Psychology and Neuroscience Faculty Database
Psychology and Neuroscience
Arts & Sciences
Duke University

 HOME > Arts & Sciences > pn > Faculty    Search Help Login pdf version printable version 

Publications of James Shah    :chronological  alphabetical  combined listing:

%% Journal Articles   
@article{fds340677,
   Author = {P. Leander and M. VanDellen and J. Rachl and J. Shah and T. Chartrand and G. Fitzsimons},
   Title = {Is Freedom Contagious? On Reactance Motivation and
             Sensitivity to Deviant Peers.},
   Journal = {Motivation Science},
   Volume = {2},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {256-267},
   Year = {2016},
   Key = {fds340677}
}

@article{fds253845,
   Author = {vanDellen, MR and Shah, JY and Leander, NP and Delose, JE and Bornstein,
             JX},
   Title = {In good company: managing interpersonal resources that
             support self-regulation.},
   Journal = {Personality & social psychology bulletin},
   Volume = {41},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {869-882},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {June},
   ISSN = {0146-1672},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167215580778},
   Abstract = {Effective self-regulation could involve not only managing
             internal resources for goal pursuit but also the
             often-fleeting interpersonal resources that can support goal
             attainment. In five studies, we test whether people who are
             effective self-regulators tend to position themselves in
             social environments that best afford self-regulatory
             success. Results indicated individual differences in
             self-regulatory effectiveness predict stronger preferences
             to spend time with, collaborate with, and be informed by
             others who were (a) high in self-control or self-regulation
             themselves or (b) instrumental to one's goal pursuit. These
             preferences for supportive social environments appeared to
             be both targeted and strategic. Together, the findings
             suggest that effective self-regulation may involve
             positioning oneself in social environments that support goal
             pursuit and increase one's chances of success.},
   Doi = {10.1177/0146167215580778},
   Key = {fds253845}
}

@article{fds253846,
   Author = {Leander, NP and Shah, JY and Sanders, S},
   Title = {Indifferent reactions: regulatory responses to the apathy of
             others.},
   Journal = {Journal of personality and social psychology},
   Volume = {107},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {229-247},
   Year = {2014},
   Month = {August},
   ISSN = {0022-3514},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037073},
   Abstract = {How do people react to indifference when they see it in
             others? In 5 studies we examined how people may respond to
             it as a cue to disengage when they lack sufficient
             commitment to a goal or task themselves. Across the studies,
             participants were either exposed to cues implying an absence
             of motivation or not, after which their own goal-directed
             motivation was assessed. Results indicated that participants
             were likely to behaviorally assimilate indifference when it
             was directed toward a relevant goal (Studies 1 and 3) and
             they were not very committed to the goal (Studies 2a-b, 3,
             5). Corresponding self-report data suggested that exposure
             to indifference generally discouraged and obstructed goal
             pursuit in the participants' minds (Studies 4-5). However,
             participants overcame the indifference when their commitment
             to the goal was chronically high or experimentally
             heightened, with the corresponding self-report data
             suggesting a process of increased monitoring and
             counteraction. In these studies, we also distinguished goal
             commitment from goal accessibility: Whereas a manipulation
             of goal commitment seemed to facilitate overcoming
             indifference (Study 5), a manipulation of goal accessibility
             did not (Study 4). In sum, a potentially insidious feature
             of indifference may be that people assimilate it not because
             they want to but because it exploits their preexisting
             doubts about the goal or their general openness to
             disengaging from it.},
   Doi = {10.1037/a0037073},
   Key = {fds253846}
}

@article{fds253847,
   Author = {Sassenberg, K and Brazy, PC and Jonas, KJ and Shah,
             JY},
   Title = {When gender fits self-regulatory preferences: The impact of
             regulatory fit on gender-based ingroup favoritism},
   Journal = {Social Psychology},
   Volume = {44},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {4-15},
   Publisher = {Hogrefe Publishing Group},
   Year = {2013},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {1864-9335},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000095},
   Abstract = {Females are perceived to have less power than males. These
             differences in perceived power might render different
             self-regulatory strategies appropriate: Women should (as
             members of other low-power groups) care about security,
             whereas men should (as members of other high-power groups)
             strive for accomplishment. These regulatory implications of
             gender provide the basis for regulatory fit between
             individuals' gender and their regulatory focus. Higher fit
             should lead to stronger gender-based ingroup favoritism:
             Prevention- focused females and promotion-focused males were
             expected to show more ingroup favoritism than both sexes in
             the respective other regulatory focus. According to the
             regulatory fit hypothesis, this effect should occur for
             evaluative- but not for stereotype-based ingroup favoritism.
             Three studies supported these hypotheses. © 2013 Hogrefe
             Publishing.},
   Doi = {10.1027/1864-9335/a000095},
   Key = {fds253847}
}

@article{fds253854,
   Author = {Leander, NL and Shah, JY},
   Title = {Indifferent Reactions: Regulatory Responses to the Apathy of
             Others. Invited Revision},
   Journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
   Year = {2012},
   Key = {fds253854}
}

@article{fds253855,
   Author = {Leander, NL and Shah, JY},
   Title = {For whom the goals loom: Context-driven goal
             contagion.},
   Journal = {Social Cognition},
   Volume = {31},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {187-200},
   Publisher = {Guilford Publications},
   Year = {2012},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.2013.31.2.187},
   Abstract = {Goal contagion is a process in which perceivers
             inadvertently "catch" goals inferred from others' behavior;
             yet, social perception is often driven by the broader
             contexts surrounding others-and these contexts may suffice
             to drive goal inferences and contagion on their own. In
             Study 1, context-driven goal contagion occurred merely from
             perceiving that a peer was facing an immediate academic
             deadline as opposed to a distant (or no) deadline. In Study
             2, this process was moderated by the potential selfrelevance
             of the peer's situational context. In Study 3a,
             context-driven goal contagion caused changes in anagram task
             behavior; in Study 3b, it caused changes in GRE test
             performance consistent with participants' GPAs. Note that
             these effects occurred both in the absence of any behavioral
             cues and when behavioral cues were held constant.
             Implications for the situated nature of goal contagion are
             discussed. © 2013 Guilford Publications,
             Inc.},
   Doi = {10.1521/soco.2013.31.2.187},
   Key = {fds253855}
}

