3 Promotion or Prevention The Development of The Chronic Self Focus Scale English

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.
com
Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011
PROMOTION OR PREVENTION: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHRONIC SELF FOCUS SCALE
Dinu-Stefan Teodorescu, Ph.D. candidate Medicine Faculty from the University of Oslo, Norway Innlande Hospital Trust- Brummndal, Norway
Teodorescu, D.S. (2011). Promotion or Prevention: The development of the Chronic Self Focus Scale. Romanian Journal of Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience, 1(2), 133-168
The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com
ABSTRACT The present study reports on the development of an 8 items scale measuring chronic self regulatory focus in the general population in a collectivistic culture in Romania. The need for developing a new instrument was due to felt limitations of T. E. Higginss instrument, which development was based on a restricted sample of tested population (college population and from an individualistic culture). Twenty five articles were reviewed (see the marked articles on the reference list) in order to identify characteristics, personal inclinations and differences that are typically for individuals with different chronic self-regulation focuses. From this review and in addition to a general literature search, 40 statements were generated. Following a linguistic revision and a pilot test on 134 participants, 22 of the statements were excluded. A principal component analysis further reduced the instrument to 12 items, and then to 8, covering two dimensions: Promotion Focus and Prevention Focus. The internal consistencies in terms of Chronbachs alpha were moderate low for both dimensions, ranging from .52, to .64. The construct validity of this instrument was tested using correlations with established instruments: Life Orientation Test (LOT-8), Need For Closure Scale (NFCS-42) and Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ-11).
Keywords: Chronic Self Focus Scale
INTRODUCTION The search for the Self is one of the oldest quests in the written history of humanity, starting with the Upanishadic culture ( Lord Shiva, 1997; Sankaracarya, 1991; Sadananda,1987; Vasistha, 1993; Potter, 1970; Radhakrishnan, 1948; Radhakrishnan and
Moore,1973) in which finding the self was equated with finding the Ultimate Good in life. On the opposite side, but on the same quest, the Sutra Buddhist culture, in which finding that there was not such a thing as a Self was again equated with the highest good in life, the liberation in Nirvana.(Nagarjuna, 1913; Chandrakirti, 2002; Manjustrimitra, 2001; Padmasambhava, 1995; Lindtner, 1997; Mou-lam and Price,1990). In the west, the psychological search for the self started with the work of William James (1999) and James Mark Baldwin in 1890. Taking a quick look at the psychology data base PsycInfo we discover some impressing developments in the study of self: between 1900 and 1940 there were only 257 abstracts dealing with the self, then in the next 30 years a 10 fold increase and finally the explosion on search on the self in the last 10 years that was responsible for 42198 abstracts on the self. Research on the self show us a surprisingly complex subject. Research has included the following areas: self-concept, self-awareness, self- knowledge, self- deception, self-enhancement, self-esteem, self-evaluation, self- interest, self- monitoring, self-motivation, self- perception, self-presentation, self- reference, selfregulation, self- serving bias, and self-verification to name only a few constructs associated with the self. What is the Self? But what exactly is the self? Simply stated the self is our representation of who we are. From the historic perspective, William James (1998) proposed that a person can has as many selves as there are other persons who carry his or her image in their minds. He further said that there a two distinctions applied to the self. First, the self seen as an object, by which the
person knows and evaluates him or her self. Second, the self seen as an agent, by which the person monitors and controls experiences, by the power of this executive self structure (James, 1890). He also distinguishes between a social self and a spiritual self who includes ones own conscience and moral sensibility. In a more recent theory Baumeister (1998; 1999) proposed three aspects of the self: the reflexive consciousness aspect that helps self-knowledge and awareness of self, the interpersonal being aspect, that facilitate interactions and relationships with others and the third, the executive function aspect of the self that makes decisions, initiates actions and exerts control over both self and environment. T. E. Higgins has proposed in his self-discrepancy theory that the self is a digest (Higgins, 1996; 1998), which has three functions: the instrumental function that provides information about the outcomes of various behaviors, the expectancy function which provides information about what to expect from engaging in a given behavior, and the monitoring function that provides feedback information about the persons status in relation to an end state. These functions of the self may give three selves: the instrumental self which provides information about how the world responds to me, the expectant self, which provides information about how I respond to the world and the monitored self, which provides information about how I am doing in relation to the desires and demands for me (Higgins, 1997; Higgins, Klein, and Strauman, 1985). Self study for Higgins is not self-knowledge as an end in itself but rather a means for adaptation and improvement of person-environment fit (Higgins, 1989; Higgins, Grant, and Shah, 1999). Higgins self theory proposes also that the self can only be perceived in relation to the world and in this respect the self is always situated the self is seen as a construct, the result of cognitive processes, rather than a real entity that exists in the world. The construct is only a tentative, an inference, a conclusion based on observations, that is not quite accurate
