Clicca qui per scaricare

Contributo alla validazione della versione italiana del regulatory focus Questionnaire di Higgins
Titolo Rivista: RICERCHE DI PSICOLOGIA  
Autori/Curatori: Alessandra Monni, L. Francesca Scalas 
Anno di pubblicazione:  2020 Fascicolo: Lingua: Italiano 
Numero pagine:  31 P. 469-499 Dimensione file:  310 KB
DOI:  10.3280/RIP2020-002003
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più:  clicca qui   qui 


Due teorie particolarmente rilevanti nello studio delle tendenze di approccio ed evitamento sono la Teoria della Sensibilità al Rinforzo di Gray e la Teoria dei foci regolatori di Higgins. La teoria di Gray descrive l’approccio e l’evitamento come due sensibilità biologiche che guidano gli individui a raggiungere bisogni primari. La teoria di Higgins al contrario, afferma che queste tendenze influen-zano la regolazione di sé e guidano gli individui a raggiungere bisogni secondari. Mentre per la teoria di Gray è stata sviluppata la validazione italiana della relati-va scala di misura BIS-BAS, per la teoria di Higgins manca la versione italiana dello strumento Regulatory focus questionnaire (RFQ) e lo scopo del lavoro è quello di fornire un primo contributo alla sua validazione. Dall’analisi fattoriale esplorativa (n = 83 studenti universitari, età media = 22.89, DS = 6.07) e dalla successiva analisi fattoriale confermativa (n = 360, età media = 34.91, DS = 13.41) è emersa una solida struttura fattoriale e una buona validità interna. Nell’analisi dell’invarianza, la struttura fattoriale è risultata equivalente per ma-schi e femmine con eccezione di un singolo item. Infine, nell’analisi della validità divergente è risultata una chiara distinzione tra i foci regolatori del RFQ e le scale BIS BAS. In conclusione, la versione italiana del RFQ mostra soddisfacenti proprietà psicometriche, brevità e facilità nella somministrazione e, pertanto, rappresenta un valido strumento per la misura dell’approccio-evitamento secondo la teoria di Higgins.


Keywords: Focus di promozione, focus di prevenzione, Regulatory Focus Questionnaire.

