Faculty Database Psychology and Neuroscience Arts & Sciences Duke University |
||
HOME > Arts & Sciences > pn > Faculty | Search Help Login |
| 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 |