics. Our results also demonstrate that the framing of ethics (e.g., through an organization’s ethics code) influences individuals’ ethical behavior and does so differently depending on an individual’s induced regulatory focus (Study 4).     

Regulatory focus and executive function after interracial interactions

Recent research finds that interracial interactions can negatively impact executive function. The present study examined whether regulatory focus may moderate this effect. Specifically, prior to an interracial interaction, 45 White female students were told either to try to have a positive interracial exchange (promotion focus), avoid prejudice (prevention focus), or given no instruction (control). After the interaction, participants completed the Stroop color-naming task, which assessed executive attentional task performance. Results revealed that participants in the prevention and the no instruction, control conditions performed worse on the Stroop than participants in the promotion condition. The findings suggest that promoting positive contact through active engagement rather than prejudice avoidance attenuates the previously documented negative effects of interracial contact on cognitive functioning.     

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.     

矛盾视角下调节焦点在领导力领域的应用

根据调节焦点理论, 个体在追求目标和选择行动策略的过程中存在两种调节焦点：促进型调节焦点的个体以利益最大化为目标, 倾向用“接近式”的方式达成目标; 防御型调节焦点的个体以损失最小化为目标, 倾向用“避免式”的方式达成目标。近年来, 调节焦点理论在领导力领域的研究中得到了广泛应用, 但关于两种调节焦点之间的关系及两者共同作用的研究却十分稀少。在回顾调节焦点在领导力领域研究的应用现状的基础上, 本文指出了矛盾视角的必要性和可行性, 并基于矛盾理论, 提出了未来研究的发展方向。     

时间焦点对前后方向上内隐时空映射的影响——来自汉族和羌族的证据

采用不同的研究方法考察汉族和羌族被试内隐时空映射的联结方向及其影响因素。实验1利用时间图表任务发现, 汉族被试对“过去在前”和“未来在前”两种内隐时空映射没有表现出明显偏好, 而羌族被试更加倾向于使用“过去在前”的内隐时空映射。由于二者均使用汉语, 但其内隐时空映射却存在差异, 显示出时间语言和时间思维的分离性。实验2利用时间焦点量表考察汉族和羌族被试对过去和未来时间的关注程度。结果发现, 前者对过去和未来的注意力程度相当, 而后者表现出较强的“过去朝向思维”, 说明文化中的时间焦点偏好可以较好地预测二者的内隐时空映射。实验3利用时间概念分类任务发现, 内隐时空映射有利于促进汉族和羌族被试时间概念的表征和加工, 出现了“隐喻一致性效应”。整个研究表明, 汉族和羌族文化中个体对待时间的态度可以决定其内隐时空映射联结方向, 支持“时间焦点假设”。     

Social Capital and Organizational Commitment

Organizational scientists have been investigating the role of human relationships vis-à-vis firm productivity for some years. Recently, Social Capital has been theorized to play a central part in the reduction of organizational transaction costs. We briefly position Social Capital among several theories claiming a role for interpersonal capital, review its theoretical nuances, and test this theoretical structure using a sample of 469 sales professionals from a leading medical services firm. Our findings indicate that trust, communication, and employee focus have significant direct and moderate indirect affects on organizational commitment.     

How Reliably Do Eye Parameters Indicate Internal Versus External Attentional Focus?

Eye behavior is increasingly used as an indicator of internal versus external focus of attention both in research and application. However, available findings are partly inconsistent, which might be attributed to the different nature of the employed types of internal and external cognition tasks. The present study, therefore, investigated how consistently different eye parameters respond to internal versus external attentional focus across three task modalities: numerical, verbal, and visuo-spatial. Three eye parameters robustly differentiated between internal and external attentional focus across all tasks. Blinks, pupil diameter variance, and fixation disparity variance were consistently increased during internally directed attention. We also observed substantial attentional focus effects on other parameters (pupil diameter, fixation disparity, saccades, and microsaccades), but they were moderated by task type. Single-trial analysis of our data using machine learning techniques further confirmed our results: Classifying the focus of attention by means of eye tracking works well across participants, but generalizing across tasks proves to be challenging. Based on the effects of task type on eye parameters, we discuss what eye parameters are best suited as indicators of internal versus external attentional focus in different settings.     

Within‐person Relationship between Creative Self‐efficacy and Individual Creativity: The Mediator of Creative Process Engagement and the Moderator of Regulatory Focus

Integrating the dynamic self‐regulatory framework with the motivational self‐regulation perspective, we theorize and test how and when creative self‐efficacy increases individual creativity at the within‐person level. Conceptualizing creative process engagement as a self‐regulation effort, we theorize that creative process engagement mediates the within‐person effect of creative self‐efficacy on individual creativity. We further explore how creative self‐efficacy and chronic regulatory focus interact to affect the within‐person mediating effect. A sample of 145 R&D workers provided two monthly reports for their creative activities and experiences over 8 months. The findings provide empirical support for the hypothesized mediating mechanism. At the within‐person level, creative process engagement mediates the relationship between creative self‐efficacy and individual creativity. The results also show that chronic regulatory focus moderated the mediated relationship. Specifically, creative self‐efficacy is positively related to individual creativity for employees with a strong prevention focus and negatively related to individual creativity for employees with a strong promotion focus.