People in a prevention focus tend to view their goals as duties and obligations, whereas people in a promotion focus tend to view their goals as hopes and aspirations. The current research suggests ...that people's attention goes to somewhat different experiences when they describe their hopes vs. duties. Two studies randomly assigned participants (
= 953) to describe a hope vs. duty. Specifically, Study 1 asked participants to describe a personal experience of pursuing a hope vs. duty, and Study 2 asked participants to describe a current hope vs. duty they had. I analyzed these descriptions with Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) 2015. Consistent with earlier research on regulatory focus, participants wrote more about positive outcomes when describing hopes and social relationships when describing duties. The current research suggests that the effectiveness of common regulatory focus and regulatory fit manipulations could depend on participants' freedom to choose the experiences they bring to mind when they describe their hopes and duties.
The need-support model bridges regulatory focus theory and self-determination theory. Research on this model has shown that support of needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (key constructs ...in self-determination theory) is higher in experiences of pursuing hopes versus duties (key constructs in regulatory focus theory). The current research used LIWC 2015’s standard dictionary to examine differences between descriptions of high and low support of these needs (N = 941), descriptions of pursuing hopes and duties (N = 1,047), high need support and hopes, and low need support and duties. As expected, descriptions of high need support and hopes were more emotionally positive than low need support and duties, whereas high need support and duties showed more attention to social relationships than low need support and hopes. These and additional findings of this research support the need-support model’s proposal that regulatory focus and need support do not reduce to each other.
Following the publication of our recent article in Collabra: Psychology https://www.collabra.org/articles/10.1525/collabra.185/ we wish to bring the following corrigendum to your attention.
Prevention focus is a self-regulatory orientation that serves the need for security, and promotion focus is a self-regulatory orientation that serves the need for growth. From mid-March to early ...April 2020, did people judge prevention focus to be more useful than promotion focus for responding to COVID-19? Our study tested and showed support for this hypothesis with 401 American and Canadian participants, who we sampled in 100-person waves on the first 4 Thursdays of the pandemic. For this study, we developed a new measure of the judged usefulness of promotion and prevention focus. Additionally, results showed that the judged usefulness of promotion and prevention focus related positively to support of the psychological needs for autonomy and relatedness, respectively, in responding to COVID-19. Exploratory analyses showed that day-to-day differences in autonomy, competence, and relatedness support and in promotion and prevention focus tended to be small, which is notable given the large-scale changes to social distancing, employment, and media coverage of the virus during this time. Our research could be useful for crafting persuasive advocacy and narrative communications that encourage social distancing to protect others about whom people care most.
•We examined descriptions of self-control and compared them with hopes or duties.•Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) identified key aspects of self-control.•These included things over which ...people often exert self-control (e.g., ingestion).•We also found that lay people may have inaccurate beliefs about self-control.•Specifically, self-control differed more from hopes than from duties.
This research shows that Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count 2015 can identify important aspects of self-control and suggests that lay people inaccurately may believe that prevention focus is more useful for self-control than promotion focus is. We analyzed descriptions of self-control (N = 362) and compared them with descriptions of pursuing hopes or duties (N = 1048). Descriptions of self-control frequently mentioned common temptations and aspects of (meta)cognitive processes. They also showed evidence of extremely high authenticity, which may be crucial for successful self-control. Additionally, analyses of word categories and self-reported need satisfaction in the experiences participants described showed more and larger differences between self-control and pursuing hopes (promotion) than between self-control and pursuing duties (prevention). We discuss directions for future research about the role of authenticity in effective self-control and whether, when, and how being in a prevention focus (vs. promotion focus) is more effective for engaging in self-control.
Display omitted
Investigating Variation in Replicability Klein, Richard A.; Ratliff, Kate A.; Vianello, Michelangelo ...
Social psychology (Göttingen, Germany),
01/2014, Letnik:
45, Številka:
3
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Although replication is a central tenet of science, direct replications are rare
in psychology. This research tested variation in the replicability of 13 classic and
contemporary effects across 36 ...independent samples totaling 6,344 participants. In the
aggregate, 10 effects replicated consistently. One effect - imagined contact reducing
prejudice - showed weak support for replicability. And two effects - flag priming
influencing conservatism and currency priming influencing system justification - did not
replicate. We compared whether the conditions such as lab versus online or US versus
international sample predicted effect magnitudes. By and large they did not. The results of
this small sample of effects suggest that replicability is more dependent on the effect itself
than on the sample and setting used to investigate the effect.
This dataset includes data from the three studies reported in my paper on Foundational Tests of the Need-Support Model 6. I collected these data in 2014, 2015, and 2016 from over 2,100 Amazon ...Mechanical Turk workers in the United States and Canada. The dataset contains the measures described in the paper, as well as participants’ writing about the experiences they brought to mind in these studies. The data are stored on the Open Science Framework, and they could be used for exploratory research, meta-analyses, and research on replication. I also welcome collaborative research involving re-analyses of these data.
Numerous major holidays celebrate socially gathering in person. However, in major holidays that happened during the pandemic, desires to nurture relationships and maintain holiday traditions often ...conflicted with physical distancing and other measures to protect against COVID-19. The current research sought to understand wellbeing during American Thanksgiving in 2020, which happened 8months into the COVID-19 pandemic, after months of physical distancing and stay-at-home orders. American Thanksgiving is a major holiday not limited to any religion. We asked 404 American adults how they spent Thanksgiving Day and to report on their experiences of that day. Predictors of wellbeing that we drew from self-determination theory were satisfaction of the fundamental needs for social connection (relatedness), for doing what one really wants (autonomy), and feeling effective (competence). The predictors of wellbeing that we drew from regulatory focus theory were a focus on growth (promotion), and a focus on security (prevention). We found that feeling socially connected and focusing on growth related most strongly to wellbeing. Additionally, participants who saw even one other person face-to-face reported significantly higher relatedness satisfaction, promotion focus, and wellbeing than those who did not. Our research could help construct persuasive messages that encourage nurturing close relationships at major holidays while remaining safe against the virus.
Shnabel and Nadler (2008) assessed a needs-based model of reconciliation suggesting that in conflicts, victims and perpetrators have different psychological needs that when satisfied increase the ...chances of reconciliation. For instance, Shnabel and Nadler found that after a conflict, perpetrators indicated that they had a need for social acceptance and were more likely to reconcile after their sense of social acceptance was restored, whereas victims indicated that they had a need for power and were more likely to reconcile after their sense of power was restored. Gilbert (2016), as a part of the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P), attempted to replicate these findings using different study materials but did not find support for the original effect. In an attempt to reconcile these discrepant findings, we conducted two new sets of replications—one using the RP:P protocol and another using modified materials meant to be more relatable to undergraduate participants. Teams from eight universities contributed to data collection (N = 2,738). We did find moderation by protocol; the focal interaction from the revised protocol, but not from the RP:P protocol, replicated the interaction in the original study. We discuss differences in, and possible explanations for, the patterns of results across protocols.
PDF
