Regulatory Focus Scale – RFQ

Abstract

The Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ), frequently designated in psychometric literature as the Regulatory Focus Scale, is an 11-item self-report psychometric instrument developed by E. Tory Higgins and colleagues (2001) at Columbia University. Designed to operationalize core tenets of Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1997), the RFQ assesses an individual’s chronic subjective history of success in two distinct motivational systems: Promotion Pride and Prevention Pride. Unlike instruments that capture desired end-states, values, or generalized behavioral inhibition and activation, the RFQ measures respondents’ subjective perceptions of past effective self-regulation. The Promotion subscale (6 items) quantifies subjective histories of success in achieving aspirations, advancement, nurturance, and ideal goals through eager pursuit strategies. The Prevention subscale (5 items) quantifies subjective histories of success in fulfilling duties, responsibilities, security, and ought goals through vigilant avoidance of mistakes and parental rule transgressions.

Items are evaluated on distinct 5-point rating scales ranging from behavioral frequencies to perceived truth values, reflecting specific experiential domains. Psychometric evaluations across diverse adult and student cohorts demonstrate robust structural orthogonality between promotion and prevention orientations, supporting the conceptualization of these systems as independent motivational dimensions rather than bipolar endpoints. Internal consistency reliability coefficients typically range from α = .73 to .79 for the Promotion scale and α = .75 to .86 for the Prevention scale, with test-retest reliabilities over several weeks exceeding r = .75. Confirmatory factor analyses corroborate the hypothesized two-factor orthogonal model over alternative single-factor or hierarchical specifications. The RFQ demonstrates extensive convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related predictive validity across social, organizational, health, and consumer psychology, predicting cognitive framing effects, feedback sensitivities, decision-making biases under risk, and distinct emotional vulnerabilities (e.g., cheerfulness–dejection versus quiescence–agitation).

Keywords

Regulatory Focus Questionnaire, RFQ, Regulatory Focus Theory, Promotion Focus, Prevention Focus, Promotion Pride, Prevention Pride, Self-Regulation, Motivation Assessment, E. Tory Higgins, Psychometrics, Goal Orientation, Eagerness vs Vigilance, Decision Making, Behavioral Economics

Authors

The Regulatory Focus Questionnaire was developed and validated by a collaborative research team led by E. Tory Higgins at Columbia University. The primary authors of the foundational psychometric publication (Higgins et al., 2001) include:

• E. Tory Higgins, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. (Stanley Schachter Professor of Psychology and Professor of Business).
• Ronald S. Friedman, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA / Columbia University.
• Rachel E. Harlow, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
• Lorraine Chen Idson, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
• Ozlem N. Ayduk, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley / Columbia University.
• Amy Taylor, B.A. — Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.

Institutional correspondence regarding the original instrument was directed through the Department of Psychology, Schermerhorn Hall, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ) is to measure individual differences in chronic regulatory focus orientations derived from subjective histories of self-regulatory success. While earlier measurement traditions within motivational psychology assessed goal content (e.g., McClelland’s needs for achievement, affiliation, and power) or generalized sensitivity to punishment and reward (e.g., Gray’s Behavioral Inhibition System and Behavioral Activation System), Regulatory Focus Theory posited that individuals can pursue the same underlying goal or hedonic motive using qualitatively distinct regulatory mechanisms. Specifically, the RFQ differentiates between individuals who feel subjectively efficacious in pursuing nurturance, growth, and ideals (promotion pride) versus those who feel subjectively efficacious in managing safety, obligations, and rules (prevention pride).

In clinical and counseling psychology, the RFQ serves as a critical diagnostic adjunct for understanding affective vulnerabilities and maladaptive coping patterns. Higgins’ Self-Discrepancy Theory and Regulatory Focus Theory demonstrate that self-regulatory failures in the promotion domain yield dejection-related affects (e.g., sadness, depression, apathy, low positive affect), whereas failures in the prevention domain precipitate agitation-related affects (e.g., anxiety, tension, panic, hyperarousal). Assessing chronic RFQ scores allows clinicians to tailor cognitive-behavioral interventions: clients with low promotion pride benefit from interventions targeting mastery, behavioral activation, and positive outcome visualization, whereas clients with low prevention pride benefit from schema stabilization, stress inoculation, safety planning, and vigilance restructuring.