but pretty close. When such a concept has been formed, the person can reflect on it thus being aware of the self, because the self cannot be perceived directly (Higgins, 2000; Higgins, Bond, Klein, and Strauman, 1986). Self-knowledge In his research into the organization of self-knowledge Higgins (1997) proposed that people are guided in their actions by different self guides. The self guides are internalizations of either positive ideas or obligations about what one should become acquired during childhood from of parenting styles of the caregiver. These internalizations give rise to an ideal-self which contains aspirations and positive ideas about what one would like to be and to ought to be. This "ought self" contains moral duties and obligations about what one should try to be. Different situations can activate the ideal self, the ought self (or both), along with the particular emotions associated with the two self guides. When the ideal self guide is operating and people feel that they havent realized theirs potentials, and thus a discrepancy between the actual self and the idea self is being produced, a feeling of dejection, sadness and depression set in. On the other hand, when the ought self guide is operating and people feel that they havent done their duty and obligations, feelings of aversive height arousal and anxiety set in. One of the roles of Self-knowledge is an executive function, self-regulation. Selfknowledge serves self-regulatory functions for survival in the world, by encoding, organizing a persons relation with the world and the personal consequences of those relations. Selfregulation chooses between alternative means to reach a goal. Self-regulation In order to survive and adapt to their environment, specially the social environment, people must learn about their personal capabilities, about their strengths and weaknesses, and to control the self and the environment. Self-regulation can also be defined as an approach
motivation to reduce discrepancies between current states of the self and desired states (Higgins, 1996; Sorrentino, and Higgins, 1986; Harackiewicz and Elliot, 1993). Historically, the first theory of self-regulation is the Hedonic Principle, which proposes that people regulate their behavior by seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. Bentham (1948), the eighteen century utilitarian philosopher, proposed a list of pleasures and pains that motivate people to either approach or avoid goals ( Kahneman, Diener and Schwarz, 1999; Madsen, 1968; Maslow, 1987). From that time until the present many self-regulation theories have been proposed, based on drifts and physiological mechanisms as proposed by Freud, on social learning as proposed by Hull (1943), on social cognition (Bandura, 1989; 1991) or on control-processes (Scheier and Carver, 1988; Carver and Scheier, 1990; 1998). The Self regulatory theory we will discuss in this paper is the Higgins regulatory self-focus model ( Higgins, 1994;1997). Regulatory focus theory Regulatory focus theory proposed by T. E. Higgins (1994, 1997) deals with how people approach pleasure and avoid pain. Higgins proposed that using the hedonic principle one could not make qualitative differences between positive and negative approaches to motivational states and therefore some more basic concepts must be applied (Higgins, 1997; Elliot and Harackiewicz, 1996; Elliot and Church, 1997; Forster, Higgins and Idson, 1998; Forster, Grant, Idson and Higgins, 2001). Higgins theorized that the hedonic principle operates differently when it serves fundamentally different needs, such as nurturance and security. Higgins theorized that there are two concepts which underlie the hedonic principle in self-regulation, first a Promotion self-regulatory focus and second a Prevention selfregulatory focus (Higgins, 1994; Higgins, Roney, Crowe and Hymes, 1994; Higgins, Shah, and Friedman, 1997; Brockner, Paruchuri, Idson, and Higgins, 2002; Idson, Liberman and Higgins, 2000). The Promotion Focus self-regulation uses as it locus for regulation a positive
self-reference value and has an end state that one might say is a desired or presence of a positive end state. On the other hand, the other regulatory subsystem, the Prevention Focus self-regulation use as its regulation locus an absence of negative outcomes self-reference value and has an undesired end state as the reference point. Promotion focus involves sensitivity to positive outcomes (their presence and absence), and an inclination to approach matches to desired end-states as the natural strategy for reaching goals. Prevention focus on the other hand, involves sensitivity to negative outcomes (their absence and presence) and an inclination to avoid mismatches to desired end-states as the natural strategy for reaching goals. These two systems, serve a distinct survival function: the Promotion System is concerned with obtaining nurturance and is concerned with accomplishment and advancement while the Prevention System is concerned with obtaining security and safety and fulfillment of responsibilities (Brendl, Higgins, and Lemm, 1995; Van Hook and Higgins, 1988). Promotions hedonic concerns are: the pleasurable presence of positive outcomes (gains) and painful absence of positive outcomes (non-gains). Preventions hedonic concerns, on the other hand, are: the pleasurable absence of negative outcomes (non-loses) and the painful presence of negative outcomes (losses). Self-Regulation with a Promotion focus is concerned with advancement, growth accomplishment, motivating individuals to seek gains and to avoid nongains. They use eagerness means. Individuals in a promotion focus have nurturance needs, have strong ideals, prefer gain/non-gain situations, are sensitive to presence or absence of positive outcomes, insure hits and insure against errors of omission and have cheerfulness/dejection emotions. Self-Regulation with a Prevention focus is concerned with protection, safety responsibility, motivating individuals to ensure the absence of negative outcomes and ensure against the presence of negative outcomes. They use vigilance means. Individuals in a prevention focus have security needs, have strong oughts, prefer non-loss/loss situations, use avoidance as strategic means, insure correct rejections and insure against errors
of commission and have quiescence/agitation emotions. Self- Regulatory Focus can also be seen as a dispositional trait, which can be activated by situational circumstances. Emotions, event sensitivity, problem solving, decision-making, performance, preferences, all vary depending on whether self-regulation involves a promotion focus or a prevention focus (Liberman, Idson, Camacho and Higgins, 1999; Liberman, Molden, Idson and Higgins, 2001; Shah, Higgins and Friedman, 1998; Shah and Higgins, 1997; Shah and Higgins, 2001; Tykocinski, Higgins, and Chaiken 1994). The emotions have also a role in self-regulations, for example when a discrepancy between the actual self and the ideal self arise, a feeling of depression accompanies it. On the other hand, when a discrepancy between the actual self and the ought self arises, a feeling of anxiety accompanies it. (See table 1)
Table1. Promotion and Prevention Focus concerns, goals, strategic inclinations and states Promotion Concerns -advancement -growth - accomplishment Goals -hopes -aspirations -security -safety -responsibility -duties -obligations -necessities Strategic Inclination To make progress by approaching matches to the desired end state To be prudent, precautionary and avoid mismatches to the desired end state States -eagerness to attain advancement and gains - vigilance to assure safety and non-loses Prevention
