Distinguishing Levels of Approach and Avoidance: An Analysis Using Regulatory Focus Theory
By Abigail A. Scholer, E. Tory Higgins. 2008
150 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Social Psychology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/92c81cd1703574a96ca00f866753d2885a8f902c
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Social Psychology
- Cindy Harmon-Jones
- Peter Glick
- Tom F. Price
- Amy J. C. Cuddy
- Anna S. Beninger
- Stavroula Spyropoulou
- A. Hill
- Seigyoung Auh
Citations in the corpus
- Unpacking the Relationship between Sales Control and Salesperson Performance: A Regulatory Fit Perspective (2018, background): “As the authors argue, “because regulatory foci represent proximal motivational constructs (Scholer and Higgins 2008), they may operate as channels through which more distal individual differences affect work behaviors” (p.”
- What is Approach Motivation? (2013, background): “Some scientists define motivation in terms of goals (Scholer & Higgins, 2008).”
- Everyday risk taking as a function of regulatory focus (2011, background): “Considerable empirical evidence points to the importance of regulatory focus as origin of distinct strategic preferences, suggesting that it has strong implications for everyday behavior (for an overview, see Scholer & Higgins, 2008).”
- A Review of Multilevel Regulatory Focus in Organizations (2015, methodology): “To accomplish these goals, we begin by discussing RFT’s theoretical underpinnings, including a brief review of the hierarchical nature of RFT (Scholer & Higgins, 2008) and regulatory fit (Higgins, 2000).”
- A self-regulatory framework for message framing☆ (2013, background): “…to understand what exactly is being manipulated in message framing research.1 As a descriptive endeavor, the framework outlines the different ways that a message can be framed, drawing on approaches that distinguish among levels of a motivational hierarchy (see, e.g., Scholer & Higgins, 2008).”
- The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations (2011, background): “…and competence are inferred from actions that appear to serve selfinterest versus others' interests, respectively (Cislak & Wojciszke, 2008), and predict the direction of target resource use – will it be used to benefit the perceiver (warmth) or the target (competence; Scholer & Higgins, 2008).”