In organizational psychology and human factors, the RFQ is utilized to evaluate leadership styles, employee engagement, entrepreneurial risk propensity, and task performance under varying compensation structures. Promotion-focused employees excel under commission-based incentives, open-ended innovation tasks, and visionary leadership, adopting eager strategic means that maximize “hits” and minimize errors of omission. Conversely, prevention-focused individuals thrive in quality control, compliance, regulatory auditing, and risk management environments, deploying vigilant strategic means that eliminate “false alarms” and errors of commission. Furthermore, the RFQ is widely employed in health communication research to optimize message framing: health promotion messages (e.g., “exercising yields high energy”) resonate effectively with high-promotion recipients, whereas disease prevention messages (e.g., “vaccination prevents severe illness”) produce optimal behavioral adherence in high-prevention recipients, establishing regulatory fit.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct underlying the RFQ is chronic regulatory focus, operationalized specifically as subjective histories of success in promotion and prevention self-regulation. Regulatory focus is rooted in fundamental survival mechanisms that govern how humans interact with their environment to satisfy basic physiological and social needs. The construct is bifurcated into two independent, non-mutually exclusive dimensions:

1. Promotion Focus (Promotion Pride)

The promotion orientation concerns the human need for growth, nurturance, and advancement. It is aligned with the pursuit of an individual’s “ideals”—their hopes, aspirations, wishes, and envisioned potential. When individuals operate within a promotion focus, they conceptualize their goals in terms of the presence or absence of positive outcomes (gains versus non-gains). Success under a promotion focus represents a gain (a “hit”), generating high-arousal positive affects such as joy, elation, cheerfulness, and pride. Failure represents a non-gain (a “miss” or error of omission), resulting in low-arousal negative affects characterized by dejection, disappointment, and discouragement.

Strategically, promotion pride fosters an eager inclination. Individuals with high promotion pride approach tasks with enthusiasm, openness to novelty, broad perceptual scoping, and a willingness to generate alternative hypotheses, even if doing so incurs the risk of making mistakes. They prioritize maximizing positive opportunities over avoiding minor setbacks. The RFQ Promotion subscale operationalizes this construct through items assessing perceived historical mastery over life outcomes, frequency of achieving motivational momentum (“psyched”), perceived progress toward success, and the consistent generation of interest in novel activities.

2. Prevention Focus (Prevention Pride)

The prevention orientation addresses the fundamental human need for safety, protection, and security. It is aligned with the fulfillment of an individual’s “oughts”—duties, obligations, societal rules, moral imperatives, and necessities. Under a prevention focus, goals are framed in terms of the presence or absence of negative outcomes (losses versus non-losses). Success under a prevention focus does not imply an extraordinary breakthrough; rather, it signifies the successful preservation of safety and the absence of catastrophic harm (a non-loss or “correct rejection”), eliciting low-arousal positive affects such as calm, quiescence, serenity, and relief. Failure represents a realized loss (a “false alarm” or error of commission), precipitating high-arousal negative affects including agitation, anxiety, fear, guilt, and distress.

Strategically, prevention pride promotes a vigilant inclination. High-prevention individuals are acutely attuned to boundaries, guidelines, structural protocols, and potential dangers. They prioritize precautionary measures, precision, impulse control, and rule compliance to ensure that harm is averted. Within the RFQ, prevention pride is measured heavily through retrospective self-reports of childhood socialization, obedience to parental rules, behavioral prudence, and the avoidance of reckless actions that provoke social censure or negative repercussions. Higgins et al. (2001) grounded prevention pride in developmental socialization because parental boundary-setting constitutes the primary ecological niche in which human beings first internalize behavioral vigilance and threat-avoidance protocols.

Theoretical Framework

The Regulatory Focus Questionnaire is firmly grounded in Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1997, 1998), which represents a profound paradigm shift in motivational science by refining the classical hedonic principle. For centuries, philosophical and psychological models posited that organisms are driven uniformly to approach pleasure and avoid pain. Higgins argued that this broad hedonic formulation is theoretically incomplete because it treats all approach behaviors and all avoidance behaviors as functionally homogeneous. Regulatory Focus Theory demonstrates that the cognitive, affective, and strategic nature of approach and avoidance varies fundamentally depending on whether the self-regulatory system is serving nurturance (promotion) or security (prevention).