@article{fds253856,
   Author = {VanDellen, MR and Shah, JY and Leander, NP},
   Title = {Making it Easier on Yourself: Sensitivity to External
             Support for Self-regulation},
   Journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
   Year = {2012},
   Key = {fds253856}
}

@article{fds253853,
   Author = {Leander, NP and Shah, JY and Chartrand, TL},
   Title = {The object of my protection: Shielding fundamental motives
             from the implicit motivational influence of
             others},
   Journal = {Journal of Experimental Social Psychology},
   Volume = {47},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {1078-1087},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Editor = {Elsevier},
   Year = {2011},
   Month = {November},
   ISSN = {0022-1031},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.04.016},
   Keywords = {Goal Inhibition • Contagion • Self-regulation
             • Social influence},
   Abstract = {Goal shielding theory suggests that one's focal pursuits
             automatically inhibit the activation of interfering goals
             (Shah, Friedman, & Kruglanski, 2002); however, it is not
             entirely clear how individuals come to identify what
             constitutes "interfering". Three studies examine how this
             identification process may be guided by fundamental social
             motives that individuals possess, particularly in social
             situations wherein goals are primed through mere exposure to
             others' goal-directed behavior ("goal contagion", Aarts,
             Gollwitzer, & Hassin, 2004). Participants' fundamental
             motives for positive self-regard (Study 1), autonomy (Study
             2), and distinctiveness (Study 3) were either manipulated or
             measured and participants read scenarios that manipulated
             the goal-directed behavior of a target other. Results
             indicated that participants inhibited the activation of
             goals being primed by others when the implicit influence
             interfered with their fundamental motives in some way. These
             findings suggest that fundamental motives can guide whether
             individuals will catch goals from others or shield
             themselves from such influences. © 2011 Elsevier
             Inc.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.jesp.2011.04.016},
   Key = {fds253853}
}

@article{fds253865,
   Author = {Leander, NP and Shah, JY and Chartrand, TL and Fitzsimons,
             GJ},
   Title = {Contempt under pressures: How reactance motivation shapes
             indulging in temptations},
   Journal = {Journal of Consumer Research},
   Year = {2010},
   Key = {fds253865}
}

@article{fds253866,
   Author = {Leander, NP and Shah, JY and Chartrand, TL},
   Title = {Up close and threatening: Regulatory resistance to the
             motivational influence of others},
   Journal = {Journal of Experimental Social Psychology},
   Year = {2010},
   Key = {fds253866}
}

@article{fitzsimons,
   Author = {Fitzsimons, GM and Shah, JY},
   Title = {Confusing one instrumental other for another: goal effects
             on social categorization.},
   Journal = {Psychological science},
   Volume = {20},
   Number = {12},
   Pages = {1468-1472},
   Publisher = {SAGE Publications},
   Year = {2009},
   Month = {December},
   ISSN = {0956-7976},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02475.x},
   Abstract = {How do everyday goals shape the way people categorize others
             in the social environment? Research on social categorization
             has emphasized the role of feature-based categories such as
             race and gender, showing that people rely on such categories
             when perceiving and remembering others. We tested the
             hypothesis that social perception may depend on a new type
             of category--what we call "goal instrumentality," or the
             extent to which others are useful for an active goal. We
             demonstrate that people make more memory errors within the
             categories of "instrumental" and "noninstrumental," and
             fewer between-category errors, when a goal has been subtly
             activated. We also demonstrate that people perceive others
             within the categories of "instrumental" and
             "noninstrumental" to be more similar, and others from the
             two different categories to be less similar, following
             subliminal goal activation. We discuss implications for the
             understanding of social categorization and the influence of
             goals on social cognition.},
   Doi = {10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02475.x},
   Key = {fitzsimons}
}

@article{pontus,
   Author = {Pontus Leander and N and Shah, JY and Chartrand, TL},
   Title = {Moments of weakness: the implicit context dependencies of
             temptations.},
   Journal = {Personality & social psychology bulletin},
   Volume = {35},
   Number = {7},
   Pages = {853-866},
   Publisher = {SAGE Publications},
   Year = {2009},
   Month = {July},
   ISSN = {0146-1672},
   url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19386767},
   Abstract = {The implicit appeal of temptations may vary by the social
             and self-regulatory contexts in which they are encountered.
             In each of four studies, participants were subliminally
             primed with the name of someone associated with either drug
             use or drug abstinence, after which their own motives toward
             drug use were assessed. Results indicate that the appeal of
             this temptation often depended on participants' chronicity
             of indulgence (Study 1), relationship closeness with the
             tempter (Study 2), self-regulatory effectiveness (Study 3),
             and goal disengagement tendencies (Study 4). Although the
             influence of tempters may be automatic, it is also a dynamic
             process and these findings suggest that the appeal of
             temptations varies both situationally and
             motivationally.},
   Doi = {10.1177/0146167209334784},
   Key = {pontus}
}

@article{fitzsimons2008goal,
   Author = {Fitzsimons, GM and Shah, JY},
   Title = {How goal instrumentality shapes relationship
             evaluations.},
   Journal = {Journal of personality and social psychology},
   Volume = {95},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {319-337},
   Publisher = {Elsevier},
   Year = {2008},
   Month = {August},
   ISSN = {0022-3514},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.319},
   Abstract = {Findings from 6 experiments support the hypothesis that
             relationship evaluations and behavioral tendencies are goal
             dependent, reflecting the instrumentality of significant
             others for the self's progress toward currently active
             goals. Experiments 1 and 3 found that active goals can
             automatically bring to mind significant others who are
             instrumental for the activated goal, heightening their
             accessibility relative to noninstrumental others.
             Experiments 2-5 found that active goals cause individuals to
             evaluate instrumental others more positively, draw closer to
             them, and approach them more readily, compared with
             noninstrumental others. Experiment 6 found that people who
             engage in goal-dependent interpersonal evaluations are more
             successful, receiving higher grades. Implications for
             understanding the social nature of self-regulation and the
             impact of personal goals on interpersonal relationships are
             discussed.},
   Doi = {10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.319},
   Key = {fitzsimons2008goal}
}

