Measures

Regulatory Focus Strength

Measure:

Reference Paper:

  • Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. S. (1997). Emotional Responses to Goal Attainment: Strength of Regulatory Focus as Moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 515-525.
      

Regulatory Focus Questionnaire

Measure:

Reference Papers:

  • Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R., 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.
      
  • Camacho, C. J., Higgins, E. T., & Luger, L. (2003). Moral Value Transfer from Regulatory Fit: What Feels Right Is Right and What Feels Wrong Is Wrong. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 498-510.
      
  • Molden, D. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Categorization under Uncertainty: Resolving Vagueness and Ambiguity with Eager versus Vigilant Strategies. Social Cognition, 22(2), 248-277.
      
  • Cesario, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Making Message Recipients “Feel Right”: How Nonverbal Cues Can Increase Persuasion. Psychological Science, 19(5), 415-420.
      

Regulatory Mode Questionnaire

Measure:

Reference Paper:

  • Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., Higgins, E. T., Atash, N. M., Pierro, A., Shah, J. Y., & Spiegel, S. (2000). To “Do the Right Thing” or to “Just Do It”: Locomotion and Assessment as Distinct Self-Regulatory Imperatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 793-815.
      

Regulatory Mode Dictionary

Measure:

Reference Paper:

  • Kanze, D., Conley, M. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2019). The motivation of mission statements: How regulatory mode influences workplace discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Advance online publication.
      

Generalized Shared Reality (SR-G)

Measures:

  • This questionnaire is designed to measure the experience of generalized shared reality (SR-G)—the perception of having the same thoughts and feelings with another person about the world in general. Versions exist to measure both Cross-Situational SR-G (Chronic – for use between familiar partners; e.g., “we frequently think of things at the exact same time”) and Interaction-Specific SR-G (State – for use between strangers or familiar partners; (e.g. “during this discussion, we frequently thought of things at the exact same time”).
  • Questionnaires (Cross-Situational and Interaction-Specific)

Reference Paper:

  • Rossignac-Milon, M., Bolger, N., Zee, K. S., Boothby, E. J., & Higgins, E. T. (2021). Merged minds: Generalized shared reality in dyadic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(4), 882.
      

Target-Specific Shared Reality (SR-T)

Measures:

  • This questionnaire is designed to measure the experience of target-specific shared reality (SR-T)—the perception of having the same thoughts and feelings with another person about a particular target (e.g., an event, a third person, or an object). Sample item: “[My partner] and I see [target] in the same way.”
  • Questionnaire

Reference Paper:

  • Rossignac-Milon, M., Schmalbach, B., Keller, V., Cornwell, J., Higgins, E. T., & Echterhoff, G. (in press). The role of target-specific shared reality in interpersonal interactions and protective health behaviors. European Journal of Social Psychology.
    Preprint available: https://osf.io/preprints/osf/y2pmk?view_only=

Self-Discrepancy Measures

Measures:

  • Measures and instructions for two instruments:
    • Regulatory focus questionnaire (more detail also available above)
    • Selves questionnaire

Reference Papers:

  • Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. S. (1997). Emotional Responses to Goal Attainment: Strength of Regulatory Focus as Moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 515-525.
      
  • 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, 51-76.

Regulatory Focus Induction

Instrument:

Reference Papers:

  • Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J. R., 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.
      
  • Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R., 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.
      
  • Freitas, A. L., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Enjoying Goal-Directed Action: The Role of Regulatory Fit. Psychological Science, 13(1), 1-6.
      

Regulatory Fit Induction

Instrument:

Reference Papers:

  • Freitas, A. L., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Enjoying Goal-Directed Action: The Role of Regulatory Fit. Psychological Science, 13(1), 1-6.
      
  • Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory Fit and Persuasion: Transfer from “Feeling Right”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 388-404.
      
  • Cesario, J., Higgins, E. T., & Scholer, A. A. (2008). Regulatory Fit and Persuasion: Basic Principles and Remaining Questions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 444-463.