No description available.

Pressure-performance relationship in sport situations was investigated within a self-regulatory focus framework (regulatory focus theory; Higgins, 1997). To that end, the role of regulatory fit in different ecologically valid handball penalty situations taken in the 2021 World Cup was examined. Competition data available from 102 games was collected; from 743 penalties taken in total, 716 penalties were finally included for analysis (those within the original game time of 60 minutes; handball match consists in two parts of 30 minutes each). A series of univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed; no significant effects were found on performance (goal or save/miss; in points) for neither situational focus (critical and non-critical moment), reward structure (losses [team taking the penalty is behind] and gains [team taking the penalty is ahead or score is tied]), or when the goalkeeper was substituted or not by the defending team. Furthermore, penalty shot placements were gathered to examine ‘safe’ versus ‘risky’ shooting options taken by players when under different situations (critical vs noncritical); it was found that players in general choose ‘safe’ penalty shot options under both situations. Findings are discussed considering pressure performance and regulatory fit frameworks. / Relationen mellan press och prestation i sportsituationer undersöktes inom ett självregulatoriskt fokusramverk; regulatoriskt fokus teorin (Higgins, 1997). Därav studerades rollen av regulatoriskt fit i olika ekologiskt valida handbollsstraffs situationer tagna under världsmästerskapet 2021. Tävlingsdata från 102 matcher samlades in, totalt sköts 743 straffar och 716 straffar var inkluderade för vidare analys: straffarna var tvungna att vara tagna inom ordinarie matchtid (60 minuter, två halvlekar om 30 minuter). Ett flertal univariate och multivariate logistiska regressioner genomfördes och ingen signifikant effekt av situationsfokus (kritiskt och icke kritisk situation), belöningsstruktur (losses [laget ligger under] och gains [laget leder eller lika]) och målvaktsbyte (byte innan straff sköts eller inget byte) på prestation (mål eller miss) hittades. Vidare undersöktes om skottplacering indikerade på om straffskyttarna valde att placera straffarna på ’säkra’ eller ’osäkra’ ställen i olika situationer, denna undersökning visade att spelarna generellt valde att skjuta på ett ’säkert’ ställe oavsett situation.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This study extended previous research by applying Higgins (2007) theory of Regulatory Fit to the context of performance feedback. Participants worked on an in-basket task in two 30 minute segments. Following the first 30 minutes segment, they were given recommendations for improving their performance framed in a manner that either did or did not fit their motivational orientation. Hypotheses predicted that compared to instances of non-fit, conditions of regulatory fit between recommendation frame (Eager vs. Vigilant) and motivational orientation (Promotion vs. Prevention) would have a significantly greater, positive impact on the following three outcomes: 1) Variety and Frequency of Feedback Use, 2) Feedback Recall, and 3) Attitudes Following Feedback. Overall results supported this assertion. Participants in condition of regulatory fit engaged in a significantly greater variety of behaviors and did so more frequently than those assigned to non-fit conditions. And while the effect of regulatory fit on feedback recall was not significant, it did approach significance (p = .07) and produced a pattern of results consistent with the predictions of regulatory fit. Counter to previous research, regulatory fit did not have significant impact on Attitudes Following Feedback in the current study. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed. / Ph. D.

