Studies in Psychology

SUBMITINFORMATION
EnglishTürkçe

Research Article


DOI :10.26650/SP2022-1131503   IUP :10.26650/SP2022-1131503    Full Text (PDF)

The Work Regulatory Focus Scale: Turkish Adaptation Study

Yasemin Kuş, Pınar Ünsal

According to regulatory focus theory, two types of focus, namely, promotion and prevention, regulate goal-directed behavior. The promotion focus is related to development needs such as progress, growth, and achievement, and those of promotion-focused individuals are goals, hopes, ideals, and aspirations. Alternatively, prevention focus is related to protection needs such as safety, security, and responsibility, and the goals of prevention-focused individuals are duties, obligations, and requirements. Although many fields have examined the theory for many years, the literature points out its effect on work attitudes in the previous years. In the local context, a Turkish scale that addresses the concept of regulatory focus does not exist. To fill this research gap, the current study aims to adapt the Work Regulatory Focus Scale (Neubert et al., 2008) into Turkish and examined its psychometric properties. After translation, two studies were conducted to test the fitness of the psychometric properties of the scale. Study 1 was conducted on 260 employees to test the construct validity of the scale, to perform exploratory factor analysis, and to examine the relationship of the factors with one another and with employee voice. Study 2 recruited 157 employees, performed confirmatory factor analysis, and focused on the relationship with risk taking to test construct validity. Both studies calculated for the internal consistency coefficient. Analysis in Study 1 indicated a two-factor structure composed of prevention and promotion, which is consistent with the original scale. The result of correlation analysis suggested significant relationships between prevention and promotion focuses and between prohibitive and promotive voices. In addition, the findings of Study 2 supported the two-factor structure, and the study noted a significant correlation of promotion and prevention focuses with risk-taking tendency. The reliability analysis in Studies 1 and 2 produced internal consistency coefficients of .91 and .93 for prevention and .85 and .87 for promotion factor, respectively. The findings provided various evidence for the validity of the Turkish form of the scale and the reliability of the measurement.

Keywords: Work Regulatory Focus Scale, regulatory focus theory, prevention focus, promotion focus, validity, reliability
DOI :10.26650/SP2022-1131503   IUP :10.26650/SP2022-1131503    Full Text (PDF)

İş Bağlamında Düzenleyici Odak Ölçeği: Türkçeye Uyarlama Çalışması

Yasemin Kuş, Pınar Ünsal

Düzenleyici odak teorisine göre hedefe yönelik davranışlar teşvik ve önlem olmak üzere iki farklı odak tarafından düzenlenmektedir. Teşvik odağı, ilerleme, büyüme ve başarı gibi gelişim ihtiyaçları ile ilişkilidir ve bu odağa sahip bireylerin amaçları hedefler, umutlar, idealler ve özlemlerdir. Öte yandan, önlem odağı; güvenlik, emniyet ve sorumluluk gibi koruma ihtiyacı ile ilişkilidir ve bu odağa sahip bireyin amaçları görevler, yükümlülükler ve gerekliliklerdir. Teori uzun yıllardır birçok alanda araştırılmış olsa da işe yönelik tutumlar üzerindeki etkisi son yıllarda dikkat çekmektedir. Ulusal yazın incelendiğinde, düzenleyici odak kavramını işe yönelik tutumlar kapsamında ele alan Türkçe bir ölçeğe rastlanmamıştır. Bu boşluğu doldurmak amacıyla bu çalışma kapsamında, İş Bağlamında Düzenleyici Odak Ölçeği’nin (Work Regulatory Focus Scale (Neubert ve ark., 2008) Türkçeye uyarlanması ve psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Ölçeğin çeviri çalışmalarının ardından psikometrik özelliklerinin uygunluğu iki ayrı çalışma ile test edilmiştir. Çalışma 1 260 çalışan birey ile yürütülmüş, bu çalışmada ölçeğin yapı geçerliğini sınamak üzere açımlayıcı faktör analizi ile faktörlerin birbiriyle ve çalışan sesliliği ile ilişkisi incelenmiştir. Çalışma 2 ise 157 çalışan birey ile gerçekleştirilmiş, yine ölçeğin yapı geçerliğini kapsamında doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve ölçeğin risk alma ile ilişkisi incelenmiştir. Ölçümün güvenirliğini test etmek üzere ise her iki çalışmada da iç tutarlılık katsayısı hesaplanmıştır. Çalışma 1’den elde edilen faktör analizi bulguları orijinal ölçekle tutarlı olarak önlem ve teşvik boyutlarından oluşan iki faktörlü yapıyı ortaya koymaktadır. Korelasyon analizi sonucunda önlem ve teşvik odağı arasında; odaklar ile engelleyici ve destekleyici ses türleri arasında beklenen yönde anlamlı ilişkiler bulunmuştur. Çalışma 2’den elde edilen bulgular da iki faktörlü yapıyı desteklemiş ve teşvik odağı ile risk alma eğilimi arasında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmuştur. Güvenirlik analizi sonucunda, çalışma 1 ve 2’de sırasıyla önlem boyutu için iç tutarlılık katsayısı .91 ve .93; teşvik boyutu için .85 ve .87 olarak bulunmuştur. Sonuç olarak, ölçeğin Türkçe formunun geçerliği ve ölçümün güvenirliği için çeşitli kanıtlar sunulmuştur.

