Cultural Asymmetry Between Perceptions of Past and Future Personal Change.

Research has shown that Westerners expect less change to occur in the future than they recall having occurred in the past. The present research investigated how recalled change and anticipated change may vary across cultures. Because Chinese perceive past times as being closer to the present than do Westerners, and people believe things tend to change more over a long period of time than over a short period of time, Chinese may perceive smaller changes from the past to the present than do Westerners. Consequently, the asymmetry between recalled change and anticipated change would disappear for Chinese. Four empirical studies revealed that for British participants, recalled changes in the past for personality, values, and the person as a whole were greater than anticipated changes in the future, whereas for Chinese, recalled changes in the past were similar in magnitude as anticipated changes in the future. Studies 2b and 3 further revealed that subjective temporal distance accounted for the cross-cultural differences in the asymmetry between recalled and anticipated changes.

Gain +1 or Avoid -1: Validation of the German Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ).

BACKGROUND: The Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ) assesses regulatory promotion and prevention focus, which represent orientations towards gains or losses. The main objective of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the newly translated German version. METHODS: A sample of 1024 participants answered the questionnaire and several related instruments. We used an online survey tool to collect this data. Data analysis was conducted using methods of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in SPSS and AMOS. RESULTS: The RFQ displayed acceptable reliability, while its correlations with other, related psychological constructs indicated good validity. Factor analysis showed good fit for a two-dimensional model. Tests of measurement invariance revealed clear evidence for metric invariance while scalar invariance remained uncertain. Differences in regulatory focus based on sociodemographic characteristics are reported and discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the RFQ can be recommended for application in fields dealing with motivation and goal attainment in a broad sense.

Psychometric Properties of the German Version of the Health Regulatory Focus Scale.

The Health Regulatory Focus Scale (HRFS) is a short scale which measures an individual's prevention and promotion focus in a health-specific context. The main objective of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the newly translated German version of the HRFS. Reliability and item characteristics were found to be satisfactory. Validity of both subscales toward other psychological constructs including behavioral approach and avoidance, core self-evaluations, optimism, pessimism, neuroticism, as well as several measures of physical and mental health was shown. In addition, invariance of the measure across age and gender groups was shown. Exploratory as well as confirmatory factor analyses clearly indicated a two-factorial structure with a moderate correlation between the two latent constructs. Differences in health promotion and prevention focus between socio-demographic groups are discussed. The HRFS is found to be a valid and reliable instrument for the assessment of regulatory focus in health-related environments.

Regulatory focus affects predictions of the future.

This research investigated how regulatory focus might influence trend-reversal predictions. We hypothesized that compared with promotion focus, prevention focus hinders sense of control, which in turn predicts more trend-reversal developments. Studies 1 and 3 revealed that participants expected trend-reversal developments to be more likely to occur when they focused on prevention than when they focused on promotion. Study 2 extended the findings by including a control condition, and revealed that participants expected trend-reversal developments to be more likely to occur in the prevention condition than in the promotion and control conditions. Studies 4 and 5 revealed that participants' chronic prevention focus predicted a low sense of control (Study 4), and that promotion focus predicted a high sense of control (Studies 4 and 5). Furthermore, participants with a high sense of control expected trend-reversal developments to be less likely to occur. Thus, the results provided converging evidence for the hypothesis.

Culture, temporal focus, and values of the past and the future.

This article examines cultural differences in how people value future and past events. Throughout four studies, the authors found that European Canadians attached more monetary value to an event in the future than to an identical event in the past, whereas Chinese and Chinese Canadians placed more monetary value to a past event than to an identical future event. The authors also showed that temporal focus-thinking about the past or future-explained cultural influences on the temporal value asymmetry effect. Specifically, when induced to think about and focus on the future, Chinese valued the future more than the past, just like Euro-Canadians; when induced to think about and focus on the past, Euro-Canadians valued the past more than the future, just like Chinese.

Cultural differences in the representativeness heuristic: expecting a correspondence in magnitude between cause and effect.

Based on previous research on cultural differences in analytic and holistic reasoning, it was hypothesized in these studies that when explaining events, North Americans would be more likely than East Asians to expect causes to correspond in magnitude with those events (i.e., big events stem from big causes and small events stem from small causes). In a series of studies, Canadian and Chinese participants judged the likelihood that high- or low-magnitude events were caused by high- or low-magnitude causes. Overall, Canadians expected events and their causes to correspond in magnitude to a greater degree than did Chinese. Also, Canadians primed to reason holistically expected less cause-effect magnitude correspondence than did those primed to reason analytically.