The Rationale for developing a new scale The construct of self regulation have been investigated so far by two scales, one that measure self regulation in older populations (Kirk and Martin, 1998) and one in student populations (Higgins et al., 2001). One scale is developed in Australia and the other in USA, both western countries with strong individual identity accent. Although the western culture is a leading force in psychology, the rest of the world is also in need of measurement of self regulatory focus and the need for a new instrument to measure self focus in collectivist populations is a real need. The existing scales for measuring Regulatory Focus Regulatory focus concept has been developed by T.E, Higgins and the RFQ is the latest scale developed which measures individuals subjective histories of promotion success and prevention success. RFQ is limited in its range of measuring promotion and prevention pride, the two orientations investigated in one of the latest studies of Higgins and coworkers (2001). The scale have been validated on a student population, and hence its limited capacity to identify regulatory focus in the general population, and also the RFQ has been used in the western culture, which represents only a small percent of the world population. Development of the Chronic Self Focus Scale From the Psych-Lit database, 51 articles published in the period from 1996 2002 with Regulatory focus in the title were identified. Having reviewed 25 articles (see at the reference list all articles marked with an (*) and additional general resources, the review was terminated. To ensure construct validity, the scales items were developed drawing inspiration from previous articles concerning fundamental needs (Reis and Havercamp, 1996; Taylor, 1998) and Benthams list of pleasures (Bentham, 1948). Concerning the inspiration for the scale development, inspiration was drawn from articles that presented various designs (prospective, retrospective and cross-sectional), samples (children, adolescents, and adults)
and methods (psychometric instruments, questionnaires and interviews) (Carver and White, 1994). Original generation of items was supplemented with adaptation of a number of items used in a similar study with a Norwegian population (Teodorescu, 2002), which used the input of two psychology professors. The items were generated in two different categories: 1) promotion focus and 2) prevention focus. Forty items were generated into the two categories, twenty in each. Following a linguistic revision and feedback from two psychology professors and two lay persons with no relation to professional psychology, the number of items was reduced to 18. Each item was phrased in positive manner. Then the 18 items were given to 250 people from the general population. Using a principal component analysis, the scale was reduced to 12 items covering two dimensions named: Promotion (6 items) and Prevention (6 items). Promotion measured the regulatory focus using an approach strategy of the following constructs: optimism, growth needs, determination, flexibility in social matters, creativity, and novelty seeking. Prevention measured the regulatory focus using an avoidance strategy of the following constructs: need for security, responsibility, ability to uphold job routines, ability to meet moral obligations, loyalty and need for predictability. A Likert scale format with numbers from 1 to 5 have been chosen for our scale. Bellow is an example of an item from the Chronic Self Focus Scale (CSFS): Figure 1. Item sample from Chronic Self Focus Scale I help others because they need help. 1 I completely disagree 2 3 4 5 I completely agree
For a full overview on the LOT, NFCS and RFQ, see Psych Info database.
Constructs related to regulatory focus Validation of a scale is commonly accomplished by comparing it with related concepts (Streiner and Norman, 1995; Walsh and Betz, 1990; Cronbach, 1990). Self regulation is a complex process which involves many self characteristics such as: personal competence, selfefficacy, problem solving abilities, internal locus of control, temperament, optimism, structure and rules, ego-strength, self-realization, self-knowledge, self-awareness, self-deception, selfenhancement, self-esteem, self-evaluation, self-interest, self-monitoring, self-serving bias and generalized outcome expectancies. Given the many components in self- regulation, it has been a difficult task to choose the most important constructs in self-regulation, in regulatory focus. Regulatory focus proposed in short, that due to personal differences, or personal inclinations, the same situation may be trigger different responses: either an avoidance response if the individual is using a prevention focus or an approach response if the individual is using a promotion focus regulation. Regulatory focus goes beyond the hedonic regulatory principle by differentiating qualitatively between motivational approaches. People dont just simply approach pleasure and avoid pain, but because their internal inclinations in regulatory focus, they apply different motivational strategies in a given situation (Higgins, 1997). Purpose and research hypotheses The purpose of this study was to create a new scale for measuring the chronic focus (promotion or prevention) based on the theory of T. E. Higgins, that may cover more dimensions of the human life relevant to individuals, taking in consideration the fundamental basic needs as proposed in the literature (Bentham, 1948; Reis and Havercamp, 1996). Most of the research for Higgin's theory has been conducted on a college population in the United States. We intend to collected our data from a general population in Romania. At this time no research has been done on this subject in Romania. It will be interesting to see if the self-regulatory concepts which Higgins proposes exits this culture.
In order to create a good scale, to ensure for convergent and discriminant validity we have chosen three scales that have been validated: Life Orientation Test (LOT) (Scheier and Carver,1985), Need For Closure Scale (NFCS) (Webster and Kruglanski, 1994) and Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ) (Higgins, Friedman, Harlow, Idson, Ayduk and Taylor, 2001). Our scale which we shall call Chronic Self Focus Scale (CSFS) is composed of two subscales: the Promotion Subscale with 8 items and the Prevention Subscale with 10 items. Construct validity of this scale was investigated using the following hypothesis: 1. Promotion focus is positively related to decisiveness factor from the Need for Closure Scale, Life Orientation Test (LOT) and to the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ) s Promotion subscale. 2. Promotion focus is negatively related to: preference for order, discomfort with ambiguity and close-mindedness factors from Need for Closure Scale and also with the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ) s Prevention subscale. 3. Prevention focus is related negatively to: decisiveness factor from the Need
for Closure Scale and Life Orientation Test (LOT) and Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ) s Promotion subscale. 4. Prevention focus is positively related to: preference for order, predictability,