@article{haeffel2008hopelessness,
   Author = {Haeffel, GJ and Abramson, LY and Brazy, PC and Shah,
             JY},
   Title = {Hopelessness theory and the approach system: Cognitive
             vulnerability predicts decreases in goal-directed
             behavior},
   Journal = {Cognitive Therapy and Research},
   Volume = {32},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {281-290},
   Publisher = {Springer Nature},
   Year = {2008},
   Month = {April},
   ISSN = {0147-5916},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10608-007-9160-z},
   Abstract = {The study tested an integration of the hopelessness theory
             of depression (Abramson et al. 1989) and Davidson's (1994)
             approach/withdrawal theory of depression in a sample of
             undergraduates (N = 248). According to this integrated
             theory (Abramson et al. 2002), cognitive vulnerability to
             depression interacts with stress to produce hopelessness,
             which signals a shut-down of the approach system. A
             shut-down of the approach system is reflected by decreases
             in goal-directed behavior, and in turn, the symptoms of
             depression. The study tested the hypothesized etiological
             chain of cognitive vulnerability-stress, hopelessness,
             goal-directed behavior, and depressive symptoms. Consistent
             with hypotheses, cognitive vulnerability interacted with
             stress to predict changes in goal-directed behavior.
             Importantly, the relationship between the cognitive
             vulnerability-stress interaction and goal-directed behavior
             was mediated by hopelessness. Participants who experienced a
             decrease in goal-directed behavior had higher levels of
             depressive symptoms than those who did not experience a
             decrease in goal-directed behavior. © 2007 Springer
             Science+Business Media, LLC.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s10608-007-9160-z},
   Key = {haeffel2008hopelessness}
}

@article{haeffel2007explicit,
   Author = {Haeffel, GJ and Abramson, LY and Brazy, PC and Shah, JY and Teachman,
             BA and Nosek, BA},
   Title = {Explicit and implicit cognition: a preliminary test of a
             dual-process theory of cognitive vulnerability to
             depression.},
   Journal = {Behaviour research and therapy},
   Volume = {45},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {1155-1167},
   Publisher = {Elsevier},
   Year = {2007},
   Month = {June},
   ISSN = {0005-7967},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2006.09.003},
   Abstract = {Two studies were conducted to test a dual-process theory of
             cognitive vulnerability to depression. According to this
             theory, implicit and explicit cognitive processes have
             differential effects on depressive reactions to stressful
             life events. Implicit processes are hypothesized to be
             critical in determining an individual's immediate affective
             reaction to stress whereas explicit cognitions are thought
             to be more involved in long-term depressive reactions.
             Consistent with hypotheses, the results of study 1
             (cross-sectional; N=237) showed that implicit, but not
             explicit, cognitions predicted immediate affective reactions
             to a lab stressor. Study 2 (longitudinal; N=251) also
             supported the dual-process model of cognitive vulnerability
             to depression. Results showed that both the implicit and
             explicit measures interacted with life stress to predict
             prospective changes in depressive symptoms, respectively.
             However, when both implicit and explicit predictors were
             entered into a regression equation simultaneously, only the
             explicit measure interacted with stress to remain a unique
             predictor of depressive symptoms over the five-week
             prospective interval.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.brat.2006.09.003},
   Key = {haeffel2007explicit}
}

@article{sassenberg2007some,
   Author = {Sassenberg, K and Jonas, KJ and Shah, JY and Brazy,
             PC},
   Title = {Why some groups just feel better: the regulatory fit of
             group power.},
   Journal = {Journal of personality and social psychology},
   Volume = {92},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {249-267},
   Publisher = {Elsevier},
   Year = {2007},
   Month = {February},
   ISSN = {0022-3514},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.249},
   Abstract = {The current research applied the regulatory fit hypothesis
             (E. T. Higgins, 2000) to the evaluation of groups,
             suggesting that individuals' group appraisal depends on how
             well the groups fit their regulatory needs. Specifically, it
             was predicted that higher power groups would fit and be more
             valued by those individuals with a promotion focus because
             these groups provide a better opportunity to sustain
             nurturance and achievement needs. Alternatively, lower power
             groups were predicted to fit and be more valued by those
             individuals with a prevention focus because these groups
             necessitate (and thus sustain) a focus on safety and
             security. Five studies found support for these predictions
             by both assessing and manipulating regulatory focus and
             group power and by using explicit and implicit measures of
             group attraction. Moreover, these regulatory fit effects
             occurred specifically for group power and not for general
             differences in group status.},
   Doi = {10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.249},
   Key = {sassenberg2007some}
}

@article{brazy2006strength,
   Author = {Brazy, PC and Shah, JY},
   Title = {Strength and safety in numbers: considering the social
             implications of regulatory focus.},
   Journal = {Journal of personality},
   Volume = {74},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {1647-1671},
   Publisher = {Wiley Online Library},
   Year = {2006},
   Month = {December},
   ISSN = {0022-3506},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00423.x},
   Abstract = {The present article examines how individual and situational
             differences in individuals' regulatory focus on nurturance
             and gain (promotion) and on security and safety (prevention)
             may have significant, and distinct, social and interpersonal
             implications. We first review recent research examining how
             significant others affect goal pursuit and how individual
             differences in regulatory focus may moderate the various
             behavioral, evaluative, and experiential manifestations of
             social identification. We then consider how regulatory focus
             moderates the way in which people "size up" their social
             world in terms of the efficiency in which they identify and
             appraise motivationally relevant aspects of their social
             environment. Finally, we explore how regulatory focus
             moderates people's deliberate and automatic reactions to the
             beliefs, expectations, behavior, and emotions of other
             individuals and social groups.},
   Doi = {10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00423.x},
   Key = {brazy2006strength}
}