Keywords: İş Bağlamında Düzenleyici Odak Ölçeği, düzenleyici odak teorisi, önlem odağı, teşvik odağı, geçerlik, güvenirlik

EXTENDED ABSTRACT


According to regulatory focus theory, two types of motivation focus, namely, promotion and prevention, regulate goal-directed behaviors. Promotion focus is related to developmental needs such as progress, growth, and achievement (Higgins, 1997; 1998). Although promotion and prevention focuses include the motivation to achieve the same task successfully, they differ in terms of orientation and strategy for reaching goals (Higgins et al., 2001). When considered in a work setting, promotion-oriented employeestend to participate in work activities to reach the desired economic earnings and growth results (Johnson & Chang, 2008). Conversely, prevention-oriented employees tend to avoid disappointing others, mistakes, and other negative consequences and complete their work with a sense of obligation (Johnson & Chang, 2008). A potential prevention strategy in the workplace may be complying with work-related rules, responsibilities, and regulations (Wallace & Chen, 2006). In this context, the level of the safety performance of individuals with the prevention focus is higher, while the level of production performance of individuals with a promotion focus is higher (Wallace et al., 2008). Regulatory focus could be a powerful variable in predicting various work behaviors (Lanaj et al., 2012). However, no Turkish measurement tool exists for measuring this construct. In addition, such a scale is required, because the existing measures are unable to reveal the complex structure of the concept in a distinctive manner and excludes contextual factors in the workplace (Neubert et al., 2008). Accordingly, the objective of the current study is to adapt the Work Regulatory Focus (WRF) scale into Turkish and to examine its psychometric quality. Accordingly, two studies were conducted to present various evidence of the validity of the scale and the reliability of the measurement.

Method

Study 1 consists of 260 employees (women: 161, men: 99) working in various sectors, and Study 2 is composed of 157 employees (women: 84, men: 73). A demographic information form, the WRF (Neubert et al., 2008), the Employee Voice Scale (Liang et al., 2012), and the Risk Taking Questionnaire (Jackson, 1977, 1994) were used to collect data. The WRF consists of two factors, namely, promotion and prevention. The scale comprises 18 items (9 items per dimension). Data were analysed via SPSS 24 and Amos 24 (Arbuckle, 2014). The study performed confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses and correlation analysis to test the validity of the WRF. The internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) were calculated to measure the reliability of the measurement.