discomfort with ambiguity, close-mindedness factors from the Need for Closure Scale as well as with Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ) s Prevention subscale. METHOD Procedure Information was collected on face-to-face interaction with people from Romania. The request to participate in the study has been voluntarily informing the participants about their right to withdraw any time they choose with no negative consequences. All the scales were
administered together under the common title Survey on preferences in order to avoid biasing the respondents. At the end of the task, all the respondents were debriefed about the real scope of the study. Participants Participants were recruited from Romania, from the general population each receiving a small amount of money and thanks for their participation. A total of 250 participants have been recruited, where only 234 have been completed successfully all the questionnaires 250 participants have filled up a self-report battery of scales. There have been 133 women (14- 71 years, M=23,1 years, SD= 6,1 years), and 109 men (11-82 years, M=24 years, SD=4,8 years). Totally 4 persons have not completed on the scales the age and sex. The participants who fulfilled the following criteria were deleted from the data-pool: more than 10 percent missing data; 2) non-serious responses; 3) obvious misunderstanding the questionnaires. In sum, 24 participants were deleted. The statistical analyses were based on 234 participants. Instruments The CSFS was composed in English and afterwards was translated into Romanian by two bilingual psychology students, independent of each other, back and forth. The other instruments, LOT, NFCS and RFQ have been translated from English into Romanian by the same authors. Demographic information The following demographic information was collected: age, and gender. Life Orientation Test (LOT) The 8-item LOT self-report scale developed by Scheier and Carver (1985) has a total score range from 0 to 32. Higher scores reflect more optimism. Items are scored along a five point scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), with differential semantic phrases( positive and negative) at each endpoint. Four of the items are reversed in order to
avoid responses set bias (acquiescence). However, the reliability of the scale is not investigated in Romanian samples. The LOT-8 is used worldwide (Snyder,1994; Lai and Yue, 2000) and is found to be highly reliable (Cronbachs alpha ranging from .76 - .79) and valid in a number of studies (Roysamb and Styrpe, 2002). It has been found as one of the best predicators among various measures of overall mental health adjustment (Creed, P.A., Patton, W., and Bartrum, D., 2002) Need for Closure Scale (NFCS) The 42-item NFCS (Webster and Kruglanski, 1994) self-report inventory that rates the preference for order, preference for predictability, decisiveness, discomfort with ambiguity and close-mindedness. Subjects indicate the extent to which they endorse each item by responding to a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The scale includes 42 items divided on 5 subscales. The first dimension, the Preference for Order includes 10 items ,and has a total score range from 10 to 60. The second dimension, the Preference for Predictability includes 8 items, and has a score range from 8 to 48. The third dimension, Decisiveness includes 7 items, and has a total score range from 7 to 42. The fourth dimension, Discomfort with Ambiguity , includes 9 items, and has a total score range from 9 to 63. The fifth dimension, Close-Mindedness includes 8 items, and has a total score range from 8 to 48. Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ) The 11-item RFQ (Higgins, et al., 2001) self-report inventory rates the chronic individual differences in accessible past histories given by two psychometrically distinct subscales. Promotion subscale with 6 items and with a total score range from 6 to 30, measures individuals subjective histories of promotion success. The Prevention subscale with 5 items and with a total score range from 5 to 25, measures individuals subjective histories of
prevention success. Items are scored along a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never or seldom) to 5 (very often). Initial controlling analyses Removal of items The quality of each item was ensured prior to the principal component analysis by removing those unwanted qualities like small level of variation (SD <1) (4 items deleted); items that more than four participants were complaining about their difficulty in understanding them; items that were not loading on the identified dimensions from the principal component analyses, and which factor loading was less than .30 on either dimension (1 item deleted), with 2 exceptions, and items with side loadings ( 1 item deleted). Items that were carelessly scored by participants were recorded as missing data. Removal of participants Items that were carelessly scored by participants were recorded as missing data. During the development of the scale, it was imperative to ensure the data quality, therefore the participants who fulfilled the following criteria were deleted from the data-pool: 1) more than ten percent missing data; 2) non-serious responses; 3) obvious misunderstanding the questionnaires. In sum, 14 participants were deleted. The statistical analyses in phase I were based on 236 participants. RESULTS Gender and Age The correlations between age and sex and the total CSFS was non-significant; there were no difference between men and women or between young and old people on any dimension on our scale.
Descriptive Statistics The first analysis of our data have been to analyze the descriptive statistics, to find out more about the range, the mean, the standard deviation, skewness and missing data. The range of a sample (or a data set) is a measure of the spread or the dispersion of the observations. It is the difference between the largest and the smallest observed value. The range have been found to be 4, with the minimum value of 1 to the maximum value of 5. Data characteristics is presented below in Table 2 , which shall enable us to judge extreme skewness in the scope of removing items.
Table 2. N, Mean, S.D. for the Chronic Self Focus Scale Item number A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 A-11 A-12 A-13 A-14 A-15 A-16 A-17 N 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 Mean 4,37 4,39 3,49 4,42 4,28 3,29 4,16 3,26 4,56 3,57 3,99 4,49 3,93 4,30 3,85 1,62 4,67 S.D. 0,95 1,12 1,46 1,08 1,12 1,50 1,21 1,43 0,92 1,47 1,37 0,88 1,34 1,01 1,22 1,06 0,85
A-18
226
4,04
1,28