@article{fishbach2006self,
   Author = {Fishbach, A and Shah, JY},
   Title = {Self-control in action: implicit dispositions toward goals
             and away from temptations.},
   Journal = {Journal of personality and social psychology},
   Volume = {90},
   Number = {5},
   Pages = {820-832},
   Publisher = {APA AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION},
   Year = {2006},
   Month = {May},
   ISSN = {0022-3514},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.820},
   Abstract = {Five studies examined whether, in self-control dilemmas,
             individuals develop an implicit disposition to approach
             goals and avoid temptations, psychologically as well as
             physically. Using a method developed by A. K. Solarz (1960;
             see also K. L. Duckworth, J. A. Bargh, M. Garcia, & S.
             Chaiken, 2002), the authors assessed the time for pulling
             and pushing a lever in response to goal- and
             temptation-related stimuli (e.g., studying and partying).
             The results show that individuals offset the influence of
             tempting activities by automatically avoiding these stimuli
             (faster pushing responses) and by approaching stimuli
             related to an overarching goal (faster pulling responses).
             These implicit self-control dispositions varied as a
             function of the magnitude of the self-control conflict,
             itself defined by how strongly individuals were attracted to
             temptations and held the longer term goal. These
             dispositions were further shown to play a role in successful
             self-control.},
   Doi = {10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.820},
   Key = {fishbach2006self}
}

@article{fds253867,
   Author = {Shah, JY},
   Title = {The automatic pursuit and management of goals},
   Journal = {Current Directions in Psychological Science},
   Volume = {14},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {10-13},
   Publisher = {SAGE Publications},
   Year = {2005},
   Month = {February},
   ISSN = {0963-7214},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00325.x},
   Abstract = {This article reviews recent research on the automatic
             activation and management of goals. In particular, it
             focuses on research examining the variety of ways in which
             goals may be automatically brought to mind in everyday
             settings and how such goal priming may affect individuals'
             deliberate goal pursuits. Moreover, given the variety of
             ways in which goals may be automatically activated and the
             often numerous goals people deliberately choose to pursue,
             the article also examines an important component of
             effective self-regulation: automatically managing, or
             "juggling," various pursuits in order to best ensure their
             successful completion. Copyright © 2005 American
             Psychological Society.},
   Doi = {10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00325.x},
   Key = {fds253867}
}

@article{fds304743,
   Author = {Fishbach, A and Shah, JY and Kruglanski, AW},
   Title = {Emotional transfer in goal systems},
   Journal = {Journal of Experimental Social Psychology},
   Volume = {40},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {723-738},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2004},
   Month = {November},
   ISSN = {0022-1031},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.04.001},
   Abstract = {Five experimental studies explored the phenomenon of
             affective transfer in goal systems. We find that affect
             associated with goal attainment may be transferred to means
             cognitively associated with such goal-events, and that
             factors affecting the dimensions of transfer include the
             magnitude of affect invested in the goal, the quality of
             invested affect and the strength of association between a
             given means and the goal-event. Accordingly, the transfer
             mechanism was shown to impact the magnitude of affect
             experienced in regard to the means in question, as well as
             its kind (involving, e.g., promotion-type affect or
             prevention-type affect), and was shown to influence the
             interpersonal feelings toward others perceived as helpful to
             the attainment of various goals. © 2004 Elsevier Inc. All
             rights reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.jesp.2004.04.001},
   Key = {fds304743}
}

@article{fds253851,
   Author = {Shah, JY and Brazy, PC and Higgins, ET},
   Title = {Promoting us or preventing them: regulatory focus and
             manifestations of intergroup bias.},
   Journal = {Personality & social psychology bulletin},
   Volume = {30},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {433-446},
   Year = {2004},
   Month = {April},
   ISSN = {0146-1672},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203261888},
   Abstract = {Four studies examined whether situational and individual
             differences in individuals' regulatory focus influence how
             intergroup bias is expressed emotionally and behaviorally.
             Consistent with past findings on promotion focus, these
             studies found evidence that participants' promotion focus,
             whether measured or manipulated, was related to how
             extensively they demonstrated bias toward their ingroup in
             terms of cheerfulness- and dejection-related emotions and
             approach-related behaviors. Consistent with past findings on
             prevention focus, these studies also revealed that
             participants' prevention focus was related to how
             extensively they showed bias against an outgroup in terms of
             quiescence- and agitation-related emotions and
             avoidance-related behaviors. The implications for the
             self-regulatory functions of intergroup bias are
             discussed.},
   Doi = {10.1177/0146167203261888},
   Key = {fds253851}
}

@article{fds304742,
   Author = {Amodio, DM and Shah, JY and Sigelman, J and Brazy, PC and Harmon-Jones,
             E},
   Title = {Implicit regulatory focus associated with asymmetrical
             frontal cortical activity},
   Journal = {Journal of Experimental Social Psychology},
   Volume = {40},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {225-232},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2004},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00100-8},
   Abstract = {Regulatory focus theory identifies two separate motivational
             systems, promotion and prevention, that fulfill different
             regulatory needs and are differentially related to approach
             and avoidance. In the psychophysiological literature,
             approach- and avoidance-related emotions and motivational
             orientations have been linked to asymmetries in frontal
             cortical activity. In an effort to synthesize these
             literatures, we examined the relationship between an
             implicit assessment of chronic regulatory focus and an
             electroencephalographic (EEG) index of resting frontal
             cortical asymmetry. Results supported the hypothesis that
             promotion regulatory focus would be associated with greater
             left frontal activity, and prevention regulatory focus would
             be associated with greater right frontal activity.
             Discussion highlights how this synthesis may benefit
             theorizing of the relationship between regulatory focus,
             motivation, and emotion, and of the function of asymmetrical
             frontal cortical activity. © 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights
             reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00100-8},
   Key = {fds304742}
}

@article{fds39550,
   Author = {Shah, J. Y. and Brazy, P. B. and Higgins, E.
             T.},
   Title = {). Promoting us or preventing them: Regulatory focus and the
             nature of ingroup bias},
   Volume = {30},
   Pages = {433-446},
   Year = {2004},
   Key = {fds39550}
}

@article{fds253868,
   Author = {Fishbach, A and Shah, JY and Kruglanski, AW},
   Title = {Emotional transfer in goal systems},
   Journal = {Journal of Experimental Social Psychology},
   Volume = {40},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {697-824},
   Year = {2004},
   ISSN = {0022-1031},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.04.001},
   Abstract = {Five experimental studies explored the phenomenon of
             affective transfer in goal systems. We find that affect
             associated with goal attainment may be transferred to means
             cognitively associated with such goal-events, and that
             factors affecting the dimensions of transfer include the
             magnitude of affect invested in the goal, the quality of
             invested affect and the strength of association between a
             given means and the goal-event. Accordingly, the transfer
             mechanism was shown to impact the magnitude of affect
             experienced in regard to the means in question, as well as
             its kind (involving, e.g., promotion-type affect or
             prevention-type affect), and was shown to influence the
             interpersonal feelings toward others perceived as helpful to
             the attainment of various goals. © 2004 Elsevier Inc. All
             rights reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.jesp.2004.04.001},
   Key = {fds253868}
}

