Development and validation of a work-based Regulatory Focus Scale

Johnson, Russell; Chang, Chu–Hsiang

doi:10.1037/e518442013-433

Cited by 15 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Empirical findings indicate that promotion and prevention foci are uniquely associated with work-related outcomes (Lanaj et al, 2012 ). Promotion-oriented employees are likely to engage in work activities because of their ideals and aspirations, whereas employees with a prevention focus perform their work from a sense of duty (Johnson and Chang, 2008 ). When making work-related decisions, individuals who score high in promotion are concerned with the gains and advancements that the decision might bring, whereas individuals who score high in prevention are more attentive to potential losses (Gamache et al, 2015 ).…”

Section: Employees' Regulatory Focus Orientations and Strategic Inclimentioning

confidence: 99%

How Person-Organization Fit Impacts Employees' Perceptions of Justice and Well-Being

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regulatory fit theory predicts that when individuals adopt strategies that sustain their motivational orientations, they feel right about what is happening. Our aim was to test these predictions at the person-organization level. Across three studies, we expected and found that a feeling right experience that results from a match between an employee and an organizational climate produces perceptions that the company's prevailing procedures are fair. In Study 1 (N = 300), a survey among employees of distinct companies, we observed that the more organizational characteristics matched individual promotion and prevention focus of the employees, the more the employees perceived their workplace as just. Study 2 (N = 139), a randomized-control experiment, replicated this pattern by demonstrating that individuals with a predominant promotion focus assigned fairness to the organizational conduct most strongly when they recalled events characterizing a promotion-oriented environment; on the contrary, individuals with a predominant prevention focus deemed their workplace most fair when they were asked to recall prevention-related conduct of their company. In Study 3 (N = 376), a cross-sectional field study, we found that regulatory non-fit was associated with lower procedural justice perceptions and this, in turn, related to higher burnout. Theoretical and practical implications of applying regulatory fit theory to person-organization relationships are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Employees' Regulatory Focus Orientations and Strategic Inclimentioning

confidence: 99%

How Person-Organization Fit Impacts Employees' Perceptions of Justice and Well-Being

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been suggested that CSE's relation with job performance should be mediated by motivational constructs (Judge et al, 1998), such as approach and avoidance motivation. In Study 2 we examined approach/avoidance work orientations as mediating constructs, using a measure of general approach/avoidance orientations at work (Johnson & Chang, 2008). The measure assesses adoption of orientations toward performing well at work but differentiates whether individuals adopt approach (i.e., striving to achieve positive work outcomes) or avoidance (i.e., striving to avoid negative work outcomes) work orientations.…”

Section: Study 2: Cse and Job Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Approach and avoidance orientation Johnson and Chang's (2008) 12‐item scale was used to assess approach/avoidance orientations at work (using 6 items each). Previous work has demonstrated the validity of the scale, including demonstrating its convergent and discriminant validity with respect to other indicators of approach and avoidance, while also demonstrating stronger relations with work outcomes (Johnson & Chang, 2008). Example items include “My goal at work is to fulfill my potential to the fullest in my job” (approach) and “I am fearful about failing to prevent negative outcomes at work” (avoidance).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Approach or Avoidance (Or Both?): Integrating Core Self‐evaluations Within an Approach/Avoidance Framework

Ferris

Rosen

Johnson

et al. 2011

Personnel Psychology

179

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Core self-evaluations (CSE) represent a new personality construct that, despite an accumulation of evidence regarding its predictive validity, provokes debate regarding the fundamental approach or avoidance nature of the construct. This set of studies sought to clarify the approach/avoidance nature of CSE by examining its relation with approach/avoidance personality traits and motivation constructs (Study 1); we subsequently examined approach/avoidance motivational mechanisms as mediators of the relation between CSE and job performance (Study 2). Overall, the studies demonstrate that CSE is best conceptualized as representing both (high) approach tendencies and (low) avoidance tendencies; implications of these findings for CSE theory are discussed.

show abstract

“…First, PA facilitates creative problem solving and flexible cognitive processing (Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987), which are requisites of effective task performance in many jobs. Second, PA and its associated emotions often co‐occur with a promotion regulatory focus (Gable, Reis, & Elliot, 2003; Larsen et al, 2002), which itself is positively related to task performance (Johnson & Chang, 2008). Promotion focus involves an approach‐oriented motivation mindset, where individuals are driven by goals that point the way to ideal end states (Higgins, 1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Feelings of anxiety and frustration also foster rumination about past mistakes and possible future mistakes, causing employees to lose sight of current task demands. Third, NA is closely related to prevention focus, which is negatively related to task performance (Johnson & Chang, 2008). Highly anxious and frustrated employees are likely to adopt a prevention focus mindset, which is centered on avoiding punishments and pursuing avoidance‐oriented goals.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

We (Sometimes) Know Not How We Feel: Predicting Job Performance With an Implicit Measure of Trait Affectivity

Johnson¹,

Tolentino²,

Rodopman³

et al. 2010

Personnel Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study we examined relationships between trait affectivity and work performance. However, because trait affectivity is believed to operate primarily outside awareness, we assessed it using techniques designed to measure content at explicit and implicit levels. Although results were consistent across the explicit and implicit measures (i.e., positive affectivity was positively related to task performance and citizenship behavior, whereas negative affectivity was negatively related to task performance and positively related to counterproductive behavior), the implicit measure predicted greater proportions of variance in supervisor‐rated criteria and did so incremental to the explicit measure. We discuss the implications of these results for theory and practice, and highlight the potential usefulness of implicit measures for applied research.

show abstract

Development and validation of a work-based Regulatory Focus Scale

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

How Person-Organization Fit Impacts Employees' Perceptions of Justice and Well-Being

How Person-Organization Fit Impacts Employees' Perceptions of Justice and Well-Being

Approach or Avoidance (Or Both?): Integrating Core Self‐evaluations Within an Approach/Avoidance Framework

We (Sometimes) Know Not How We Feel: Predicting Job Performance With an Implicit Measure of Trait Affectivity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About