As a general trend we do see a skewness from the histograms, which indicates that our respondents were choosing to answer in a big majority only to a few categories, from the whole spectrum of possible answers. The distribution of the answers is not evenly distributed, and the configuration of the histogram indicates clear this. Here we can mention the extreme cases of skewness of the items 9, 17 and 16. We also identify items, 1, 9, 12 and 17 with SD <1, so we decided to eliminate these items from our scale. Factor analysis An exploratory factor analysis have been employed and the factor structure was analyzed with the help of principal components analyses with a Varimax rotation. The factorial solution explained 49% of the variance consisted of 4 components with Eigenvalues > 1. This solution had no theoretical meaning. The visual investigation of the graphic solution, (Scree-plot) shown a break point after the second component. This solution gave theoretical meaning, even if it could explain only 30,1 % of the variance. The final factorial solution, factor loadings are presented in Table 3 and are composed of 18 items. The two dimensions in the final factor solution got the following names and distribution of items: 1) Promotion Focus (6-items; items: 3, 5, 9, 11, 13, and 15), and 2) Prevention Focus (6-items; items: 2, 6, 10, 14, 16, and 18).
Table 3. The Factor solution for GSFS showing the distribution and loading of items in the two dimensions 1Promotion, 2- Prevention (N=236) Dimensions Items 1. i ajut pe alii pentru ca au nevoie de ajutor* (+) 1 (+) 2 (-) .56
I help others because they need help Teodorescu, D.S. (2011). Promotion or Prevention: The development of the Chronic Self Focus Scale. Romanian Journal of Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience, 1(2), 133-168
2. Scopul de a-mi face o calificare este de a obine un loc de munca mai bun* (-) The goal of education is to get a better job 3. Cnd ascult muzic, m atept s fie inspirativ* (+) When I listen to music it should be inspirational 4. Dac a sdi o gradin a prefera s fie ordonat i bine planificat* (-) If I planned a garden I would like it to be planned and orderly 5. Telul vieii mele e s triesc o via interesant* (+) The goal of my life is to live an interesting life 6. Sunt rezervat cnd fac cunostin cu un strin* (-) When I meet a new person I am reserved 7. Dac trebuie s ntreb ceva ntr-o tar strin, m strduiesc s folosesc limba local, chiar dac fac greseli* (+) If I need to ask a question in a foreign country, I go ahead and try the local language even if I make mistakes 8. Cind mninc la restaurant comand feluri de mincare pe care le-am mai ncercat* (-) When I eat in a restaurant I like to stick to what I know 9. Hobby-urile si activittile sportive fac viata mai interesant* (+) Hobbies and sports activities make life interesting 10. Daca am ceva bani n plus, ii economisesc* (-) If I have extra money I save it 11. Cind merg sa-mi cumpr haine noi, mi place s incerc moda recent* (+) When I go shopping for new cloths, I like to try new fashions 12. ntr-o situatie nou actionez cu atentie*.(-) In a new situation I proceed with caution 13. M antrenez pentru c mi place activitatea fizic* (+) .42 .61 .61 .67 .37 .31
.39
.41
.43
.59
.38
I choose to work out because I enjoy physical activity 14. Cind mi se d un nou proiect la servici/scoal, urmez instructiunile care mi-au fost date* (-) When I have been given a new project at work/school, I follow the given directions 15. Cind fac planuri pentru concediu, aleg noi destinatii* (+) When planning my vacation, I choose new destinations 16. Cind m duc sa-mi cumpr ceva, aleg lucrurile pe care le cumpar toat lumea* (-) When I go shopping, I look for popular items 17. Dac mi-as cumpara o masin nou, as prefera o marc pe care te poti .37 .65 .57
baza* (-) If I were to buy a new car, I prefer a reliable model 18. ntr-o relatie intim, caut n primul rnd siguranta* In a personal relationship I mostly look for security ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Explained Variance (%) Note . Total variance explained (31%) Factor-loading <.30 are omitted. Items were removed due to side loading and loadings under .30. (+) Marked items belong to Promotion dimension and (-) marked items belong to Prevention dimension. 17,3 12,8
(-)
.53
Reliability The internal consistency for the two subscales of the CSFS was moderate low, in the lower part of the recommended range (Streiner and Norman, 1995; Cronbach, 1990). The low internal consistency may be due to the few items measuring each sub-dimension or may be due to the low sensitivity of the items to detect the whole range of structural, motivational or
cognitive expressions of the composition of the regulatory focus. Below is a table with means, SD and Cronbachs alphas for all the scales.
Table 4 . Means, standard deviations and Cronbachs alfa for all the scales Scales 1. CSFS Promotion 2. CSFS Prevention 3. LOT Scale 4. NFCOrder 5. NFC Predictability 6. NFCDecisiveness 7. NFC Ambiguity 8 .NFC Close-mindedness 9. RFQ Promotion 10. RFQ Prevention Nr. of Items 6 6 8 10 8 7 9 8 6 5 M 23,76 21,23 30,76 34,74 36 22,10 33,81 20,01 21,71 16,00 SD 4,02 3,99 5,66 7,13 6,32 5,61 5,25 4,22 3,49 3,99 .55 .48 .66 .69 .66 .64 .49 .24 .67 .74
Validity A recent approach in investigating the construct validity is to create hypotheses for the construct to predict various outcomes (Streiner and Norman, 1995; Walsh and Betz, 1990). The studys four hypotheses predicted a positive correlation between CSFS Promotion subscale with LOT (r = .21, p <.01), CSFS Prevention sub-scale with NFCS Need for Order (r = .49, p <.01) , CSFS Prevention sub-scale with NFCS Need for Predictability (r = .32, p <.01), and CSFS Prevention sub-scale with NFCS Discomfort with Ambiguity (r = .23, p <.01).(see Table 5)
Table 5. Inter-correlations between CSFs Promotion scale, CSFs Prevention scale, LOT scale, RFQs Prevention scale, RFQ s Promotion scale, NFCS Preference for Order scale, NFCS Preference for Predictability, NFCS Decisiveness, and NFCS Discomfort with Ambiguity scale Variables 1.CSF-Promotion 2.CSF-Prevention 3.LOT 4.RFQ-Prevention 5.RFQ-Promotion 6.NFCS-Order 7.NFCS-Predictibility 8.NFCS-Decisiveness 9.NFCS-Ambiguity 1 1.00 .21** .21** .03 .04 .07 .01 -.23** .31** 1.00 .29** .05 .02 .49** .32** -.14 .23** 1.00 .05 .00 .12 .08 -22** .25** 1.00 .29** .06 .11 -.19** .17 1.00 -.12 -.04 1.00 .42** 1.00 -.08 .23** 1.00 -.36** 1.00 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
-.21** .11 .14* .12
Note. *p <.05 (two-tailed), **p < .01 (two-tailed)
In order to show the predictive power CSFS, in special the two sub-dimensions, two multiple regressions analyses have been conducted. For the CSFS Promotion sub -scale the following predictors have been chosen: Optimism, Decision, RFQs Promotion sub-scale and Discomfort with Ambiguity. The paths are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. A multiple regression analysis predicting CSFS Promotion subscale by LOT scale, NFCS Decision subscale, NFCS Discomfort with Ambiguity and RFQs Promotion sub -scale (N=223)
Predictors
SE
Beta
Optimism Decision RFQs Promotion
.15
.05 .05 .06
.20 -.09 -.01
3.13** -1.22 -.14
Discomfort with Ambiguity Note R=.15; **p < .001
.18
.05
.23
3.4**
For the CSFS Prevention sub-scale the following predictors have been chosen: NFCS Preference for order, Preference for Predictability, and Discomfort with Ambiguity The paths are shown in Table 7.
Table 7. A multiple regression analysis predicting CSFS Prevention subscale by NFCS Preference for order, Preference for Predictability, and Discomfort with Ambiguity (N=206).