@article{fds253869,
   Author = {Amodio, DM and Shah, JY and Brazy, PB and Harmon Jones,
             E},
   Title = {Implicit prevention and promotion goal orientation and
             asymmetrical frontal EEG activity.},
   Journal = {Journal of Experimental Social Psychology},
   Volume = {40},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {225-232},
   Year = {2004},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00100-8},
   Abstract = {Regulatory focus theory identifies two separate motivational
             systems, promotion and prevention, that fulfill different
             regulatory needs and are differentially related to approach
             and avoidance. In the psychophysiological literature,
             approach- and avoidance-related emotions and motivational
             orientations have been linked to asymmetries in frontal
             cortical activity. In an effort to synthesize these
             literatures, we examined the relationship between an
             implicit assessment of chronic regulatory focus and an
             electroencephalographic (EEG) index of resting frontal
             cortical asymmetry. Results supported the hypothesis that
             promotion regulatory focus would be associated with greater
             left frontal activity, and prevention regulatory focus would
             be associated with greater right frontal activity.
             Discussion highlights how this synthesis may benefit
             theorizing of the relationship between regulatory focus,
             motivation, and emotion, and of the function of asymmetrical
             frontal cortical activity. © 2003 Elsevier Inc. All
             rights reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00100-8},
   Key = {fds253869}
}

@article{fds253870,
   Author = {Shah, J},
   Title = {The motivational looking glass: how significant others
             implicitly affect goal appraisals.},
   Journal = {Journal of personality and social psychology},
   Volume = {85},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {424-439},
   Year = {2003},
   Month = {September},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.424},
   Abstract = {Three studies manipulate the accessibility of
             significant-other representations to explore how these
             representations may automatically influence how goals are
             construed and experienced. Study 1 finds that the perceived
             attainment expectations of a significant other automatically
             affect participants' own task-goal expectations and their
             subsequent task performance and persistence. Study 2 finds
             that the general perceived value that a significant other
             places in attaining a task goal automatically affects
             participants' own attainment value appraisals, their task
             persistence and performance, and the magnitude of their
             reaction to success and failure feedback. Finally, Study 3
             demonstrates that the regulatory focus prescribed by a
             significant other may automatically affect participants' own
             regulatory focus with regards to a task goal, with
             consequences for their cheerfulness-dejection and
             relaxation-agitation responses to success and failure
             feedback. The implications for our understanding of social
             influence and self-regulation are discussed.},
   Doi = {10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.424},
   Key = {fds253870}
}

@article{fds253878,
   Author = {Shah, JY and Kruglanski, AW},
   Title = {When opportunity knocks: bottom-up priming of goals by means
             and its effects on self-regulation.},
   Journal = {Journal of personality and social psychology},
   Volume = {84},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {1109-1122},
   Year = {2003},
   Month = {June},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1109},
   Abstract = {Four studies using general attribute goals or specific task
             goals revealed that attainment means cognitively activate
             the goals they are perceived to serve. A range of means
             replicated this effect including goal-directed activities,
             specific behavioral strategies, or opportunities, assumed to
             afford effective goal pursuit. The increased accessibility
             of a currently pursued goal due to "bottom-up" priming by
             its attainment means improved task persistence and
             performance, whereas a similarly increased accessibility of
             a competing goal impeded task persistence and
             performance.},
   Doi = {10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1109},
   Key = {fds253878}
}

@article{fds253880,
   Author = {Shah, J},
   Title = {Automatic for the people: how representations of significant
             others implicitly affect goal pursuit.},
   Journal = {Journal of personality and social psychology},
   Volume = {84},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {661-681},
   Year = {2003},
   Month = {April},
   ISSN = {0022-3514},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.661},
   Abstract = {Five studies are presented that explore how representations
             of significant others may automatically affect goal pursuit.
             Specifically, evidence is presented that suggests goals may
             be primed by one's representation of a significant other and
             that this priming may be moderated by one's closeness to
             this other individual. It is also shown to be affected by
             the number of different goals associated with this person.
             The greater the number of goals associated with a
             significant other, the less likely this individual will
             invoke any 1 goal very strongly. Such goal priming is shown
             to have implications for the extent to which goals are
             pursued (as seen through task persistence and performance)
             as well as the extent to which they are inhibited or ignored
             (especially when an individual is associated with a goal
             unrelated to a current pursuit).},
   Doi = {10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.661},
   Key = {fds253880}
}

@article{fds253882,
   Author = {Shah, JY and Friedman, R and Kruglanski, AW},
   Title = {Forgetting all else: on the antecedents and consequences of
             goal shielding.},
   Journal = {Journal of personality and social psychology},
   Volume = {83},
   Number = {6},
   Pages = {1261-1280},
   Year = {2002},
   Month = {December},
   ISSN = {0022-3514},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1261},
   Abstract = {Six studies explore the role of goal shielding in
             self-regulation by examining how the activation of focal
             goals to which the individual is committed inhibits the
             accessibility of alternative goals. Consistent evidence was
             found for such goal shielding, and a number of its
             moderators were identified: Individuals' level of commitment
             to the focal goal, their degree of anxiety and depression,
             their need for cognitive closure, and differences in their
             goal-related tenacity. Moreover, inhibition of alternative
             goals was found to be more pronounced when they serve the
             same overarching purpose as the focal goal, but lessened
             when the alternative goals facilitate focal goal attainment.
             Finally, goal shielding was shown to have beneficial
             consequences for goal pursuit and attainment.},
   Doi = {10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1261},
   Key = {fds253882}
}