Regulatory focus theory encompasses promotion focus, seeking success and prevention focus, avoiding failure. These mutually exclusive focuses, when matched with the appropriate goal pursuit strategy, promotion with eager and prevention with vigilant, create a state of regulatory fit. This state of regulatory fit leads to different outcomes which the current study has grouped into fit sensitivity and performance. Fit sensitivity is the sensitivity to fit effects with an absence of correctness while performance outcomes are based in correctness. The goal of the current study was to examine both fit sensitivity and performance in the same task to demonstrate a difference in fit sensitivity effects between types of fit while showing equal performance between promotion and prevention fit. An applicant hiring simulation was implemented. 24 applicant profiles for the position of police officer were generated, six with high risk/ variable reward elements meant to align with individuals in a state of promotion fit, six with low-risk/consistent-reward elements meant to align with individuals in a state of prevention fit, and six applicant profiles with a high probability of succeeding and finally six applicant profiles meant to have a low probability of succeeding. Participants rated the applicant profiles on their suitability and recommended 12 applicants to be hired. Initial results did not support the hypotheses, however exploratory analysis did demonstrate fit sensitivity for prevention fit. Additional exploratory analyses are discussed and possible explanations for the lack of results are examined. / Master of Science / Regulatory focus theory includes two types of motivational orientations, promotion focus which centers on seeking success and prevention focus which centers on avoiding failure. If the way an individual’s pursues a goal (goal pursuit strategy) matches his or her regulatory focus orientation then he or she is considered to be in a state of regulatory fit. This state leads to various outcomes different than if an individual is in a state of non-fit. In the current study I have grouped these consequences into two types: fit sensitivity and performance. Essentially fit sensitivity is when the consequences seen do not have a correctness component and may be difference depending on the type of regulatory fit (promotion and prevention). Performance is when there is a correct or incorrect component to the outcome. The goal of the current study was to show that although fit sensitivity outcomes may be different for promotion fit and prevention fit, both fit states can lead to the same performance. With the initial analysis hypotheses were not supported but exploratory analysis did lend some support for prevention fit sensitivity. Discussion includes possible explanations for the lack of fit effects found.

No / During the subprime crisis, the FDIC has shown, once again, laxity in resolving and closing insolvent institutions. Ronn and Verma (1986) call the tolerance level below which a bank closure is triggered the regulatory policy parameter. We derive a model in which we make this parameter stochastic and bank-specific to infer the stock market view of the regulatory capital forbearance value. For 565 U.S. listed banks during 1990 to 2012, the countercyclical forbearance fraction in capital, most substantial in recessions, could represent 17%, on average, of the market valuation of bank equity and could go as high as 100%.

É possível medir a eficiência do Estado? A proposta desta dissertação de mestrado é apresentar a avaliação de impacto regulatório AIR como uma das ferramentas possíveis e existentes para atender a esse desafio exigido pela Constituição Federal a partir da Emenda Constitucional 19/98, tendo como referencial analítico as decisões regulatórias. A AIR é instrumento de controle da atividade regulatória do Estado por meio de procedimento administrativo voltado à análise das decisões regulatórias a serem adotadas ou já adotadas pelos agentes reguladores com base em evidências empíricas, resultando na introdução de mecanismos de legitimação democrática e de responsabilização do regulador. Ela se baseia no uso sistemático de análises dos possíveis custos e benefícios das várias alternativas existentes para atender à(s) finalidade(s) desejada(s) e sinalizada(s) nas políticas públicas setoriais. Fala-se em mecanismos de legitimação democrática e de responsabilização do regulador diante do seu potencial de reduzir o déficit democrático presente no modelo do Estado regulador, em que o agente administrativo não eleito, no exercício de seus poderes, toma decisões que podem gerar impacto significativo aos particulares. Sustenta-se que isso é possível por meio da transparência e da publicidade do processo de tomada de decisão a partir da utilização da AIR pelos agentes reguladores. Esse aspecto leva a outro: a AIR como instrumento de controle. Essa ferramenta também possibilita a redução do risco da agência presente na delegação de poder do principal (Poder Legislativo e o Chefe do Poder Executivo) para o agente (agentes reguladores). A AIR ganha especial importância com o Programa de Fortalecimento da Capacidade Institucional para Gestão em Regulação (instituído pelo Decreto 6.062 de 16 de março de 2007) que tem como objetivo idealizar e implementar essa ferramenta na administração pública federal. / Is it possible to measure State efficiency? This dissertation aims to introduce regulatory impact assessment RIA as an existing possible tool to tackle this challenge assigned by the Federal Constitution in the constitutional amendment 19/98. RIA is an instrument to control the State via an administrative procedure based on the analysis of empirical evidences of regulatory decisions either to be taken or already taken by regulators. As a result, it introduces democratic legitimacy mechanisms and accountability of regulators. Its methodology is based on the systematic use of cost-benefit analysis of proposed alternatives in order to apply a public policy in a regulated sector. The mechanisms for democratic legitimation and accountability of regulators are justified by its potential to reduce the democratic deficit within the regulatory State, in which the non-elected administrative agent, in the exercise of his/hers own powers, makes decisions that can impact individuals. This is due to the transparency and publicity of the decision-making process that derives from the adoption of RIA. Another aspect then arises: RIA as an instrument of control. This tool will enable the reduction of the agency risk characteristic of the power delegation from the principal (Legislative Power and chief of Executive Power) to the agent (regulators). RIA gets more attention with the creation of the governmental program for strengthening the institutional capacity for regulation (Presidential Decree 6.062, March, 16th of 2007), whose scope is to conceptualize and implement such a tool in the federal public administration.

É possível medir a eficiência do Estado? A proposta desta dissertação de mestrado é apresentar a avaliação de impacto regulatório AIR como uma das ferramentas possíveis e existentes para atender a esse desafio exigido pela Constituição Federal a partir da Emenda Constitucional 19/98, tendo como referencial analítico as decisões regulatórias. A AIR é instrumento de controle da atividade regulatória do Estado por meio de procedimento administrativo voltado à análise das decisões regulatórias a serem adotadas ou já adotadas pelos agentes reguladores com base em evidências empíricas, resultando na introdução de mecanismos de legitimação democrática e de responsabilização do regulador. Ela se baseia no uso sistemático de análises dos possíveis custos e benefícios das várias alternativas existentes para atender à(s) finalidade(s) desejada(s) e sinalizada(s) nas políticas públicas setoriais. Fala-se em mecanismos de legitimação democrática e de responsabilização do regulador diante do seu potencial de reduzir o déficit democrático presente no modelo do Estado regulador, em que o agente administrativo não eleito, no exercício de seus poderes, toma decisões que podem gerar impacto significativo aos particulares. Sustenta-se que isso é possível por meio da transparência e da publicidade do processo de tomada de decisão a partir da utilização da AIR pelos agentes reguladores. Esse aspecto leva a outro: a AIR como instrumento de controle. Essa ferramenta também possibilita a redução do risco da agência presente na delegação de poder do principal (Poder Legislativo e o Chefe do Poder Executivo) para o agente (agentes reguladores). A AIR ganha especial importância com o Programa de Fortalecimento da Capacidade Institucional para Gestão em Regulação (instituído pelo Decreto 6.062 de 16 de março de 2007) que tem como objetivo idealizar e implementar essa ferramenta na administração pública federal. / Is it possible to measure State efficiency? This dissertation aims to introduce regulatory impact assessment RIA as an existing possible tool to tackle this challenge assigned by the Federal Constitution in the constitutional amendment 19/98. RIA is an instrument to control the State via an administrative procedure based on the analysis of empirical evidences of regulatory decisions either to be taken or already taken by regulators. As a result, it introduces democratic legitimacy mechanisms and accountability of regulators. Its methodology is based on the systematic use of cost-benefit analysis of proposed alternatives in order to apply a public policy in a regulated sector. The mechanisms for democratic legitimation and accountability of regulators are justified by its potential to reduce the democratic deficit within the regulatory State, in which the non-elected administrative agent, in the exercise of his/hers own powers, makes decisions that can impact individuals. This is due to the transparency and publicity of the decision-making process that derives from the adoption of RIA. Another aspect then arises: RIA as an instrument of control. This tool will enable the reduction of the agency risk characteristic of the power delegation from the principal (Legislative Power and chief of Executive Power) to the agent (regulators). RIA gets more attention with the creation of the governmental program for strengthening the institutional capacity for regulation (Presidential Decree 6.062, March, 16th of 2007), whose scope is to conceptualize and implement such a tool in the federal public administration.