Predictors
SE
Beta
Order Predictability Ambiguity Note R=.17;*p < .05 **p < .001
.16
.04 .04
.30 .12 .13
4.17** 1.75* 2.08*
.10
.05
DISCUSSION In this paper we have described the construction of a self-report measure designed to assess stable, individual differences that reflect the sensitivity of two psychological selfregulatory systems, one which seeks approach motivation, and the other which seeks avoidance motivation. At the beginning a set of items have been developed from the categories of incentives and fundamental needs that reflected the possible answers that were meaningful to the theory of self-regulatory focus. Further, the resulting scale, named Chronic Self Focus Scale has been correlated with theoretically related alternative measures; Life Orientation Test, Need For Closure Scale and Regulatory Focus Questionnaire. Among the demographic variables, no differences were found between men and women or between young and old people in chronic self-regulation, finding that may give evidence to
the existence of the regulatory self focus over the whole spectrum of the population. According to Higgins theory, the regulatory self focus arises in childhood, and once internalized may persist for the whole life. Psychometric considerations The Chronic Self Regulatory Scale (CSFS-18) after considerations of descriptive statistics, internal consistency calculations, factorial analysis and theoretical considerations have been reduced from an 18-item scale to a 12-item scale. A total of 6 items were eliminated due to either SD <1, side-loadings and factor loading less than .30 and the rest items were distributed on the two dimensions as follows: Promotion Focus subscale with 6 items; 3, 5, 9, 11, 13, and 15; Prevention Focus subscale with 6 items: 2, 6, 10, 14,16, and 18, thus making the Chronic Self-Regulatory Scale a 12-item scale, which covers 31,1 % of the variance. 31,1% of the variance covered by our instrument may not be great, but for the phase I of the development of the CSFS and for the difficulty of the concepts measured, it may just suffice. After all, even Higgins scale was not covering more than 50% of the variance, the person who has developed the theory of regulatory self focus over some decades (Higgins et al., 2001). The score on the Chronic Self Regulatory Scale (CSFS-12) should be calculate as follows: the scores from each item from the Promotion focus sub-scale are summed to create one subscale, then the scores from the Prevention focus sub-scale are also summed to created the second subscale, thus giving us two scales. For the final score, the total score from the Prevention focus sub-scale should be extracted from the total score from the Promotion focus sub-scale. After the extraction of the total score from Prevention focus from the total score from Promotion focus, we shall obtain either a positive or negative score. A positive score indicates a Chronic Promotion Focus, while a negative score indicates a Chronic Prevention
Focus. If the score is equal with zero, this may indicate a double focus or just a good adjusted focuses. Reliability The internal consistency of CSFS as well as for the sub-dimensions was moderate, just in the lower part of the recommended range (Streiner and Norman, 1995; Cronbach, 1990). The reliability for CSFS 18 was higher, due to more items, but because of statistical calculations we were obliged to discard 6 items, even if the alpha was high. For example, 4items Promotion sub-scale (items 5, 9, 11 and 15) variant has a better reliability ( = .64), as well as Prevention sub-scale (items 2, 10, 14 and 18) variant has a better reliability ( = .52). The total reliability of the scale was moderate low ( = .58). The internal consistency of CSFS compared with other scales was not too low, but was less than most others. The other instruments were not functioning too well also, maybe because of a different kind of population which differed from the population used for the construction of the scale. Alpha coefficients for the two sub-dimensions were close to each other, showing that the two subscales are approximately equivalent in their internal consistency. Because of a very low alpha ( = .24) of the NFCS Close-Mindedness sub-scale we have discarded it from our validation process of our scale. It could be that the low alpha might be explained due to cultural difference in the understanding of the concept of close mindedness. The validation process The explorations for construct validity were only partially supported. Firstly, chronic Promotion Focus was positively related to Optimism (LOT-8), Discomfort with Ambiguity (NFCS-42), Prevention Focus (CSFS-13), negatively related to Decisiveness (NFCS-42) and no relation with Higgins Promotion Focus (RFQ-11). These findings satisfy our first
hypothesis weakly and also raise questions about the compatibility of CSFS Promotion Focus and Higgins RFQ Promotion Focus. Further, the correlation of the CSFS Promotion Focus
with CSFS Prevention Focus, raise some serious questions about the two constructs, which based on Higgins self-regulatory theory should have been two independent dimensions. The second hypothesis proposed a negative relation of Promotion Focus (CSFS-12) with: NFCS Preference for Order but no correlation has been found, also NFCS Discomfort with Ambiguity had a positive correlation, this just contrary to our prediction. People with a Promotion focus should tolerate ambiguity, and seek novel situations, independent of the circumstances according to Higgins theory. The NFCS Need for Closure sub-scale was discarded from our considerations due to the low Cronbachs alpha ( = .24), which indicates that it may not be a scale at all. In line with our hypothesis the Prevention Focus was positively related to Preference for Order, Preference for Predictability, Discomfort with Ambiguity. The positive
correlation, while not in line with our hypothesis, with optimism, may not necessarily imply that the scale cant discern between the two dimensions, but it may that even preventive people may have optimism, maybe a more reserved one. Recently, two Chinese researchers (Lai and Yue, 2000) have found two dimensions to the LOT scale, this giving some support that optimism is a complex concept (Creed, Patton and Bartum, 2002). We should not dismiss that Prevention focus makes people pessimists, but these may have a sort of careful optimism that nevertheless is still optimism. Unfortunately there was no correlation with Higgins Prevention focus sub-scale, which again brings into doubt the concepts we were attempting to measure. CSFS scale have been found to have no relation to Higginsscale: while it is a bit disturbing it might not be surprising, given that RFQ Promotion and RFQ Prevention measures individuals histories of promotion and prevention success, which might have no significant relations to either global ideal or ought strength. CSFS scale have been
conceptualized to measure the chronic accessibility of ideal and ought self-regulatory