@article{fds253849,
   Author = {Kruglanski, AW and Shah, JY and Fishbach, A and Friedman, R and Woo
             Young Chun, and Sleeth-Keppler, D},
   Title = {A theory of goal systems},
   Journal = {Advances in Experimental Social Psychology},
   Volume = {34},
   Pages = {331-378},
   Booktitle = {Advances in experimental social psychology},
   Publisher = {San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.},
   Editor = {M. P. Zanna},
   Year = {2002},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0065-2601},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(02)80008-9},
   Doi = {10.1016/s0065-2601(02)80008-9},
   Key = {fds253849}
}

@article{fds253879,
   Author = {Kruglanski, AW and Shah, JY and Pierro, A and Mannetti,
             L},
   Title = {When similarity breeds content: Need for closure and the
             allure of homogeneous and self-resembling
             groups},
   Journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
   Volume = {83},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {648-662},
   Year = {2002},
   Month = {January},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.648},
   Abstract = {Four studies explored the relation between members' need for
             cognitive closure and their feelings toward groups. It was
             found that high (vs. low) need for closure individuals liked
             in-groups and out-groups more as function of the degree to
             which their membership was perceived as homogeneous (Studies
             1-4), provided it was also self-similar (Studies 3 and 4).
             These results are discussed in terms of the relation between
             need for closure and homogeneous (vs. heterogeneous) groups'
             apparent potential as "closure providers.".},
   Doi = {10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.648},
   Key = {fds253879}
}

@article{fds304741,
   Author = {Shah, JY and Kruglanski, AW},
   Title = {Priming against your will: How accessible alternatives
             affect goal pursuit},
   Journal = {Journal of Experimental Social Psychology},
   Volume = {38},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {368-383},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2002},
   Month = {January},
   ISSN = {0022-1031},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00005-7},
   Abstract = {Four studies examined how diverse aspects of goal pursuit
             are influenced by the accessibility of alternative goals. It
             was consistently found that such an accessibility often
             affects the resources allocated to a focal goal, influencing
             commitment, progress, and the development of effective
             means, as well as one's emotional responses to positive and
             negative feedback about one's striving efforts. Moreover,
             the direction of these influences was found to depend on how
             the alternative goals relate to the focal pursuit.
             Alternatives unrelated to the focal goal pull resources away
             from it, whereas alternatives facilitatively related to a
             focal goal draw resources toward it. © 2002 Elsevier
             Science (USA). All rights reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00005-7},
   Key = {fds304741}
}

@article{fds253881,
   Author = {Shah, JY and Kruglanski, AW},
   Title = {Priming against your will: How goal pursuit is affected by
             accessible alternatives},
   Journal = {Journal of Experimental Social Psychology},
   Volume = {38},
   Number = {4},
   Pages = {368-383},
   Year = {2002},
   ISSN = {0022-1031},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00005-7},
   Abstract = {Four studies examined how diverse aspects of goal pursuit
             are influenced by the accessibility of alternative goals. It
             was consistently found that such an accessibility often
             affects the resources allocated to a focal goal, influencing
             commitment, progress, and the development of effective
             means, as well as one's emotional responses to positive and
             negative feedback about one's striving efforts. Moreover,
             the direction of these influences was found to depend on how
             the alternative goals relate to the focal pursuit.
             Alternatives unrelated to the focal goal pull resources away
             from it, whereas alternatives facilitatively related to a
             focal goal draw resources toward it. © 2002 Elsevier
             Science (USA). All rights reserved.},
   Doi = {10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00005-7},
   Key = {fds253881}
}

@article{fds253877,
   Author = {Shah, J and Higgins, ET},
   Title = {Regulatory concerns and appraisal efficiency: the general
             impact of promotion and prevention.},
   Journal = {Journal of personality and social psychology},
   Volume = {80},
   Number = {5},
   Pages = {693-705},
   Year = {2001},
   Month = {May},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.693},
   Abstract = {It was hypothesized that people's appraisals both of
             themselves and of other objects in the world are more
             efficient when the emotional dimension underlying their
             appraisals fits their regulatory concerns. Regulatory focus
             theory distinguishes 2 such fundamental concerns: promotion
             concerns with accomplishment that relate to cheerfulness-
             and dejection-related emotions, and prevention concerns with
             security that relate to quiescence- and agitation-related
             emotions. Five studies found that individuals with stronger
             promotion concerns were faster in appraising how cheerful or
             dejected the object made them feel, whereas individuals with
             stronger prevention concerns were faster in appraising how
             quiescent or agitated the object made them feel. These
             greater appraisal efficiencies were found for both chronic
             and situationally induced promotion and prevention concerns
             and were independent of both the valence and the extremity
             of the appraisals.},
   Doi = {10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.693},
   Key = {fds253877}
}

@article{fds253876,
   Author = {Kruglanski, AW and Thompson, EP and Higgins, ET and Atash, MN and Pierro, A and Shah, JY and Spiegel, S},
   Title = {To "do the right thing" or to "just do it": locomotion and
             assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives.},
   Journal = {Journal of personality and social psychology},
   Volume = {79},
   Number = {5},
   Pages = {793-815},
   Year = {2000},
   Month = {November},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.793},
   Abstract = {An integrated series of studies investigated 2 functional
             dimensions of self-regulation referred to as assessment and
             locomotion (E. T. Higgins and A. W. Kruglanski, 1995).
             Assessment constitutes the comparative aspect of
             self-regulation that critically evaluates alternative goals
             or means to decide which are best to pursue and appraises
             performance. Locomotion constitutes the aspect of
             self-regulation concerned with movement from state to state,
             including commitment of psychological resources to initiate
             and maintain such movement. Two separate scales were
             developed to measure individual differences in these
             tendencies. Psychometric work attested to the scales'
             unidimensionality, internal consistency, and temporal
             stability. The authors found that (a) locomotion and
             assessment are relatively independent of each other, (b)
             both are needed for self-regulatory success, and (c) each
             relates to distinct task orientations and motivational
             emphases.},
   Doi = {10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.793},
   Key = {fds253876}
}

