Regulatory Focus and the Probability Estimates of Conjunctive and Disjunctive Events

By J. Brockner, Srikanth Paruchuri, Lorraine Chen Idson, E. Tory Higgins. 2002

96 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, General Decision Sciences, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/97cd6ed45cea8294f7f6c8d5be5844f32ee4cd52

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In General Decision Sciences

In Literature and Literary Theory

Citations in the corpus

Unraveling Priming: When Does the Same Prime Activate a Goal versus a Trait? (2009, methodology): “Results Consistent with prior research that used the Selves Questionnaire as a categorical classification tool (e.g., Avnet and Higgins 2006), we considered participants to have a predominantly ought-consistent self-concept if their oughtactual discrepancy score was lower than their ideal–actual dis”
Goal Orientation and Consumer Preference for the Status Quo (2004, background): “…on creativity (Friedman and Forster 2001), on affective response (Brockner and Higgins 2001; Idson, Liberman, and Higgins 2000); on attitude change and recall (Aaker and Lee 2001), on task substitution (Liberman et al. 1999), and on probability estimates of compound events (Brockner et al. 2002).”
How Regulatory Fit Affects Value in Consumer Choices and Opinions (2006, unknown): “Consistent with research on regulatory focus theory (Brockner et al. 2002; Idson and Higgins 2000), two scores were tabulated for each participant: an actual–ideal match score and an actual–ought match score.”
Ideals and Oughts and the Reliance of Affect Versus Substance in Persuasion (2004, result): “Consistent with the latest agreement p 97% research on regulatory focus theory (Brockner et al. 2002; Higgins et al. 2001), two scores were tabulated for each participant: an actual-ideal match score (hereafter, idealmatch), which was taken as a measure of chronic ideal orientation, and an actual-ou”
Compromise and Attraction Effects under Prevention and Promotion Motivations (2007, background): “A possible process-level explanation relates to the work of Brockner et al. (2002).”
An Assessment of Chronic Regulatory Focus Measures (2010, unknown): “A promotion focus is represented by the degree of congruence between their actual and ideal selves, whereas a prevention focus reflects the convergence between actual and ought selves (Brockner et al. 2002). In the most commonly used approach to administer the selves questionnaire, study participant”
Contingent Reliance on the Affect Heuristic as a Function of Regulatory Focus (2008, background): “2 One could alternatively treat the ideal-actual and ought-actual match scores as separate measures of chronic promotion and chronic prevention, respectively, and examine their effects separately (see Brockner et al., 2002; Pham and Avnet, 2004).”
When Celebrities Count: Power Distance Beliefs and Celebrity Endorsements (2018, background): “For example, sensitivity to status and socially desirable response tendencies are consequences of PDB (Brockner et al. 2001; Lalwani, Shavitt, and Johnson 2006) and are potential antecedents of expertise or trust, but because we do not measure them, endogeneity due to an omitted variable bias could…”