strategies, and in a way it is compatible with Higgins concept of chronic accessibility of ideal and ought goals, which has been found to be independent of past success or failure in attaining these goals (Higgins, Shah, and Friedman, 1997). Overall, our predictions for the Prevention sub-scale might be considered successful as most of our hypothesis for this scale has been confirmed. The finding for the Promotion subscale has not been as successful. The less support for the valability of the Promotion Regulatory focus might be due to less constructs which could be linked directly to the Promotion focus, and maybe our choice of Promotion focus like instrument have been more limited. In a further study, some other measures may be employed for testing the validity of our construct, instruments linked in assessing creativity, self-actualization and resilience (Heimdal, et al., 2001). Some relevant findings cast doubt on our instruments, is the findings from the LOT scale, the significant positive relationship with NFCS Discomfort with Ambiguity sub -scale and a negative relationship with NFCS Decisiveness sub-scale. This finding is contrary to what is expected from an optimist person, which may be very decisive and may tolerate ambiguity just for the reason that has an internal locus of control, namely his intrinsic optimism. This finding casts some shadow on the validity of the LOT (Creed, Patton, and Bartum, 2002) for the Romanian sample, or may be that the optimism is a vague concept in Romania, due to years of social oppression. Comparison of CSFS with Higgins RFQ Although the CSFS and RFQ developed by (Higgins, et al., 2001) measure the same concept, they may measure different aspects. The biggest difference between these two instruments is the range of the interests covered by the two: RFQ is measuring the subjective history of promotion and prevention success, while CSFS seeks to measure the chronic individual inclinations in the whole spectrum of human situations. This is a huge difference,
and that is why that the two instruments are not correlated, because they measure different aspects of the same concept. Concerning the validity of RFQs two sub- dimensions, there is also a significant correlation between the two dimensions, just as big as we found on our instrument; this is a big question that casts shadow on the instrument and even on the theory. If the calculations are correct, we have checked twice and there is a r =.29, p <.01, just the same number as for our scale. What this can possibly mean? Are there not two dimensions as Higgins has tried to demonstrate during the last decades, or it may be that the Romanian sample, due to cross-cultural problems, sees no difference between a prevention and promotion focus. This is a relevant finding that may be the enquiry of a new investigation. The Promotion focus from both scales correlates positively significant with NFCS Discomfort with Ambiguity sub-scale, a finding that is contrary to our hypothesis. On one hand this shows that the two scales measures the same concept, but this may be against Higgins theory. The Promotion focus from both scales correlates negatively significant with NFCS Decisiveness sub-scale, which is again contrary to our hypothesis and also to Higgins theory. The Romanian sample has so far managed to show some weaknesses to Higgins RFQ as well as our scale. Why this is so, is just a question for further investigations. These findings may present a problem for our scale, or why not, to the theory itself. Future applications of the CSFS It is relevant to further explore construct validity by comparing the CSFS with other established instruments, such as personality (Big-Five; Costa and McCrae, 1985), internal locus of control (Rotter, 1966) behavior activation/inhibition (Carver and White, 1994) and hope (Snyder, Sympson, Ybasco, Borders, Babyak and Higgins, 1996;Snyder, Cheri, Anderson, Holleran, Irving, Sigmon, Yoshinobu, Gibb, Langelle and Harney, 1991). A further development of more items may prove even more beneficiary in the ability of the instrument to measure the chronic focuses, and a well developed scale may give a useful tool for
therapists in working with clients. Nosce te ipsum the old imperative from the Temple in Delphi may be one day more easy realized with the help of the scale. CONCLUSION The development of a new instrument such as the CSFS in a new culture is a very difficult process. We believe that we have made a satisfactory beginning. We have demonstrated the presence of the prevention self regulatory focus satisfactorily. In the next phase of this process we will concentrate on a better definition of the promotion focus. For the time being, the preliminary findings suggest a true potential in CSFS to can measure the chronic regulatory focus in the general population from a collectivist culture. Finally, there may be huge cultural differences in other types of populations that may not be possible to measure with this instrument, but this is what we have at the present.
REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184. Bentham, J. (1948). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislations . Oxford: Blackwell. (originally published 1789). Baumeister, R.F. (1998). The Self. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey (Eds.),Handbook of Social Psychology (4 th ed.,680-740). New York: McGraw-Hill. Baumeister, R.F. (Ed.)(1999).The Self in Social Psychology . Ann Arbor, MI: Psychology Press.
Brendl, C.M., Higgins, E.T., and Lemm, K.M. (1995). Sensitivity to varying gains and
losses: the role of self-discrepancies and event framing. Journal of Personality and SociaPsychology, 69, 1028-1051.
* Brockner, J., Paruchuri, S., Idson, L.C., and Higgins, E. T. (2002). Regulatory focus and the
probability estimates of conjunctive and disjunctive events. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 87, 5-24. Carver, C.S., and Scheier, M.F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: a control process view. Psychological Review, 97,19-35. Carver, C. S., and White, T.L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioural activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319-333.
* Carver, C. S., and Scheier, M.F. (1998). On the Self-Regulation of Behavior. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Chandrakirti (2002). Madhyamakavatara . In Padmakara Translation Group, Introduction to the Middle Way .. Boston and London: Shambhala. Creed, P.A., Patton, W., and Bartrum, D. (2002). Multidimensional properties of the LOT-R: effects of optimism and pessimism on career and well-being related variables in adolescents. Journal of Career Assessment, 10 , 42-61. Cronbach, L.J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing . New York: HarperCollinsPublishers, Inc.
Elliot, A.J., and Harackiewicz, J.M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals
and intrinsic motivation: a mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461-475.
* Elliot, A.J., and Church, M.A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,72, 218-232.
* Forster, J., Higgins, E. T., and Idson, L.C. (1998). Approach and avoidance strength during
goal attainment: regulatory focus and the goal looms larger effect. . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1115-1131.
* Frster, J., Grant, H., Idson, L. C., and Higgins, E.T. (2001). Succes/failure feedback,
expectancies, and approach/avoidance motivation: how regulatory focus moderates classic relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 253-260. Harackiewicz, J.M., and Elliot, A.J. (1993). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 904-915.
* Higgins, E.T.(1989). Continuities and discontinuities in self-regulatory and self-evaluative