@article{fds253875,
   Author = {Shah, JY and Kruglanski, AW and Thompson, EP},
   Title = {Membership has its (epistemic) rewards: need for closure
             effects on in-group bias.},
   Journal = {Journal of personality and social psychology},
   Volume = {75},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {383-393},
   Year = {1998},
   Month = {August},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.75.2.383},
   Abstract = {Three studies examined the impact of the need for cognitive
             closure on manifestations of in-group bias. All 3 studies
             found that high (vs. low) need for closure increased
             in-group favoritism and outgroup derogation. Specifically,
             Study 1 found a positive relation between need for cognitive
             closure and both participants' ethnic group identification
             and their collective self-esteem. Studies 2 and 3 found a
             positive relation between need for closure and participants'
             identification with an in-group member and their acceptance
             of an in-group member's beliefs and attitudes. Studies 2 and
             3 also found a negative relation between need for closure
             and participants' identification with an out-group member
             and their acceptance of an out-group member's beliefs and
             attitudes. The implications of these findings for the
             epistemic function of in-groups are discussed.},
   Doi = {10.1037//0022-3514.75.2.383},
   Key = {fds253875}
}

@article{fds253874,
   Author = {Shah, J and Higgins, ET and Friedman, RS},
   Title = {Performance incentives and means: how regulatory focus
             influences goal attainment.},
   Journal = {Journal of personality and social psychology},
   Volume = {74},
   Number = {2},
   Pages = {285-293},
   Year = {1998},
   Month = {February},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.2.285},
   Abstract = {Study 1 demonstrated that as individuals' promotion-related
             ideal strength increases, performance on an anagram task is
             greater for a monetary task incentive framed in terms of
             gains and nongains (i.e., promotion framed) than one framed
             in terms of losses and nonlosses (i.e., prevention framed),
             whereas the reverse is true as individuals'
             prevention-related ought strength increases. Study 2 further
             demonstrated that with promotion-framed task incentives,
             individuals' ideal' strength increases motivation for
             promotion-related goal attainment means (gaining points),
             whereas with prevention-framed task incentives, individuals'
             ought strength increases motivation for prevention-related
             means (avoiding losing points). These results suggest that
             motivation and performance are greater when the regulatory
             focus of task incentives and means match (vs. mismatch) the
             chronic regulatory focus of the performers.},
   Doi = {10.1037//0022-3514.74.2.285},
   Key = {fds253874}
}

@article{fds253873,
   Author = {Shah, J and Higgins, ET},
   Title = {Expectancy x value effects: regulatory focus as determinant
             of magnitude and direction.},
   Journal = {Journal of personality and social psychology},
   Volume = {73},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {447-458},
   Year = {1997},
   Month = {September},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.73.3.447},
   Abstract = {The authors propose that a promotion focus involves
             construal of achievement goals as aspirations whose
             attainment brings accomplishment. Commitment to these
             accomplishment goals is characterized by attempts to attain
             the highest expected utility. In contrast, a prevention
             focus involves construal of achievement goals as
             responsibilities whose attainment brings security.
             Commitment to these security goals is characterized by doing
             what is necessary. The different nature of commitment to
             accomplishment goals versus security goals is predicted to
             influence the interactive effect of goal expectancy and goal
             value on goal commitment, as evident in both task
             performance and decision making. Four studies found that the
             classic positive interactive effect of expectancy and value
             on goal commitment increases with a promotion focus and
             decreases with a prevention focus.},
   Doi = {10.1037//0022-3514.73.3.447},
   Key = {fds253873}
}

@article{fds253872,
   Author = {Higgins, ET and Shah, J and Friedman, R},
   Title = {Emotional responses to goal attainment: strength of
             regulatory focus as moderator.},
   Journal = {Journal of personality and social psychology},
   Volume = {72},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {515-525},
   Year = {1997},
   Month = {March},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.72.3.515},
   Abstract = {Goals with a promotion focus versus a prevention focus are
             distinguished. Chronic ideal goals (hopes and aspirations)
             have a promotion focus, whereas ought goals (duties and
             responsibilities) have a prevention focus. The hypothesis
             that emotional responses to goal attainment vary as a
             function of promotion versus prevention goal strength
             (conceptualized as goal accessibility) was tested in
             correlational studies relating chronic goal attainment
             (self-congruencies or self-discrepancies) to emotional
             frequency and intensity (Studies 1-3) and in an experimental
             study relating immediate goal attainment (i.e., success or
             failure) to emotional intensity (Study 4). All studies found
             that goal attainment yielded greater cheerfulness-dejection
             responses when promotion focus was stronger and greater
             quiescence-agitation responses when prevention focus was
             stronger.},
   Doi = {10.1037//0022-3514.72.3.515},
   Key = {fds253872}
}

@article{fds253871,
   Author = {Roney, CJ and Higgins, ET and Shah, JY},
   Title = {Goals and framing: How outcome focus influences motivation
             and emotion},
   Journal = {Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin},
   Volume = {21},
   Pages = {1151-1160},
   Year = {1995},
   Key = {fds253871}
}


%% Books   
@book{fds39760,
   Author = {Shah, J. Y. and Gardner, W.},
   Title = {Handbook of Motivation Science},
   Publisher = {New York: Guilford Press},
   Year = {2008},
   Key = {fds39760}
}


%% Chapters in Books   
@misc{fds340676,
   Author = {J. Shah},
   Title = {Systematic Goal Management},
   Booktitle = {Frontiers of Social Psychology: Handbook of
             Self-Regulation.},
   Publisher = {Psychology Press},
   Address = {New York},
   Editor = {James Shah},
   Year = {2019},
   Key = {fds340676}
}

@misc{fds340675,
   Author = {J. Shah. M. Roman. and J. Kim},
   Title = {Implicit Self-Regulation},
   Booktitle = {Frontiers of Social Psychology: Handbook of
             Self-Regulation.},
   Publisher = {Psychology Press},
   Address = {New York},
   Editor = {James Shah},
   Year = {2019},
   Key = {fds340675}
}

@misc{fds335753,
   Author = {Shah, J},
   Title = {For what it’s worth: The regulatory pleasure and purpose
             of a good life},
   Pages = {85-100},
   Booktitle = {The Social Psychology of Living Well},
   Publisher = {Routledge},
   Year = {2018},
   Month = {January},
   ISBN = {9780815369233},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781351189712},
   Abstract = {When one does not know what harbor one is making for, no
             wind is the right wind.},
   Doi = {10.4324/9781351189712},
   Key = {fds335753}
}