Results

Item analysis in Study 1 examined the item–total score correlation coefficients. The findings demonstrated that the total score correlation coefficients of the items is >.20, which ranged from .80 to .49. Exploratory factor analysis was inteneed to examine the factor structure of the scale. The result found two factors with eigenvalues >1 in which the first explains 54.1% of total variance and 30.9% of alone variance; the second factor reached 23.2%. In this manner, the study confirmed the two-factor structure of the WRF. The factorloadings of the items ranged from .51 to .82. Only item 18 loaded >.30 on both factors. However, given that if the difference between the factor loadings is approximately .10,then the item may remain under the factor with a higher loading value. Thus, we decided to retain this item under the incentive focus factor. Furthermore, correlation analysis was conducted to test the construct validity of the scale and to examine the relationships of the factors with one another and with another theoretically related structure. The findings pointed to positive relationships between promotion and prevention focuses and between promotion focus and prohibitive/promotion voices. Another positive relationship was noted between prevention focus and prohibitive voice. Lastly, the result implied that the model is at an acceptable level (x2 = 443.638/134, df = 134, p = .000; x2/df = 3.311). However, a few of the fit indices indicate that the model is below acceptable values (CFI = .827, IFI = .829, RMSEA = .122). At this point, the study examined the modification indexes and found that the model could be improved. Thus, suggestions for modification are considered when a high correlation exists between errors, especially the 10th and 11th items, 2nd and 4th items, 1st and 3rd items, 11th and 12th items, and 10th and 12th items. They are under the same factors and were found similar to one another in terms of meaning. Therefore, the study opted to conduct error attribution for the specified items, which were analyzed once again. The modified model then met the expected fit values (x2 = 306, 911, df = 129, x2/df = 2.379, RMSEA = 0.094; TLI = 0.88; CFI = 0.90). Correlation analysis demonstrated a positive correlation between risk taking and promotion focus. According to the reliability analyses in Studies 1 and 2, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients reached .91 and .93 for the prevention dimension and .85 and .87 for the promotion dimension, respectively. These results are consistent with those in the literature.

Discussion

The aim of the study is to adapt the WRF scale developed by Neubert et al. (2008) into Turkish and to examine its psychometric compatibility. The findings indicated various evidence for the validity of the scale and the reliability of the measurement. According to the result of the exploratory factor analysis, the two-factor structure explains more than 50% of the total variance, such that the scale represents the structure at a good level (Yaşlıoğlu, 2017). In addition, the study observed a good level of item factor loading. The distribution of items in relation to these factors was consistent with that of the original scale. The result of confirmatory factor analysis indicated that a few of the fit values obtained were less than the acceptable levels, such that the study reviewed the suggestions for modification to improve the measurement model. One of causes of measuremet error could be the understanding of different items with similar meanings in the same way by the participants (Yaşlıoğlu, 2017). For example; items 10 (I take chances at work to maximize my goals for advancement) and 11 (I tend to take risks at work in order to achieve success) belong to the same factor (promotion) and measure the risk-taking tendency of individuals using different statements. After the modifications, the goodness-of-fit values of the model improved. Therefore, the findings of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses confirmed the two-factor structure, which is composed of promotion and prevention focuses and is consistent with that of the original scale.

The study then examined the relationships among promotion and prevention focuses, regulatory focuses, voice behaviors, and risk-taking tendency to test another validation of the scale. The result of correlation analysis indicated a positive relationship between promotion and prevention focus. Specifically, promotion focus was positively correlated with prohibitive and promotive voices and risk-taking tendency. Prevention focus is also positively related to prohibitive voice. These results are consistent with those of previous studies (e.g, Song et al., 2020). The high risk-taking tendency of promotion-focused people can be influential to the use of the prohibitive voice; in other words, individuals express themselves in opposition to the ideas of managers in an organization (Lin & Johnson, 2015). These individuals can also facilitate the use of the prohibitive voice by offering a wide and flexible perspective with positive emotions and creative information processing to predict uncertain problems about the future (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). Finally, correlation analysis indicated that promotion and prevention focuses were moderately and positively related. The strength and direction of this relationship are consistent with the those obtained in the original study (Neubert et al., 2008). To test the reliability of the measurement, the study calculated for internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha). The result illustrated that the internal consistency coefficient was ≥.80 and above, which corresponds to a good level of the reliability of the measurement (Cortina, 1993). The internal consistency coefficients of the dimensions were found to reach good level, which is similar to the original scale (Neubert et al., 2008).

Future studies may investigate other comprehensive and, yet, undiscovered positive outcomes using the WRF, especially in terms of the focus of prevention. These positive outcomes indicated if a fit exists between the environment/task and the focus of the individual. The similarity between these two resources is called regulatory fit (Higgins, 2005), which promotes people’s perception that a decision is right and makes them feel good (Higgins, 2000). Accordingly, organizations can seek to align the regulatory focus of candidates with the focus demanded by the structure of the job during the selection or recruitment process.