processes: A developmental theory relating self and affect. Journal of Personality, 57, 407- 444.
* Higgins, E. T. (1996). The self-digest: self-knowledge serving self-regulatory functions.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,.71, 1062-1083.
* Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 12801300.
Higgins, E.T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: regulatory focus as a motivational
principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1-46. Higgins, E. T. (2000). Does personality provide unique explanations for behavior? Personality as cross-person variability in general principles. European Journal of Personality, 14, 391-406.
* Higgins, E.T., Klein, R., and Strauman, T. (1985). Self-concept discrepancy theory: a
psychological model for distinguishing among different aspects of depression and anxiety. Social Cognition No.3, 51-76. Higgins, E.T., Bond, R. N., Klein, R., and Strauman, T. (1986). Self-discrepancies and emotional vulnerability: how magnitude, accessibility and type of discrepancy influence affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 5-15.
* Higgins, E. T., Roney, C.J. R., Crowe, E., and Hymes C. (1994). Ideal versus ought
predilections for approach and avoidance: distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,66, 276-286.
* Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., and Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment:
strength regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 515-525.
Higgins, T.E., Grant, H., and Shah, J. (1999). Self-Regulation and quality of life:
Emotional and non-emotional life experiences. In Kahneman, D., Diener, E., and Schwarz, N. (Eds.) Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
* Higgins, E.T., Friedman, R.S., Harlow, R.E., Idson, L.C., Ayduk, O.N., Taylor, A. (2001).
Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 1-23. Hjemdal, O., Friborg, O., Martinussen, M., and Rosenvinge, J.H. (2001). Mestring av psychologisk motstandsdyktighet hos voksne. Utvikling og forelpig validering av et nytt instrument. Tidskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, 38, 310-317. Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behaviour: an introduction to behaviour theory . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
* Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., and Higgins, E.T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses
and losses from nongains: a regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 252- 274. James, W. (1999). The Self. In R.F. Baumeister (Ed.), The Self in Social Psychology (pp.6978). Ann Arbor, MI: Psychology Press. Kahneman, D., Diener, E., and Schwarz, N. (Eds.)(1999). Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
* Kirk, K. M., and Martin, N.G. (1998). The Short Interpersonal Reactions Inventory, SelfRegulation and Differentiation scales in an older Australian twin population. Personality and Individual Differences,.25, 591-604. Lai, J.C.L., and Yue, X. (2000). Measuring optimism in Hong Kong and mainland China with
the revised Life Orientation Test. Personality and Individual Differences ,28, 781-796.
* Liberman, N., Idson, L.C., Camacho, C.J., and Higgins, E.T. (1999). Promotion and
prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,77 1135-1145.
* Liberman, N., Molden, D.C., Idson, L.C., and Higgins, E.T. (2001). Promotion and
prevention focus on alternative hypotheses: implications for attributional functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 5-18. Lindtner, C. (Trad.)(1997).Master of Wisdom: Writtings of the Buddhist Master Nagarjuna . Berkeley, CA: Dharma Publishing. Lord Shiva (1997). Drig-Drishya-Viveka .Swami Mumukshananda (Trans.), Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama. Manjustrimitra (2001). Primordial Experience: An Introduction to Dzog-chen Meditation. Namkhai N. and Lipman, K. (Trans.). Boston and London: Shambhala. Madsen, K.B. (1968).Theories of Motivation. Kent, Ohio: The Kent State Univ.Press. Maslow, A.H. (1987). Motivation and Personality . New York: Harper and Collins. Mou-lam, W., and Price, A.F.(Eds.) (1990). The Diamond Sutra and the Sutra of Hui-Neng. Boston and London: Shambhala Publications. Nagarjuna (1913). Mulamadhyamakakarika. In La Vallee Poussin, L. (Trans.),
Mulamadhyamakakarikas de Nagarjuna avec la Prasannapada. St. Petersburg. Padmasambhava (1995). Lamrim Yeshe Nyingpo . Kunsang, E.P. (Trans.), Boston and London: Shambhala. Potter, K.H. (1970). The Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosophies. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas. Radhakrishnan, S. (Trans.)(1948), The Bhagavadgita .New York: Harper & Bros. Reiss, S., and Havercamp, S. (1996). The sensitivity theory of motivation: implications for
psychopathology. Behaviour Research and therapy, 34, 621-632. Roysamb, E., and Styrpe, J. (2002). Optimism and pessimism: underlying structure and dimensionality. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, l21 , 1-19. Scheier, M.F., and Carver, C.S. (1985). Optimism, coping and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219-247. Scheier, M.F., and Carver, C.S. (1988). A model of behavioral self-regulation: Translating intention into action. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 303-347.
* Shah, J., and Higgins, E.T. (1997). Expectancy x value effects: regulatory focus as
determinant of magnitude and direction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 447-458.
Shah, J., Higgins, E.T., and Friedman, R. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means:
how regulatory focus influences goal attainment. . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74, 285-293.
Shah, J. and Higgins, E.T. (2001). Regulatory concerns and appraisal efficiency: the
general impact of promotion and prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 693-705. Sadananda (1987). Vedantasara. Kumar, A. (Ed.), Delhi: Parimal Publications. Sankaracarya (1991). Vivekachudamani. Swami Gambhirananda (Trans.), Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama. Sorrentino, R.M., and Higgins, T.E. (Eds.)(1986). Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior. New York: the Guilford Press. Snyder, C.R., Cheri, H., Anderson, J.R., Holleran, S.A., Irving, L.M., Sigmon, S.T.,
Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J., Langelle, C., and Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: development and validation of an individual differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570-585. Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S.C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T.F., Babyak, M.A., and Higgins, R.L. (1996). Development and validation of the State Hope Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,70, 321-335. Streiner, D.L., and Norman, G. R. (1995). Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use . New York: Oxford University Press. Taylor, S. (1998). Beyond regulatory focus. American Psychologist, 53, 1351.
* Teodorescu, D.S. (2002). Promotion or Prevention: The development of the Troms Self
Focus Scale (Unpublished manuscript). Troms University.
Tykocinski, O., Higgins, E.T., and Chaiken, S. (1994). Message framing, self-
discrepancies, and yielding to persuasive messages: the motivational significance of psychological situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,20, 107-115.
* Van Hook, E., and Higgins, E.T. (1988). Self-related problems beyond self- concept:
motivational consequences of discrepant self-guides. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,55, 625-633. Vasistha (1993). Yoga Vasistha . Sw. Venkatesananda (Trans.), New York: SUNY. Webster, D.M., and Kruglanski, A.W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049-1062. Walsh, W.B., and Betz, N.E. (1990). Tests and assessment . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

3 Promotion or Prevention The Development of The Chronic Self Focus Scale English

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

3 Promotion or Prevention The Development of The Chronic Self Focus Scale English

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

PROMOTION OR PREVENTION: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHRONIC SELF FOCUS SCALE

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

Keywords: Chronic Self Focus Scale

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

-.21** .11 .14* .12

Note. *p <.05 (two-tailed), **p < .01 (two-tailed)

Optimism Decision RFQs Promotion

.05 .05 .06

.20 -.09 -.01

3.13** -1.22 -.14

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

Discomfort with Ambiguity Note R=.15; **p < .001

.30 .12 .13

4.17** 1.75* 2.08*

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com

Volume 1, Issue 2 December, 2011

conceptualized to measure the chronic accessibility of ideal and ought self-regulatory

The Romanian Journal for Psychology, Psychotherapy and Neuroscience www.irscpublishing.com