Dissertation (Ph.D.)--Auburn University, 2009. / Abstract. Includes bibliographic records (p.44-49).

No description available.

Introduction: The study of self-talk and its influence on sport performance is extensive. Lately, the study of pressure performance within a regulatory fit framework has gained momentum. However, little research has investigated the influence regulatory fit may have on performance and, more precisely, how the use of self-talk with such framework may have on performance under pressure. Objective: To examine whether female football players with self-talk training within a regulatory fit framework produce better performances in a passing football task when under perceived pressure compared to a control group. Methods: In a pre– post-test, independent group study design, 33 female football players (M = 19.52, SD = 2.82 years) completed a passing drill carried out in two separate conditions, that is under no pressure and under pressure. Participants also completed a series of psychological measures that are relevant in the study of the performance–pressure relationship (i.e., affect, anxiety, self-confidence, and mental effort). Results: Performance under pressure was protected from deterioration in the experimental group. The experimental group also showed lower levels of negative emotions and higher self-confidence. Conclusion: Findings suggests that self-talk within a regulatory fit framework improves footballing performance under pressure and could be considered as a self-talk strategy beneficial to performance under pressure. / Introduktion: Studerandet av self-talk och dess inverkan på sportprestationer är omfattande. På senare tid, har studerandet av prestation under press inom ett regulatory fit ramverk tagit fart. Dock har begränsat med forskning undersökt inverkan regulatory fit kan ha på prestation och mer exakt, hur användandet av self-talk med ett sådant ramverk kan ha på prestation under press. Syfte: Att undersöka om kvinnliga fotbollsspelare med self-talk träning inom ett regulatory fit ramverk producerar bättre prestationer i en passningsövning under upplevd press jämfört med en kontrollgrupp. Metod: I en för- och eftertest, oberoende gruppstudiedesign genomförde 33 kvinnliga fotbollsspelare (M = 19.52, SD = 2.82 år) en passningsövning under två separata förhållanden, det vill säga under ingen press och under press. Deltagarna genomförde också en rad psykologiska mätningar som är relevanta i studerandet av relationen prestation-press (d.v.s. affekt, ångest, självförtroende och mental ansträngning). Resultat: Prestation under press skyddades från försämring i experimentgruppen. Experimentgruppen visade också lägre nivåer av negativa känslor och högre självförtroende. Slutsats: Resultaten tyder på att self-talk inom ett regulatory fit ramverk förbättrar fotbollsprestation under press och kan betraktas som en self-talk strategi som är fördelaktig för prestation under press.

A proposta deste trabalho é implementar um conjunto de elementos do diálogo a decorrer entre dois agentes humanos. As anáforas pronominais e certos pronomes déiticos (eu, você, sua, seu, meu, minha), que eventualmente surgirem durante o diálogo, são resolvidas. Basicamente, este trabalho está dividido em quatro partes: 1. Estudo introdutório da Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) [KAM88, KAM90]. A DRT é um formalismo para a representação do discurso que utiliza modelos na avaliação semântica das estruturas representacionais. Neste estudo são considerados somente os aspectos representacionais, dando enfoque à representação de sentenças simples. 2. Um estudo baseado em [HIR81, CAR87] sobre: tipos de ambigüidades, o que são anáforas, tipos de anáforas etc, visa fornecer ao leitor um conhecimento mínimo sobre o aspecto lingüístico do tratamento das anáforas. Dentro do estudo realizado sobre anáforas destacam-se os seguintes tipos: coespecificação pessoal e colocação em coesão léxica, que são os tipos previstos na implementação. Estes dois tipos de anáforas são enquadrados nos seguintes grupos: coespecificação pessoal no grupo das anáforas pronominais e colocação em coesão léxica no grupo das anáforas nominais. 3. Considerando que a DRT somente representa o discurso, sem contudo resolver as anafóras que surgem no discurso, incorporou-se a Teoria do Foco [SID79, COR92] como ferramenta para a resolução das anáforas pronominais. A Teoria do Foco trabalha com as informações temáticas das sentenças, de maneira a reduzir o universo dos possíveis antecedentes para uma anáfora e prover um conjunto de regras que permita um caminhamento inteligente, dentro deste universo. O algoritmo de focalização aqui utilizado e o proposto por Sophie Cormack [COR92], que foi por sua vez baseado no algoritmo original de Candace Sidner [SID79]. 4. E por último a implementação, que foi realizada em C-Prolog [PER87], onde as principais funções são: (a) Um gerador de DRSs. (b) Algoritmo de focalização. (c) Integração do algoritmo de focalização e do gerador de DRSs. Descrevendo de maneira geral o funcionamento da implementação: as falas (conjunto de sentenças) de cada interlocutor são lidas através do teclado, as sentenças de cada fala são analisadas individualmente pelo analisador sintático, que gera uma árvore de derivação sintática. A árvore gerada é então repassada ao gerador de DRSs, que irá reduzi-la a referentes e condições. Eventualmente, se surgirem anáforas pronominais, é chamado o algoritmo de focalização. Caso surjam pronomes deíticos a resolução é realizada pelo gerador de DRSs. / The proposal of this work is to implement a set of dialog elements expressed by two human agents. The pronominal anaphora and some deixis pronoums (in portuguese: I, you, your, my) that eventually appear during the dialog are resolved. Basically, this work is divided in four parts: 1. An introdutory study of the Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) [KAM88, KAM90]. The DRT is a formalism for discourse representation that uses models for semantic evaluation of the representation structures. This study considers only the representational aspects, looking for single sentences. 2. A study based on [HIR81, CAR87] about: some kinds of ambiguity, what anaphora are, kinds of anaphora etc. This study intends to give the reader the minimal knowledge about the linguistic aspects of anaphora. In this study, we point out two types of anaphora: personal coespecification and lexical placement, this two were the ones that we used in the system. Those two types are in the following groups: personal coespecification in the pronominal anaphora and lexical placement in the nominal anaphora. 3. Considering that DRT only represent the discourse without resolving the anaphora, we used the Focus Theory [SID79, COR92] as a tool for pronominal anaphora resolution. The Focus Theory works on the thematic informations of the sentences. It reduces the universe of the possible antecedents and give some rules to walk throught this universe. We used the focalization algorithm presented by Sophie Cormack [COR92] which is based on the original version of Candace Sidner [SID79]. 4. Finally, the system was implemented in C-Prolog [PER87], and its main functions are: (a) a DRS generator, (b) a focalization algorithm, (c) the integration of the focalization algorithm and the DRS generator. Basically, what the system does is: the discourse of the agent is read in the keyboard, and each sentence of the discourse is analised by the sintatic analyser, generating a parsing tree. Then the DRS generator reduces this tree into referents and DRS-conditions. Eventually, the focalization algorithm will be called when the sentence contain some pronominal anaphora. The deixis resolution is made by the DRS-generator.

No description available.

Theories of self-regulation have not adequately specified the psychological events and processes that cause an emotional response following acute failure to be prolonged and intensified. Research on repetitive thought suggests that engaging maladaptive rumination can prolong and intensify existing mood states. However, theories of rumination have not incorporated the implications of failing to attain different types of desired end states for rumination, that is failing to attain goals associated with nurturance and advancement (i.e., promotion goals) versus goals associated with safety and security (i.e., prevention goals). In this investigation, 78 graduate and professional students participated in a within-subjects experimental design testing the overall hypothesis that exposure to past failures to attain promotion and prevention goals will promote maladaptive rumination on dejection- and agitation-related emotions, respectively. Furthermore, under conditions of high negative affect engaging in maladaptive rumination will cause the specific type of negative affect experienced to be intensified and prolonged. Study findings did not result in clear support for the proposed model in the prevention condition. The prevention manipulation failed to induce agitation-related emotions associated with anxiety and instead appeared to induce emotions associated with anger. The prevention condition also did not result in unique changes in quiescence. However, as predicted decreases in quiescence uniquely predicted increased engagement in maladaptive rumination. In this condition, engagement in rumination did not interact with low levels of quiescence to prolong and further decrease quiescence. Stronger support was found for the proposed model in the promotion condition. Individuals with chronic promotion failure experienced significant increases in dejection following exposure to past promotion failures. The level of dejection experienced significantly predicted engaging in greater maladaptive rumination. Furthermore, engaging in maladaptive rumination in the presence of high levels of dejection intensified and prolonged of the experience of dejection-related emotions. Overall, the results suggest that self-regulatory cognition, the level of affect that results, and variability in the tendency to engage in maladaptive rumination all play a significant role in determining a person's cognitive and emotional experiences in the ongoing process of self-regulation. / Dissertation

<p>Theories of self-regulation address the continuous process in which individuals compare their behavior to salient goals or standards. Two well-known theories of self-regulation, self-discrepancy theory (SDT) and regulatory focus theory (RFT), each make distinctions regarding the types of standards and goals in reference to which individuals self-regulate. Authenticity--the idea of being one's true self--has the potential to influence the kinds of goals or standards that individuals come to possess and may have implications for understanding the outcomes of self-regulatory processes. This research links the construct of authenticity with SDT and RFT, emphasizing how individual differences in authenticity could influence the motivational and affective consequences of self-regulation predicted within each theory. Individual differences in authenticity were expected to influence the nature of the goals and standards that individuals hold, as well as the acute and chronic affective consequences of discrepancies between the actual self and the ideal and ought self-guides respectively. Specifically, individual differences in authenticity were expected to predict magnitude of actual:ideal and actual:ought self-discrepancy as well as the intensity of distress that individuals report (acutely as well as chronically) in association with self-discrepancies. More importantly, self-discrepancies were expected to be less prevalent among individuals high in authenticity, but more distressing among high-authenticity individuals than among individuals with lower levels of authenticity. The results of this research suggest that individual differences in authentic behavior do have a direct influence on both acute and chronic affect. Authenticity was found to interact with self-discrepancies in predicting chronic affect. Authenticity has a unique role in the process of self-regulation, distinct from the contributions of SDT and RFT.</p> / Dissertation

A proposta deste trabalho é implementar um conjunto de elementos do diálogo a decorrer entre dois agentes humanos. As anáforas pronominais e certos pronomes déiticos (eu, você, sua, seu, meu, minha), que eventualmente surgirem durante o diálogo, são resolvidas. Basicamente, este trabalho está dividido em quatro partes: 1. Estudo introdutório da Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) [KAM88, KAM90]. A DRT é um formalismo para a representação do discurso que utiliza modelos na avaliação semântica das estruturas representacionais. Neste estudo são considerados somente os aspectos representacionais, dando enfoque à representação de sentenças simples. 2. Um estudo baseado em [HIR81, CAR87] sobre: tipos de ambigüidades, o que são anáforas, tipos de anáforas etc, visa fornecer ao leitor um conhecimento mínimo sobre o aspecto lingüístico do tratamento das anáforas. Dentro do estudo realizado sobre anáforas destacam-se os seguintes tipos: coespecificação pessoal e colocação em coesão léxica, que são os tipos previstos na implementação. Estes dois tipos de anáforas são enquadrados nos seguintes grupos: coespecificação pessoal no grupo das anáforas pronominais e colocação em coesão léxica no grupo das anáforas nominais. 3. Considerando que a DRT somente representa o discurso, sem contudo resolver as anafóras que surgem no discurso, incorporou-se a Teoria do Foco [SID79, COR92] como ferramenta para a resolução das anáforas pronominais. A Teoria do Foco trabalha com as informações temáticas das sentenças, de maneira a reduzir o universo dos possíveis antecedentes para uma anáfora e prover um conjunto de regras que permita um caminhamento inteligente, dentro deste universo. O algoritmo de focalização aqui utilizado e o proposto por Sophie Cormack [COR92], que foi por sua vez baseado no algoritmo original de Candace Sidner [SID79]. 4. E por último a implementação, que foi realizada em C-Prolog [PER87], onde as principais funções são: (a) Um gerador de DRSs. (b) Algoritmo de focalização. (c) Integração do algoritmo de focalização e do gerador de DRSs. Descrevendo de maneira geral o funcionamento da implementação: as falas (conjunto de sentenças) de cada interlocutor são lidas através do teclado, as sentenças de cada fala são analisadas individualmente pelo analisador sintático, que gera uma árvore de derivação sintática. A árvore gerada é então repassada ao gerador de DRSs, que irá reduzi-la a referentes e condições. Eventualmente, se surgirem anáforas pronominais, é chamado o algoritmo de focalização. Caso surjam pronomes deíticos a resolução é realizada pelo gerador de DRSs. / The proposal of this work is to implement a set of dialog elements expressed by two human agents. The pronominal anaphora and some deixis pronoums (in portuguese: I, you, your, my) that eventually appear during the dialog are resolved. Basically, this work is divided in four parts: 1. An introdutory study of the Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) [KAM88, KAM90]. The DRT is a formalism for discourse representation that uses models for semantic evaluation of the representation structures. This study considers only the representational aspects, looking for single sentences. 2. A study based on [HIR81, CAR87] about: some kinds of ambiguity, what anaphora are, kinds of anaphora etc. This study intends to give the reader the minimal knowledge about the linguistic aspects of anaphora. In this study, we point out two types of anaphora: personal coespecification and lexical placement, this two were the ones that we used in the system. Those two types are in the following groups: personal coespecification in the pronominal anaphora and lexical placement in the nominal anaphora. 3. Considering that DRT only represent the discourse without resolving the anaphora, we used the Focus Theory [SID79, COR92] as a tool for pronominal anaphora resolution. The Focus Theory works on the thematic informations of the sentences. It reduces the universe of the possible antecedents and give some rules to walk throught this universe. We used the focalization algorithm presented by Sophie Cormack [COR92] which is based on the original version of Candace Sidner [SID79]. 4. Finally, the system was implemented in C-Prolog [PER87], and its main functions are: (a) a DRS generator, (b) a focalization algorithm, (c) the integration of the focalization algorithm and the DRS generator. Basically, what the system does is: the discourse of the agent is read in the keyboard, and each sentence of the discourse is analised by the sintatic analyser, generating a parsing tree. Then the DRS generator reduces this tree into referents and DRS-conditions. Eventually, the focalization algorithm will be called when the sentence contain some pronominal anaphora. The deixis resolution is made by the DRS-generator.

A proposta deste trabalho é implementar um conjunto de elementos do diálogo a decorrer entre dois agentes humanos. As anáforas pronominais e certos pronomes déiticos (eu, você, sua, seu, meu, minha), que eventualmente surgirem durante o diálogo, são resolvidas. Basicamente, este trabalho está dividido em quatro partes: 1. Estudo introdutório da Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) [KAM88, KAM90]. A DRT é um formalismo para a representação do discurso que utiliza modelos na avaliação semântica das estruturas representacionais. Neste estudo são considerados somente os aspectos representacionais, dando enfoque à representação de sentenças simples. 2. Um estudo baseado em [HIR81, CAR87] sobre: tipos de ambigüidades, o que são anáforas, tipos de anáforas etc, visa fornecer ao leitor um conhecimento mínimo sobre o aspecto lingüístico do tratamento das anáforas. Dentro do estudo realizado sobre anáforas destacam-se os seguintes tipos: coespecificação pessoal e colocação em coesão léxica, que são os tipos previstos na implementação. Estes dois tipos de anáforas são enquadrados nos seguintes grupos: coespecificação pessoal no grupo das anáforas pronominais e colocação em coesão léxica no grupo das anáforas nominais. 3. Considerando que a DRT somente representa o discurso, sem contudo resolver as anafóras que surgem no discurso, incorporou-se a Teoria do Foco [SID79, COR92] como ferramenta para a resolução das anáforas pronominais. A Teoria do Foco trabalha com as informações temáticas das sentenças, de maneira a reduzir o universo dos possíveis antecedentes para uma anáfora e prover um conjunto de regras que permita um caminhamento inteligente, dentro deste universo. O algoritmo de focalização aqui utilizado e o proposto por Sophie Cormack [COR92], que foi por sua vez baseado no algoritmo original de Candace Sidner [SID79]. 4. E por último a implementação, que foi realizada em C-Prolog [PER87], onde as principais funções são: (a) Um gerador de DRSs. (b) Algoritmo de focalização. (c) Integração do algoritmo de focalização e do gerador de DRSs. Descrevendo de maneira geral o funcionamento da implementação: as falas (conjunto de sentenças) de cada interlocutor são lidas através do teclado, as sentenças de cada fala são analisadas individualmente pelo analisador sintático, que gera uma árvore de derivação sintática. A árvore gerada é então repassada ao gerador de DRSs, que irá reduzi-la a referentes e condições. Eventualmente, se surgirem anáforas pronominais, é chamado o algoritmo de focalização. Caso surjam pronomes deíticos a resolução é realizada pelo gerador de DRSs. / The proposal of this work is to implement a set of dialog elements expressed by two human agents. The pronominal anaphora and some deixis pronoums (in portuguese: I, you, your, my) that eventually appear during the dialog are resolved. Basically, this work is divided in four parts: 1. An introdutory study of the Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) [KAM88, KAM90]. The DRT is a formalism for discourse representation that uses models for semantic evaluation of the representation structures. This study considers only the representational aspects, looking for single sentences. 2. A study based on [HIR81, CAR87] about: some kinds of ambiguity, what anaphora are, kinds of anaphora etc. This study intends to give the reader the minimal knowledge about the linguistic aspects of anaphora. In this study, we point out two types of anaphora: personal coespecification and lexical placement, this two were the ones that we used in the system. Those two types are in the following groups: personal coespecification in the pronominal anaphora and lexical placement in the nominal anaphora. 3. Considering that DRT only represent the discourse without resolving the anaphora, we used the Focus Theory [SID79, COR92] as a tool for pronominal anaphora resolution. The Focus Theory works on the thematic informations of the sentences. It reduces the universe of the possible antecedents and give some rules to walk throught this universe. We used the focalization algorithm presented by Sophie Cormack [COR92] which is based on the original version of Candace Sidner [SID79]. 4. Finally, the system was implemented in C-Prolog [PER87], and its main functions are: (a) a DRS generator, (b) a focalization algorithm, (c) the integration of the focalization algorithm and the DRS generator. Basically, what the system does is: the discourse of the agent is read in the keyboard, and each sentence of the discourse is analised by the sintatic analyser, generating a parsing tree. Then the DRS generator reduces this tree into referents and DRS-conditions. Eventually, the focalization algorithm will be called when the sentence contain some pronominal anaphora. The deixis resolution is made by the DRS-generator.

Team psychological safety fosters interpersonal risk-taking and constructive debate. Yet, how psychological safety develops in diverse teams needs to be explained. I apply collective regulatory lenses to shed light on how collective prevention focus (status quo) and collective promotion focus (growth) uniquely affect team psychological safety. I believe promotion focus makes it easier to attain psychological safety, while prevention focus makes it harder. Under a collective promotion lens, teams seek growth. Under a collective prevention lens, teams desire protection and not making things any worse. A pilot study of 76 students in 17 student project teams provided initial support for individual relationships in my model. In Study 2, an experiment, I manipulated team regulatory foci in three tasks (building towers, selling a house, negotiating a salary). I did not find significant mean group differences in psychological safety between promotion (n = 17) and prevention (n = 15) teams; yet, promotion teams experienced greater team viability in the final activity. In Study 3, I employed an experimental vignette method that suggested leadership conditions (e.g., leader humility vs transactional leadership) created differences in regulatory foci and subsequent differences in psychological safety with 343 working professionals in 7 scenarios.