One of the limitations of the current study is the possibility that it may contain common method bias, because the data were collected in a single application by reaching the participants online. Another limitation is that only people who use computers or phones can access the study, because participation occurred online. To address these limitations, making face-to-face applications and including people working in occupational groups in which access to technology is limited may be beneficial. In future studies, examining the relationship among various business behaviors (e.g., safety and production performance) for which regulatory focus may be predictive may provide further evidence of the validity of the scale. In addition, additional information on construct validity can be provided by examining the relationship between general-level regulatory focus scales in Turkish. Moreover, testing the validity and reliability of the scale across samples may contribute to the literature by providing rich knowledge about the psychometric qualities of the construct.


PDF View

References

  • Akhtar, S. ve Lee, J. S. (2014). Assessing factor structure and convergent validity of the work regulatory focus scale. Psychological Reports, 115(1), 133-147. doi: 10.2466/08.01.PR0.115c13z5 google scholar
  • Akın, M. ve Özdevecioğlu, M. (2021). İşyerindeki dışlanmanın, işyerindeki sapkın davranışlar üzerindeki etkisi: Personelin düzenleyici odağının rolü. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(4), 29162926. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2021.1298 google scholar
  • Andrews, M. C., Kacmar, K. M. ve Kacmar, C. (2014). The mediational effect of regulatory focus on the relationships between mindfulness and job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Career Development International, 19(5), 494-507. doi: 10.1108/CDI-02-2014-0018 google scholar
  • Arbuckle, J. L. (2014). IBM® SPSS® AmosTM 23 User’s guide. Amos Development Corporation. google scholar
  • Arslan, A. (2015). Bireysel girişimcilik ve düzenleyici odaklar kuramı ilişkisinde çevresel belirsizliğin düzenleyici rolü: emlak sektöründe bir araştırma. Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 10(1). 147-166. google scholar
  • Bentham, J. (1789). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford: Clarendon press. (01.03.2022 tarihinde http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/ Philosophers/Bentham/ principlesofMoralsAndLegislation.pdf adresinden alınmıştır). google scholar
  • Brenninkmeijer, V., Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P. M. ve Hetty van Emmerik, I. J. (2010). Regulatory focus at work: The moderating role of regulatory focus in the job demands-resources model. Career Development International, 15(7), 708-728. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431011094096 google scholar
  • Brockner, J. ve Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 35-66. https://doi. org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2972 google scholar
  • Bryant, P. ve Dunford, R. (2008). The influence of regulatory focus on risky decision-making. Applied Psychology, 57(2), 335-359. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00319.x google scholar
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Ceylan, H. H. ve Köse, B. (2020). Cazibe etkisi ve düzenleyici odağın tüketici seçimindeki rolü. Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2), 71-80. doi: 10.46482/ ebyuiibfdergi.829273 google scholar
  • Civelek, A. B. ve Bayraktar, A. (2020). Online alışveriş yapan tüketicilerin düzenleyici uyumlarının algılanan değer ve güvene etkisi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(2), 371393. https://doi.org/10.24889/ifede.839815 google scholar
  • Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98-104. google scholar
  • Crowe, E. ve 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. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2675 google scholar
  • Doğruyol, B. (2008). The impact of parental control and support on the development of chronic self-regulatory focus. [Yüksek lisans tezi]. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi. google scholar
  • Dyne, L. V., Ang, S. ve Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359-1392. google scholar
  • Förster, J. ve Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16(8), 631-636. google scholar
  • Förster, J., Higgins, E. T. ve Bianco, A. T. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns?. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 148-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00509-5 google scholar
  • Friedman, R. S. ve Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1001-1013. https:// doi/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1001 google scholar
  • Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216 google scholar
  • Gorman, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B. L., Apodaca, S., McIntyre, A. L., Park, P. ve Godbey, J. N. (2012). A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network: Work-related antecedents and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 160-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jvb.2011.07.005 google scholar
  • Hamstra, M. R., Bolderdijk, J. W. ve Veldstra, J. L. (2011). Everyday risk taking as a function of regulatory focus. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(1), 134-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jrp.2010.11.017 google scholar
  • Haws, K. L., Dholakia, U. M. ve Bearden, W. O. (2010). An assessment of chronic regulatory focus measures. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 967-982. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.5.967 google scholar
  • Henker, N., Sonnentag, S. ve Unger, D. (2015). Transformational leadership and employee creativity: the mediating role of promotion focus and creative process engagement. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2), 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9348-7. google scholar
  • 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(2), 407-444. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00488.x google scholar
  • Higgins, E. T. (1996). Ideals, oughts, and regulatory focus: Affect and motivation from distinct pains and pleasures. P. M. Gollwitzer ve J. A. Bargh (Ed.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior içinde (s. 91-114). Guilford. google scholar
  • Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280 google scholar
  • Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1-46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0 google scholar
  • Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), 12171230. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217 google scholar
  • Higgins, E. T. (2002). How self-regulation creates distinct values: The case of promotion and prevention decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(3), 177-191. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15327663JCP1203_01 google scholar
  • Higgins, E. T. (2005). Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(4), 209-213. doi: https://doi.org/10.10.1002/ejsp.27 google scholar
  • Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N. ve Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 3-23. doi: https://doi.org/10.10.1002/ejsp.27 google scholar
  • Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J. R., Crowe, E. ve 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. https://doi.Org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.276 google scholar
  • Higgins, E. T. ve Silberman, I. (1998). Development of regulatory focus: Promotion and prevention as ways of living. J. Heckhausen ve C. S. Dweck (Ed.), Motivation and self-regulation across the life span içinde (1. bs, ss. 78-113). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511527869.005 google scholar
  • Higgins, E. T. ve Spiegel, S. (2004). Promotion and prevention strategies for self-regulation. Handbook of Self-regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications, 171-187. google scholar
  • Higgins, E. T., Cesario, J., Hagiwara, N., Spiegel, S., ve Pittman, T. (2010). Increasing or decreasing interest in activities: The role of regulatory fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 559. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018833 google scholar
  • Jackson, D. N. (1994). Jackson Personality Inventory—Revised manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems, Inc. google scholar
  • Jackson, D. N. (1977). Reliability of the Jackson Personality Inventory. Psychological Reports, 40(2),613-614. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1977.40.2.613 google scholar
  • Johnson, R. E. ve Chang, C. H. (2008, Nisan). Development and validation of a work-based regulatory focus scale [Bildiri]. 23. Endüstri ve Örgüt Psikolojisi Derneği Yıllık Konferası, San Francisco, CA. google scholar
  • Johnson, R. E., Chang, C. H. ve Yang, L. Q. (2010). Commitment and motivation at work: The relevance of employee identity and regulatory focus. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 226245. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.48463332 google scholar
  • Karagonlar, G. ve Emirza, S. (2021). Sosyal değer yönelimi ve sosyal ikilemlerde iş birliği: Düzenleyici odağın ve tanımlayıcı normların etkisi. Psikoloji Çalışmaları, 41(3), 991-1035. https://doi. org/10.26650/SP2020-81676 google scholar
  • Kark, R. ve Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500-528.doi: https://doi. org/10.5465/amr.2007.24351846 google scholar
  • Kuş, Y. (2023). Düzenleyici odakların ortaya çıkmasında etkili olan faktörlerin ve sonuçların incelenmesi. [Doktora tezi]. İstanbul Üniversitesi. google scholar
  • Lanaj, K., Chang, C. H. ve Johnson, R. E. (2012). Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(5), 998-1034. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027723 google scholar
  • Liang, J., Farh, C. I. ve Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71-92. https://www.jstor. org/stable/41413625 google scholar
  • Lin, S. H. J. ve Johnson, R. E. (2015). A suggestion to improve a day keeps your depletion away: Examining promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors within a regulatory focus and ego depletion framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000018 google scholar
  • Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H. ve Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854 google scholar
  • Markovits, Y., Ullrich, J., van Dick, R. ve Davis, A. J. (2008). Regulatory foci and organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(3), 485-489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.09.004 google scholar
  • Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B. ve Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1220-1233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012695 google scholar
  • Neubert, M. J., Wu, C. ve Roberts, J. A. (2013). The influence of ethical leadership and regulatory focus on employee outcomes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(2), 269-296. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/41968852 google scholar
  • Ryan, R. M. ve Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/ ceps.1999.1020 google scholar
  • Scholer, A. A. ve Higgins, E. T. (2010). Regulatory focus in a demanding world. R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of personality and self-regulation içinde (s. 291-314). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781444318111.ch13 google scholar
  • Sober, E. ve Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Harvard University Press. (01.03.2022 tarihinde https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=ouw g5swAV5oC&lpg=PA1&ots=-Vrg6NgLxd&lr&pg=PP15#v=onepage&q=psychological%20 hedo&f=false adresinden alınmıştır). google scholar
  • Song, Y., Peng, P. ve Yu, G. (2020). I would speak up to live up to your trust: The role of psychological safety and regulatory focus. Frontiers in Psychology, 10:2966. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02966 google scholar
  • To, C., Kilduff, G. J., Ordonez, L. ve Schweitzer, M. E. (2018). Going for it on fourth down: Rivalry increases risk taking, physiological arousal, and promotion focus. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1281-1306. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0850 google scholar
  • Wallace, C. ve Chen, G. (2006). A multilevel integration of personality, climate, self-regulation, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 529-557. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00046.x google scholar
  • Wallace, J. C., Johnson, P. D. ve Frazier, M. L. (2009). An examination of the factorial, construct, and predictive validity and utility of the regulatory focus at work scale. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 805-831. doi: 10.1002/job.572 google scholar
  • Wallace, J. C., Little, L. M. ve Shull, A. (2008). The moderating effects of task complexity on the relationship between regulatory foci and safety and production performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(2), 95- 104. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.13.2.95 google scholar
  • Wu, C., McMullen, J. S., Neubert, M. J. ve Yi, X. (2008). The influence of leader regulatory focus on employee creativity. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(5), 587-602. doi https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusvent.2007.09.005 google scholar
  • Yalçındağ, B. ve Özkan, T. (2015). Düzenleme Odağı Ölçeği (DOÖ), Sebat ve Risk Alma Ölçeklerinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması ve DOÖ’nün psikometrik açıdan değerlendirilmesi. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 18 (36), 49-68. google scholar
  • Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 46, 74-85. google scholar
  • Zhang, Y. ve Mittal, V. (2007). The attractiveness of enriched and impoverished options: Culture, self-construal, and regulatory focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(4), 588-598. https:// doi/10.1177/0146167206296954 google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Kuş, Y., & Ünsal, P. (2023). The Work Regulatory Focus Scale: Turkish Adaptation Study. Studies in Psychology, 43(3), 553-581. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2022-1131503