@misc{fds335754,
   Author = {Kruglanski, AW and Thompson, EP and Higgins, ET and Atash, MN and Pierro, A and Shah, JY and Spiegel, S},
   Title = {To “do the right thing” or to “just do it”:
             Locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory
             imperatives},
   Pages = {299-343},
   Booktitle = {The Motivated Mind: The Selected Works of Arie
             Kruglanski},
   Publisher = {Routledge},
   Year = {2018},
   Month = {January},
   ISBN = {9781138039438},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315175867},
   Abstract = {Imagine yourself and your spouse on a holiday eve, at the
             eleventh hour sally to the local mall to get those missing
             items on your shopping list. You drive into the parking lot,
             which brims with hundreds of vehicles, and you look intently
             for a free spot. By an amazing stroke of luck, a car is
             about to pull out of a far row. Seizing the moment, you
             quickly move to fill the space the very millisecond it is
             vacated. One look at your spouse, however, conveys that all
             is not well. For, better than a thousand words, your
             spouse’s countenance betrays deep disappointment with your
             chosen spot. After all, it is quite far from the mall
             entrance, requiring a considerable hike in chilly weather
             and under a mountain of packages to boot. Instead of taking
             it, your spouse would prefer to continue exploring until the
             perfect spot is found, even if this means cruising through
             hundreds of occupied spaces. To you, quite frankly, this
             quest seems frustrating, if not futile. You are simply
             itching to get on with it, to park the car wherever possible
             so you can proceed with the shopping task ahead. To be fair
             and impartial, we leave the saga before finding out whether
             a perfect spot was ever found. Regardless of whether it was,
             such differences in viewpoint may not appear to be the stuff
             of which marital bliss is made. A surprising perspective on
             this issue is offered in the concluding section of this
             article. That, however, is not the main point of our
             story.},
   Doi = {10.4324/9781315175867},
   Key = {fds335754}
}

@misc{fds186062,
   Author = {Shah, J. Y. Hall and D. Leander and P.},
   Title = {Moments of Motivation: Margins of Opportunity in Managing
             the Efficacy, Need, and Transitions of Striving},
   Pages = {234-255},
   Booktitle = {Psychology of Goals},
   Publisher = {Guilford Press},
   Address = {New York},
   Editor = {G. Moskowitz and H. Grant},
   Year = {2009},
   Key = {fds186062}
}

@article{shah2008challenge,
   Author = {Shah, J.Y. and Kruglanski, A.W.},
   Title = {Structural Dynamics: The Challenge of Change in Goal
             Systems},
   Pages = {217},
   Booktitle = {Handbook of Motivation Science},
   Publisher = {The Guilford Press},
   Editor = {J. Shah and W. Gardner},
   Year = {2008},
   ISBN = {1593855680},
   Key = {shah2008challenge}
}

@article{shah 2006,
   Author = {Shah, J. Y. and Brazy, P. H.},
   Title = {When your wish is my desire: A triangular model of
             self-regulatory relationships},
   Pages = {387-406},
   Booktitle = {Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and
             interpersonal processes},
   Editor = {K. Vohs and E. Finkel},
   Year = {2006},
   Key = {shah 2006}
}

@article{fitzsimons,
   Author = {Fitzsimons, GM and Shah, JY and Chartrand, TL and Bargh,
             JA},
   Title = {Friends and neighbors, goals and labors: Interpersonal and
             self regulation},
   Journal = {Interpersonal cognition},
   Pages = {130--125},
   Year = {2005},
   Key = {fitzsimons}
}

@misc{fds39766,
   Author = {Shah, J. Y. and Brazy, P. B. and Higgins, E. T.},
   Title = {Promotion and prevention: forms of ingroup
             bias},
   Pages = {31-48},
   Booktitle = {From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated
             reactions to social groups},
   Publisher = {New York: Psychology Press},
   Editor = {D. Mackie and E. Smith},
   Year = {2002},
   Key = {fds39766}
}

@misc{fds39767,
   Author = {Shah, J. H. and Kruglanski, A. W. and Friedman,
             R.},
   Title = {A goal systems approach to self-regulation},
   Pages = {247-276},
   Booktitle = {The Ontario Symposium on Personality and Social
             Psychology},
   Publisher = {New Jersey: Erlbaum},
   Editor = {M. P. Zanna and J. M. Olson and C. Seligman},
   Year = {2002},
   Key = {fds39767}
}

@misc{fds39769,
   Author = {Shah, J. Y. and Kruglanski, A. W.},
   Title = {Aspects of goal networks: Implications for
             self-regulation},
   Pages = {85-110},
   Booktitle = {Handbook of self-regulation},
   Publisher = {San Diego: Academic Press},
   Editor = {M. Boekaerts and P. R. Pintrich and M. Zeidner},
   Year = {2000},
   Key = {fds39769}
}

@misc{fds39772,
   Author = {Shah, J. Y. and Kruglanski, A. W.},
   Title = {The structure and substance of intrinsic
             motivation},
   Pages = {105-127},
   Booktitle = {Intrinsic motivation: Controversies and new
             directions},
   Publisher = {San Diego: Academic Press},
   Editor = {C. Sansone and J. M. Harackiewicz},
   Year = {2000},
   Key = {fds39772}
}

@misc{fds39776,
   Author = {Higgins, E. T. and Grant, H. and Shah, J.},
   Title = {Self-regulation and quality of life: Emotional and
             non-emotional life experiences},
   Pages = {244-266},
   Booktitle = {Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology},
   Publisher = {New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation},
   Editor = {D. Kahneman and E. Diener and et al.},
   Year = {1999},
   Key = {fds39776}
}


%% Articles Submitted   
@article{fds186040,
   Author = {Leander, N.P. and Shah, J. Y.},
   Title = {A shared sense of urgency: Social sensitivity to
             motivational immediacy},
   Year = {2010},
   Key = {fds186040}
}


%% Edited Volumes   
@misc{fds340674,
   Title = {Frontiers of Social Psychology: Handbook of
             Self-Regulation.},
   Publisher = {Psychology Press},
   Address = {New York},
   Editor = {James Shah},
   Year = {2019},
   Key = {fds340674}
}


Duke University * Arts & Sciences * Faculty * Staff * Grad * Postdocs * Reload * Login