Sadness and ruminative thinking independently depress people's moods

Depression and rumination often co‐occur in clinical populations, but it is not clear which causes which, or if both are manifestations of an underlying pathology. Does rumination simply exacerbate whatever affect a person is experiencing, or is it a negative experience in and of itself? In two experiments we answer this question by independently manipulating emotion and rumination. Participants were allocated to sad or neutral (in Experiment 1), or sad, neutral or happy (Experiment 2) mood conditions, via a combination of emotionally evocative music and autobiographical recall. Afterwards, in both studies, participants either ruminated by thinking about self‐relevant statements or, in a control group, thought about self‐irrelevant statements. Taken together, our data show that, independent of participants' mood, ruminators reported more negative affect relative to controls. The findings are consistent with theories suggesting that self‐focus is itself unpleasant, and illustrate that depressive rumination comprises both affective and ruminative components, which could be targeted independently in clinical samples.     

The Influence of Attentional Focus on Balance Control over Seven Days of Training

This study examined the training effect of attentional focus (external focus, internal focus, or no focus instructions) on a dynamic balance task. Participants completed baseline balance testing, seven consecutive days of dynamic balance board training, and retention testing 24 hours after the last session. The novel finding of this study was the presence of a training effect on balance control when adopting an external focus relative to an internal focus or no focus instructions. Further, we report the unique observation that more patterned behavior was adopted regardless of the focus instructions. These findings provide insight into how instructions can be altered to enhance human balance control and complement the constrained-action hypothesis.     

The Effect of Group Polarization on Opposition to Donald Trump

Using focus groups, we examined support and opposition for Donald Trump prior to the 2016 presidential election. When ingroup members participate in discussion, this conversation alone typically strengthens and intensifies members’ initial attitudes. We used a pre‐ to post‐focus‐group questionnaire to assess attitudes toward Trump, his campaign, and policies. We argue that group polarization influenced people’s opinions about Trump such that attitudes became more extreme after discussion with like‐minded individuals. We report changes for Trump nonsupporters for which group polarization occurred on attitudes toward illegal immigration, political correctness, the military, women, and veterans after the group discussion. For each, level of support for Trump’s views decreased. To further explore potential psychological mechanisms associated with group polarization, we employed network science methods to examine the structure of the language associated with these issues and identify potential drivers of attitude change. Results provide some support for a common mechanism for group polarization, which may be driven by language dynamics specific to individual attitudes.     

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.     

Single‐item big five ratings in a social network design

To develop and validate an ultra‐short measure to assess the Big Five in social network designs, the unipolar items of the Ten‐Item Personality Inventory were adapted to create a bipolar single‐item scale (TIPI‐r), including a new Openness item. Reliability was examined in terms of the internal consistency and test–retest stability of self‐ratings and peer‐rating composites (trait reputations). Validity was examined by means of convergence between TIPI‐r and Big Five Inventory (BFI) scores, self‐peer agreement and projection (intra‐ individual correlation between self‐ and peer‐ratings). The psychometric quality of the TIPI‐r differed somewhat between scales and the different reliability and validity criteria. The high reliability of the peer‐rating composites motivates to use the TIPI‐r in future studies employing social network designs. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.