  1. Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus?. Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 779-806.
  2. Bagozzi, R. P., & Baumgartner, H. (1994). The evaluation of structural equation models and hypothesis testing. In R. P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Basic principles of marketing research (pp. 386-422). Oxford: Blackwell.
  3. Balconi, M., Falbo, L., & Conte, V. A. (2012). BIS and BAS correlates with psychophysiological and cortical response systems during aversive and appetitive emotional stimuli processing. Motivation and Emotion, 36(2), 218-231.
  4. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246., DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
  5. Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 17(3), 303-316., DOI: 10.1177/0049124189017003004
  6. Bollen, K. A. (2000). Modeling strategies: In search of the holy grail. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(1), 74-81., DOI: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0701_0
  7. Brendl, C. M., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Principles of judging valence: What makes events positive or negative?. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 95-160). Academic Press.
  8. Brodscholl, J. C., Kober, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2007). Strategies of self-regulation in goal attainment versus goal maintenance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(4), 628-648.
  9. Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319-333., DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
  10. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255., DOI: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
  11. Chin, W. W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 22(1), 7-16.
  12. Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117-132.
  13. Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(3), 491-517., DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X99002046
  14. Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399-412.
  15. Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2010). Approach and avoidance temperament as basic dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality, 78(3), 865-906.
  16. Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(3), 430-457., DOI: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5
  17. Fischer, A. (Ed.). (2000). Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
  18. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50., DOI: 10.1177/002224378101800104
  19. Gardner, P. L. (1995). Measuring attitudes to science: Unidimensionality and internal consistency revisited. Research in science education, 25(3), 283-289., DOI: 10.1007/BF02357402
  20. Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual review of psychology, 60, 549-576.
  21. Gray, J. A. (1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 8(3), 249-266., DOI: 10.1016/0005-7967(70)90069-0
  22. Gray, J. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress (Vol. 5). CUP Archive.
  23. Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Functions of Septo-hippocampal System, 2nd Edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  24. Harmon-Jones, E., Gable, P. A., & Peterson, C. K. (2010). The role of asymmetric frontal cortical activity in emotion-related phenomena: A review and update. Biological Psychology, 84(3), 451-462.
  25. Haws, K. L., Dholakia, U. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2010). An assessment of chronic regulatory focus measures. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 967-982.
  26. 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, 407-44.
  27. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300., DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
  28. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1-46., DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0
  29. Higgins, E. T., & Cornwell, J. F. (2016). Securing foundations and advancing frontiers: Prevention and promotion effects on judgment & decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 56-67.
  30. Higgins, E. T., & Silberman, I. (1998). Development of regulatory focus: Promotion and prevention as ways of living. In Heckhausen, J. & Dweck, C. S. (Eds.). Motivation and self-regulation across the life span., (pp. 78-113). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
  31. 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), 3-23.
  32. Higgins, E. T., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1985). Self-concept discrepancy theory: A psychological model for distinguishing among different aspects of depression and anxiety. Social Cognition, 3(1), 51-76.
  33. Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), 276-286., DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.66.2.276
  34. Hodis, F. A. (2017). Investigating the structure of regulatory focus: A bifactor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 192-200.
  35. Hodis, F. A., & Hodis, G. M. (2017). Assessing motivation of secondary school students: An analysis of promotion and prevention orientations as measured by the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35(7), 670-682., DOI: 10.1177/0734282916658385
  36. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: a Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55., DOI: 10.1080/10705519909540118
  37. Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). How current feedback and chronic effectiveness influence motivation: Everything to gain versus everything to lose. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(4), 583-592.
  38. Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Imagining how you’d feel: The role of motivational experiences from regulatory fit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(7), 926-937., DOI: 10.1177/014616720426433
  39. Jin, X., Wang, L., & Dong, H. (2016). The relationship between self-construal and creativity-Regulatory focus as moderator. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 282-288.
  40. Keller, J., & Pfattheicher, S. (2013). The compassion-hostility paradox: the interplay of vigilant, prevention-focused self-regulation, compassion, and hostility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(11), 1518-1529.
  41. Leone, L., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2002). Validità della versione Italiana delle Scale BIS/BAS di Carver e White (1994): Generalizzabilità della struttura e relazioni con costrutti affini. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 29(2), 413-436., DOI: 10.1421/1245
  42. Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K. T. (1996). Assessing goodness of fit: Is parsimony always desirable?. The Journal of Experimental Education, 64(4), 364-390., DOI: 10.1080/00220973.1996.10806604
  43. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320-341.
  44. Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., Morin, A. J., & Von Davier, M. (2013). Why item parcels are (almost) never appropriate: Two wrongs do not make a right-Camouflaging misspecification with item parcels in CFA models. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 257-284.
  45. McDonald, R. P. (1970). The theoretical foundations of principal factor analysis, canonical factor analysis, and alpha factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 23(1), 1-21.
  46. Pierro, A., Cicero, L., & Higgins, E. T. (2009). Followers’ satisfaction from working with group-prototypic leaders: Promotion focus as moderator. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(5), 1105-1110.
  47. Pierro, A., Pica, G., Giannini, A. M., Higgins, E. T., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2018). “ Letting myself go forward past wrongs”: How regulatory modes affect self-forgiveness. PloS one, 13(3), e0193357.
  48. Pierro, A., Pica, G., Klein, K., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2013). Looking back or moving on: How regulatory modes affect nostalgia. Motivation and Emotion, 37(4), 653-660.
  49. Prabhakaran, R., Kraemer, D. J., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2011). Approach, avoidance, and inhibition: Personality traits predict cognitive control abilities. Personality and individual differences, 51(4), 439-444.
  50. Scott, M. D., Hauenstein, N. M., & Coyle, P. T. (2015). Construct validity of measures of goal orientation in the approach-avoidance network. Learning and Individual Differences, 38, 151-157.
  51. Shah, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory concerns and appraisal efficiency: the general impact of promotion and prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 693-705., DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.693
  52. Shah, J., Higgins, T., & Friedman, R. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: how regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 285-293., DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.74.2.285
  53. Strauman, T. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1987). Automatic activation of self-discrepancies and emotional syndromes: When cognitive structures influence affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1004-1014., DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.53.6.1004
  54. Summerville, A., & Roese, N. J. (2008). Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(1), 247-254.
  55. Verdugo-Alonso, M. A., Henao-Lema, C. P., Córdoba-Andrade, L., & Arias González, V. B. (2017). Dimensionality and internal structure of the Colombian version of the INICO‐FEAPS quality of life scale. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 61(12), 1094-1103.

Alessandra Monni, L. Francesca Scalas, in "RICERCHE DI PSICOLOGIA " 2/2020, pp. 469-499, DOI:10.3280/RIP2020-002003

   

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association associazione indipendente e no profit per facilitare l'accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche