This study explores the role of self-regulation in opportunity recognition by pioneering an investigation of the influence of two antecedent factors: chronic regulatory focus and media on opportunity recognition. 155 students participated in a two-stage experimental design that first measured chronic regulatory focus, and in the second stage primed situational regulatory focus through the use of media stories. Participants then engaged in an opportunity recognition exercise, identifying opportunities to apply the smart phone technology to the South African market. The measured outcome was the number and quality of opportunities identified. Findings did not yield a significant relationship of chronic regulatory focus and opportunity recognition as expected, but however demonstrate that media plays an influence in opportunity recognition. The potential role of motivational individual differences and prior knowledge factors in opportunity recognition highlighted in this study provide a broad array of opportunities for further research to advance the field of entrepreneurship.Copyright / Dissertation (MBA)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS) / unrestricted

This study tested the proposition that daily shifts in prevention focus influence daily shifts in CWB, and that this relationship is moderated by employee prosocial identity. Support was found for these relationships using multilevel modeling in an experience sampling study. Findings suggest that regulatory focus can fluctuate on a daily basis and that this fluctuation can influence CWB

Research examining regulatory focus suggests it is an important predictor for many work outcomes (Gorman et al., 2012; Lanaj, Chang, & Johnson, 2012; Neubert, Carlson, Roberts, Chonko, & Kacmar, 2008; Whitford & Moss, 2009). Theory suggests that fluctuations in in regulatory focus can impact employee outcomes (Koopmann, Lanaj, Boyce, & Campana, 2016), but there is little empirical evidence of this proposition. Moreover, there is little evidence that the influence of fluctuations in regulatory focus on work outcomes are influenced by other employee individual differences. The purpose of the present study was to test the proposition that daily shifts in prevention focus influence daily shifts in CWB, and this relationship is moderated by employee prosocial identity.

We investigated race and gender differences in regulatory focus, which distinguishes between two modes of motivational regulation: promotion and prevention focus. Item response theory was used to examine measurement equivalence/invariance and mean differences across groups were examined. Several items functioned differently across groups, but differences cancelled out at the test-level. Analyses using an undergraduate student sample (N = 1,845) revealed that females were significantly more promotion and prevention focused than males and African Americans were significantly more promotion and prevention focused than Caucasians. Interestingly, both gender and racial minority groups scored higher on regulatory focus indicators than the majority groups. Arguably, unlike minority group members, majority group members would have less of a necessity to prevent failure or to promote their own success. Implications for these motivation regulation differences can be applied to workforce settings in which managers seek to provide equal opportunities for both genders and racial groups.

This study examined the interplay between parenting behaviors and self-regulatory focus in a sample of 320 university freshmen. Considering the theoretical assumptions and cultural differences, it is expected that specific parenting behaviors predict prevention and/or promotion self-regulatory focus. Especially, the dimensions of parental psychological control were expected to predict prevention focus. Participants completed multiple measures of parenting behaviors and self-regulatory focus. Self-regulatory focus was measured using both direct and indirect measures (i.e., value domains) considering the theoretical formulations underlying the indirect measures. The measures of specific parenting behaviors included parental support, behavioral control, psychological control, and overprotection. Results suggested that psychological control mainly predicts prevention focus. Whereas parental blaming and love withdrawal predicted prevention focus, guilt induction predicted promotion focus under certain conditions. Besides, parental overprotection was related with higher levels of both promotion and prevention self-regulatory focuses. As expected, parental behavioral control was associated with lower levels of prevention focus and parental support was associated with higher levels of promotion focus. Examination of the relationships between both types of self-regulatory focuses and the subscales of indirect measure comprised of value domains yielded results contradictory to the original formulations. For instance, contrary to the theoretical expectations, value domain of security was strongly associated with promotion focus rather than prevention focus, signifying a potential cultural difference. Finally, results have suggested that direct and indirect measures of self-regulatory focuses do not consistently overlap and they may measure different constructs. Results were discussed on the basis of the previous work in this area and further exploration was suggested to clarify the link between direct and indirect measures of self-regulatory focus and their links to parenting behaviors.

The purpose of this research was to integrate the areas of leadership and motivation by examining how leaders' behaviors affect their followers' regulatory foci. Specifically, a separate laboratory experiment and field survey were conducted to determine whether leader transformational and transactional behaviors shape followers' work-based promotion and prevention regulatory foci, which in turn affect followers' outcomes at work. Overall, there was limited evidence that inspirational motivation and contingent reward leader behaviors were related to follower work-based regulatory focus, and work-based regulatory focus was related to several work-related outcomes. The moderating role of chronic regulatory focus on the relationship between leader behaviors and work-based regulatory focus as well as the mediating role of work-based regulatory focus between leader behaviors and work-based outcomes were also explored. Implications and future research are discussed.

本論文は，個人の目標志向性を2種類—予防焦点 (prevention focus) と促進焦点 (promotion focus)—に大別する制御焦点理論 (Regulatory focus theory) を基礎に，制御焦点の差異と課題に対する粘り強さの関係性について明らかにすることを目的とした。研究1から研究6までの各研究をとおして制御焦点理論に関する先行研究の追試可能性，制御焦点理論の視座に立って研究を行うことの意義，そして制御焦点の差異が創造性課題や自由再生課題に対する粘り強さに与える影響について検討を行った。 / 博士(心理学) / Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology / 同志社大学 / Doshisha University

進入21世紀，公司對履行企業社會責任的概念越來越重視。然而，先前的研究較少注重於何種因素驅使公司朝永續企業發展，本研究從心理學調節焦點的角度探討公司執行長的心理特質是否對社會責任的履行有重要影響，而調節焦點把一般人區分為促進焦點與防禦焦點。 本文依據S&P1500中4714個樣本觀察值，利用各公司致股東報告書裡的關鍵字衡量樣本公司執行長的調節焦點強度。實證結果發現，擁有高促進焦點的執行長與企業社會責任的缺失有負向關係，而高防禦焦點的執行長則會降低公司社會責任的優勢並產生較多缺失。這些結果代表不同心理特質的執行長，由於對達成目標的方式也不同，進而影響到實際公司的策略結果。本研究結果對公司董事會、提名委員會及其他利關係人在選任高階經理人以推行企業社會責任時具有重要意涵。