The effects of instructional cues on performance and mechanics during a gross motor movement

Externally focused instructions specific to performance have shown to improve body mechanics (Gokeler et al., 2015; Welling, Benjaminse, Gokeler, & Otten, 2016). However, the effect of using an external focus instruction may have been more profound if the content of the instruction had been relevant to mechanics. Therefore, the present study examined the effects of externally focused instructions specific to performance and externally focused instructions specific to body mechanics on mechanics and performance. Twenty-four adults (n = 12 males; n = 12 females) performed a series of drop jumps following external focus cues that were specific to performance and landing mechanics. Participants completed a drop jump followed by a maximal effort vertical jump. The initial contact, maximal angle, and range of motion at the knee in the sagittal and frontal plane motion were measured for mechanics and the height of the second vertical jump was measured for performance. The results suggest external focus instructions specific to performance are beneficial for performance, but not for improving landing mechanics. This suggests that external focus instructions must be specific to the contents of the instruction.     

Practice variability promotes an external focus of attention and enhances motor skill learning

Variability in practice has been shown to enhance motor skill learning. Benefits of practice variability have been attributed to motor schema formation (variable versus constant practice), or more effortful information processing (random versus blocked practice). We hypothesized that, among other mechanisms, greater practice variability might promote an external focus of attention on the intended movement effect, while less variability would be more conducive to a less effective internal focus on body movements. In Experiment 1, the learning of a throwing task was enhanced by variable versus constant practice, and variable group participants reported focusing more on the distance to the target (external focus), while constant group participants focused more on their posture (internal focus). In Experiment 2, golf putting was learned more effectively with a random compared with a blocked practice schedule. Furthermore, random group learners reported using a more effective distal external focus (i.e., distance to the target) to a greater extent, whereas blocked group participants used a less effective proximal focus (i.e., putter) more often. While attentional focus was assessed through questionnaires in the first two experiments, learners in Experiment 3 were asked to report their current attentional focus at any time during practice. Again, the learning of a throwing task was more effective after random relative to blocked practice. Also, random practice learners reported using more external focus cues, while in blocked practice participants used more internal focus cues. The findings suggest that the attentional foci induced by different practice schedules might be at least partially responsible for the learning differences.     

How regulatory focus impacts the process-by-outcome interaction for perceived fairness and emotions

Judgments of fairness take into account at least two pieces of information—the outcome received and the process by which the outcome was assigned. Generally speaking, low levels of fairness are apt to be reported when the outcome is unfavorable and the allocation process is deemed inappropriate. In this study, we investigate how regulatory focus theory can further our understanding of the process by outcome interaction. Specifically, when individuals are working to add to their earnings (a promotion focus) the typical effect is observed. However, when individuals are focused on maintaining something that is their own (a prevention focus) the most negative emotion occurs when individuals are allocated an unfavorable outcome through a process that contains procedural safeguards.     

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.     

Unpacking Prevention Capacity: An Intersection of Research-to-practice Models and Community-centered Models

Capacity is a complex construct that lacks definitional clarity. Little has been done to define capacity, explicate components of capacity, or explore the development of capacity in prevention. This article represents an attempt to operationalize capacity and distinguish among types and levels of capacity as they relate to dissemination and implementation through the use of a taxonomy of capacity. The development of the taxonomy was informed by the capacity literature from two divergent models in the field: research-to-practice (RTP) models and community-centered (CC) models. While these models differ in perspective and focus, both emphasize the importance of capacity to the dissemination and sustainability of prevention innovations. Based on the review of the literature, the taxonomy differentiates the concepts of capacity among two dimensions: level (individual, organizational, and community levels) and type (general capacity and innovation-specific capacity). The proposed taxonomy can aid in understanding the concept of capacity and developing methods to support the implementation and sustainability of prevention efforts in novel settings.     