AMA

Kuş Y, Ünsal P. The Work Regulatory Focus Scale: Turkish Adaptation Study. Studies in Psychology. 2023;43(3):553-581. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2022-1131503


ABNT

Kuş, Y.; Ünsal, P. The Work Regulatory Focus Scale: Turkish Adaptation Study. Studies in Psychology, [Publisher Location], v. 43, n. 3, p. 553-581, 2023.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Kuş, Yasemin, and Pınar Ünsal. 2023. “The Work Regulatory Focus Scale: Turkish Adaptation Study.” Studies in Psychology 43, no. 3: 553-581. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2022-1131503


Chicago: Humanities Style

Kuş, Yasemin, and Pınar Ünsal. “The Work Regulatory Focus Scale: Turkish Adaptation Study.” Studies in Psychology 43, no. 3 (May. 2024): 553-581. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2022-1131503


Harvard: Australian Style

Kuş, Y & Ünsal, P 2023, 'The Work Regulatory Focus Scale: Turkish Adaptation Study', Studies in Psychology, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 553-581, viewed 3 May. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2022-1131503


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Kuş, Y. and Ünsal, P. (2023) ‘The Work Regulatory Focus Scale: Turkish Adaptation Study’, Studies in Psychology, 43(3), pp. 553-581. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2022-1131503 (3 May. 2024).


MLA

Kuş, Yasemin, and Pınar Ünsal. “The Work Regulatory Focus Scale: Turkish Adaptation Study.” Studies in Psychology, vol. 43, no. 3, 2023, pp. 553-581. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2022-1131503


Vancouver

Kuş Y, Ünsal P. The Work Regulatory Focus Scale: Turkish Adaptation Study. Studies in Psychology [Internet]. 3 May. 2024 [cited 3 May. 2024];43(3):553-581. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2022-1131503 doi: 10.26650/SP2022-1131503


ISNAD

Kuş, Yasemin - Ünsal, Pınar. “The Work Regulatory Focus Scale: Turkish Adaptation Study”. Studies in Psychology 43/3 (May. 2024): 553-581. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2022-1131503



TIMELINE


Submitted18.06.2022
Accepted23.07.2023
Published Online15.12.2023

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.