Click here to download

A contribution to the Italian validation of the Higgins’ Regulatory Focus Questionnaire
Journal Title: RICERCHE DI PSICOLOGIA  
Author/s: Alessandra Monni, L. Francesca Scalas 
Year:  2020 Issue: Language: Italian 
Pages:  31 Pg. 469-499 FullText PDF:  310 KB
DOI:  10.3280/RIP2020-002003
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


Gray’s Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory and Higgins’ Regulatory Focus The-ory are two of the most relevant theories on approach and avoidance tendencies. Gray’s theory considers approach and avoidance as biological sensitivities that guide individuals to reach primary needs. Higgins’ theory, on the contrary, states that approach-avoidance tendencies influence self-regulation and guide individ-uals to reach secondary needs. While the Italian validation of the BIS-BAS scale relative to Gray’s theory has been developed, an Italian version of the Regulato-ry focus questionnaire (RFQ) relative to Higgins theory has not been developed yet. The aim of our study is to provide a contribution to develop an Italian ver-sion of the RFQ. From the exploratory factorial analysis (n = 83 university stu-dents, mean age = 22.89, DS = 6.07) and the subsequent confirmatory factorial analysis (n = 360, mean age = 34.91, DS = 13.41), a solid factorial structure and a good internal validity emerged. In the invariance analysis, the structure was partially equivalent across genders, except for a single item. Finally, the examina-tion of divergent validity showed that the regulatory foci identified by RFQ are constructs distinct from the ones identified by the BIS-BAS scale. In conclusion, our Italian version of the RFQ shows satisfactory psychomet-ric properties and parsimonious structure, and thus seems to be a valuable in-strument for measuring approach-avoidance according to Higgins’ theory.
Keywords: Promotion focus, prevention focus, 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, A contribution to the Italian validation of the Higgins’ Regulatory Focus Questionnaire in "RICERCHE DI PSICOLOGIA " 2/2020, pp. 469-499, DOI:10.3280/RIP2020-002003

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content