Implementation Matters: A Review of Research on the Influence of Implementation on Program Outcomes and the Factors Affecting Implementation

The first purpose of this review was to assess the impact of implementation on program outcomes, and the second purpose was to identify factors affecting the implementation process. Results from over quantitative 500 studies offered strong empirical support to the conclusion that the level of implementation affects the outcomes obtained in promotion and prevention programs. Findings from 81 additional reports indicate there are at least 23 contextual factors that influence implementation. The implementation process is affected by variables related to communities, providers and innovations, and aspects of the prevention delivery system (i.e., organizational functioning) and the prevention support system (i.e., training and technical assistance). The collection of implementation data is an essential feature of program evaluations, and more information is needed on which and how various factors influence implementation in different community settings.     

Openness to Experience and regulatory focus: Evidence of motivation from fit

Regulatory fit occurs when one’s strategies of goal pursuit sustain one’s interests in an activity, which can enhance motivation [e.g., Higgins, E. T. (2005). Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 209–213]. Because the strategic inclinations of people high (low) in Openness are similar to those of people in a promotion (prevention) focus, regulatory fit should be possible. We found that people higher in Openness were more motivated to pursue promotion-related goals (hopes/aspirations in Study 1 and a gain-framed goal in Study 2) and less motivated to pursue prevention-related goals (duties/obligations in Study 1 and a loss-framed goal in Study 2). We discuss how other traits might relate to motivation to pursue promotion- and prevention-related goals as well as other future research directions for regulatory focus and Openness.     

Prevention of Anxiety Disorders: Results of a Universal Trial with Young Children

We examined a brief program aimed at preventing anxiety and other problems in early childhood. Participants (N = 734, age 3–6 years) were drawn from 25 preschools across Brisbane, Australia. Assessments occurred four times over 14 months, with a diagnostic interview at follow-up. Parent and teacher reports included information on child temperament, social behavior, inhibition, parent characteristics, and parent-child interactions. REACH for RESILIENCE, a universal prevention program developed for this study, consisted of a six-session training program for parents focusing on building positive expectations and social competency in children. Parents rated the program positively and attended well, especially highly stressed parents who thus became over-represented in the treatment group as time progressed. Despite this difficulty with interpreting results, the intervention resulted in decreases in child problems via teacher report for both internalizing and externalizing problems. However, the effect sizes were not impressive and no changes were noted in parent’s diagnostic ratings. Results, directions for further research, and refinement of methods are discussed.

Responding to negativity: How a risky tactic can serve a vigilant strategy

Regulatory focus theory distinguishes between two motivational systems—a promotion system concerned with nurturance and advancement and a prevention system concerned with security and safety [Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300]. In signal detection terms, a preference for eager strategies within the promotion system has been equated with a “risky” bias, whereas a preference for vigilant strategies within the prevention system has been equated with a “conservative” bias. However, we propose that when prevention-focused individuals face negative input, they should be willing to incur false alarms to ensure that negative stimuli are correctly identified. Across six studies, we found for negative stimuli a reversal of the traditional finding that prevention participants show a conservative bias in information processing. In these studies, prevention participants consistently exhibited a risky bias when the input was negative. We suggest that this new tactic—a risky bias in response to negativity—best serves the prevention strategy of vigilance.     

Differential effects of regulatory fit on category learning

Motivation affects the degree to which people engage in tasks as well as the processes that they bring to bear. We explore the proposal that a fit between a person’s situationally induced self-regulatory focus and the reward structure of the task that they are pursuing supports greater flexibility in processing than does a mismatch between regulatory focus and reward structure. In two experiments, we prime regulatory focus and manipulate task reward structure. Our participants perform a rule-based learning task whose solution requires flexible strategy testing as well as an information-integration task for which flexible strategy use hinders learning. Across two experiments, we predict and obtain a three-way interaction between regulatory focus, reward structure, and task. Relative to a mismatch, a match leads to better rule-based task performance, but worse performance on the information-integration task. We relate these findings to other work on motivation and choking under pressure.