The Hedonic Principle Re-Examined

Under Regulatory Focus Theory, pleasure and pain operate within two qualitatively separate psychological registers:

• Promotion Self-Regulation: Approach is directed toward desired end-states (ideals, aspirations), where pleasure is experienced as a gain (presence of a positive outcome) and pain is experienced as a non-gain (absence of a positive outcome). Avoidance is directed toward staying away from non-gains.
• Prevention Self-Regulation: Approach is directed toward maintaining security and compliance (oughts, duties), where pleasure is experienced as a non-loss (absence of a negative outcome) and pain is experienced as a loss (presence of a negative outcome). Avoidance is directed toward actively avoiding losses.

Signal Detection Framework and Strategic Inclinations

The theory maps directly onto Signal Detection Theory. In any target-detection paradigm, an actor can commit two types of correct decisions and two types of errors:

• Hit: Detecting a true signal (Gain). Maximized by promotion eagerness.
• Miss (Error of Omission): Failing to detect a signal when present (Non-gain). Heavily penalized under a promotion orientation.
• Correct Rejection: Refraining from responding when no signal is present (Non-loss). Maximized by prevention vigilance.
• False Alarm (Error of Commission): Responding when no signal is present / making an unauthorized mistake (Loss). Heavily penalized under a prevention orientation.

Consequently, promotion focus fosters an eagerness strategy: cast a wide net, act swiftly, and do not miss opportunities. Prevention focus fosters a vigilance strategy: exercise scrutiny, check boundaries, and ensure no mistakes or rule infractions occur.

Subjective Histories of Success as the Origin of Pride

Higgins et al. (2001) recognized that chronic orientation is not merely a matter of which values an individual verbally espouses, but rather the cumulative record of whether an individual has historically succeeded using eager or vigilant strategies. Borrowing from social learning paradigms and Bandura’s self-efficacy frameworks, Higgins posited that chronic regulatory focus emerges from subjective histories of success. When a child or adult repeatedly experiences success using eagerness to pursue ideals, they develop a chronic sense of promotion pride—an internal expectancy that eager pursuit yields positive outcomes. Conversely, when an individual repeatedly experiences success using vigilance to obey rules and avert disaster, they establish prevention pride—a chronic expectancy that vigilant adherence yields safety and stability. The RFQ was specifically designed to capture these subjective histories of successful self-regulatory efficacy.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire has been extensively evaluated across dozens of independent empirical investigations spanning more than two decades.

Construct and Factorial Validity

In the original validation studies by Higgins et al. (2001; Studies 1–4, comprising N > 800 participants), exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the theoretical independence of the promotion and prevention dimensions. Across samples, the inter-factor correlation between Promotion Pride and Prevention Pride hovered between r = .08 and r = .18, demonstrating statistical orthogonality. This provides decisive construct validity: having a history of success in achieving ideals does not preclude or necessitate a history of success in adhering to safety rules. Individuals can be classified as high in both (predominant regulatory flexibility), low in both, or predominantly promotion-oriented versus prevention-oriented.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established by examining associations with related dispositional constructs while demonstrating essential conceptual distinctions:

• Behavioral Activation System (BAS) and Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS): Promotion pride correlates moderately and positively with Carver and White’s (1994) BAS scales (particularly BAS Reward Responsiveness and BAS Drive, r ≈ .30 to .42), reflecting shared motivational approach tendencies. However, prevention pride does not correlate strongly with the BAS. Prevention pride exhibits weak or non-significant negative correlations with BIS (r ≈ -.15 to -.25) in RFQ studies, because RFQ prevention pride measures successful prevention efficacy rather than anxious avoidance or behavioral paralysis.
• Optimism and Self-Esteem: Promotion pride correlates positively with Generalized Self-Efficacy (r ≈ .45) and Scheier and Carver’s Life Orientation Test (LOT-R; r ≈ .35 to .48). Prevention pride displays modest positive correlations with self-esteem and emotional stability, demonstrating that it captures adaptive competence rather than neurotic anxiety.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity analyses confirm that the RFQ measures regulatory efficacy rather than general affectivity or neuroticism. Higgins et al. (2001) demonstrated that when controlling for generalized positive and negative affectivity (PANAS) and the Big Five personality traits, RFQ Promotion and Prevention subscales retain independent predictive power over cognitive and behavioral tasks. Furthermore, research by Summerville and Roese (2008) highlighted that the RFQ differs systematically from other regulatory focus inventories (such as the Lockwood et al. 2002 scale) in that the RFQ measures past success (pride), whereas other scales measure current motivational attitudes or future aspirations.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The RFQ displays remarkable criterion validity across diverse experimental paradigms:

• Decision-Making under Risk: Higgins et al. (2001) demonstrated that high promotion scores predict a “risky bias” in signal detection tasks (willingness to say “yes” to avoid misses), whereas high prevention scores predict a “conservative bias” (reluctance to say “yes” to avoid false alarms).
• Hedonic Impact of Success and Failure: Idson, Liberman, and Higgins (2000) verified that when participants succeed, high promotion pride magnifies feelings of elation and joy, whereas high prevention pride magnifies feelings of calm and relief. When participants fail, low promotion pride amplifies dejection, whereas low prevention pride amplifies agitation.
• Framing Effects: High promotion pride individuals exhibit superior persistence and motivation when messages or tasks are framed in terms of potential gains (e.g., scoring points), whereas high prevention pride individuals show superior performance under loss-prevention frames (e.g., avoiding the loss of points).

Reliability

The reliability of the RFQ has been tested thoroughly across varied populations, ranging from undergraduate student samples to representative working adult cohorts internationally.

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) for the two subscales consistently satisfy psychometric standards for brief self-report inventories:

• Promotion Subscale (6 items): In the initial validation cohorts (Higgins et al., 2001), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were reported at α = .73 (Study 1) and α = .77 (Study 2). Subsequent independent investigations across social psychology, consumer behavior, and organizational science have documented alpha values routinely between α = .73 and α = .79 (e.g., Cesario et al., 2004; Summerville & Roese, 2008; Gorman et al., 2012).
• Prevention Subscale (5 items): In Higgins et al. (2001), internal consistency coefficients were reported at α = .80 (Study 1) and α = .82 (Study 2). Across broader replications and cross-cultural adaptations, prevention subscale alphas typically span α = .75 to α = .86, demonstrating robust inter-item homogeneity among the childhood socialization and behavioral prudence indicators.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Because chronic regulatory focus represents an enduring individual disposition forged through long-term socialization, the RFQ exhibits commendable stability over time:

• In an initial temporal stability assessment spanning a two-week interval, Higgins et al. (2001) observed test-retest correlation coefficients of r = .79 for Promotion Pride and r = .81 for Prevention Pride (p < .001), indicating high measurement stability.
• Studies assessing stability over extended horizons (e.g., 3 to 6 months) continue to demonstrate substantial test-retest coefficients (r ≈ .68 to .74), confirming that while regulatory focus can be temporarily primed by situational cues, the baseline chronic orientation measured by the RFQ functions as a stable personality trait.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire has been subjected to both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across numerous empirical studies.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During scale construction, Higgins et al. (2001) administered a broader pool of candidate items assessing regulatory pride. Principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax) and orthogonal (Varimax) rotations consistently extracted a clean two-factor solution corresponding exactly to the theoretical dimensions of Promotion and Prevention. The scree test demonstrated an unmistakable elbow following the second eigenvalue. Factor loadings for promotion items ranged cleanly from .48 to .76 on the primary promotion factor, with trivial cross-loadings (< .15) on the prevention factor. Similarly, the five prevention items loaded between .52 and .79 on the primary prevention factor, with cross-loadings on the promotion factor failing to exceed .12.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Subsequent psychometric evaluations utilizing structural equation modeling (SEM) have evaluated the RFQ’s structural integrity against competing measurement models. A benchmark study by Gorman et al. (2012) comparing multiple regulatory focus instruments evaluated the 11-item RFQ structure:

• Two-Factor Orthogonal Model: The hypothesized two-factor orthogonal model yields acceptable to good fit indices across standard thresholds: $\chi^2/df < 2.50$, Comparative Fit Index (CFI = .93 to .96), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI = .91 to .94), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA = .045 to .062, 90% CI [.038, .071]), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR = .048 to .055).
• Competing Models: A single-factor model (collapsing all 11 items into a generic self-regulation factor) results in catastrophic fit failure (CFI < .60, RMSEA > .13), confirming that promotion pride and prevention pride cannot be modeled as a single unidimensional continuum. A two-factor correlated model typically reveals a correlation factor parameter estimate that does not significantly differ from zero ($r \approx .11, p > .05$), justifying the retention of the orthogonal specification.

Item Parameter Estimates and Factor Loadings

In standard CFA implementations, standardized factor loadings ($lambda$) are robust across both subscales:

• Promotion Items: Item 3 (“psyched to work harder”) and Item 7 (“do well at different things”) exhibit the strongest direct positive loadings ($lambda = .65 – .78$). Reverse-coded items, such as Item 1 (“unable to get what you want”) and Item 9 (“don’t perform as well as ideally like”), demonstrate standardized loadings between $lambda = -.55$ and $-.68$. Item 11 (“few hobbies or activities capture interest”) displays loadings between $lambda = -.48$ and $-.58$.
• Prevention Items: Items reflecting childhood socialization and parental rules exhibit prominent loadings: Item 2 (“cross the line”), Item 4 (“get on parents’ nerves”), Item 5 (“obey rules”), and Item 6 (“act in objectionable ways”) load consistently between $lambda = .62$ and $.81$. Item 8 (“not being careful gotten into trouble”) loads between $lambda = .50$ and $.64$.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Regulatory Focus Questionnaire is a brief, highly standardized psychometric inventory designed for rapid paper-and-pencil or computer-administered completion.

• Instrument Type: Standardized self-report dispositional questionnaire.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 16 and older).
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes.
• Total Number of Items: 11 items.
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Promotion Pride Subscale: 6 items (Items 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11).
  • Prevention Pride Subscale: 5 items (Items 2, 4, 5, 6, 8).
• Response Anchors and Scale Layout: The RFQ utilizes item-specific 5-point response formats rather than a single uniform Likert scale:
  • For Items 1 through 8: 5-point frequency scale where 1 = never or seldom, 2 = [unlabeled/rarely], 3 = sometimes, 4 = [unlabeled/often], 5 = very often.
  • For Item 9: 5-point truth scale where 1 = never true, 2 = [unlabeled], 3 = sometimes true, 4 = [unlabeled], 5 = often true.
  • For Items 10 and 11: 5-point certainty scale where 1 = certainly false, 2 = [unlabeled], 3 = [unlabeled], 4 = [unlabeled], 5 = certainly true.
• Scoring and Transformation Procedures:
  • Reverse Coding: A critical feature of the RFQ is that several items are formulated negatively and must be reverse-coded prior to subscale computation. Reverse coding is executed using the standard transformation formula: $X_{reversed} = 6 – X$.
    • Promotion Reverse-Coded Items: Item 1, Item 9, and Item 11.
    • Prevention Reverse-Coded Items: Item 2, Item 4, Item 6, and Item 8.
  • Subscale Mean Calculation:
    • Promotion Score: Calculated by summing the transformed values of Items 1(R), 3, 7, 9(R), 10, and 11(R), and dividing by 6. Mean scores range from 1.00 to 5.00, with higher scores reflecting greater chronic promotion pride.
    • Prevention Score: Calculated by summing the transformed values of Items 2(R), 4(R), 5, 6(R), and 8(R), and dividing by 5. Mean scores range from 1.00 to 5.00, with higher scores reflecting greater chronic prevention pride.
  • Predominant Focus Classification: Researchers frequently compute a continuous “predominant regulatory focus” index via difference scores ($\text{RFQ Promotion} – \text{RFQ Prevention}$) or median splits on both dimensions to construct four categorical profiles: High Promotion/High Prevention, High Promotion/Low Prevention, Low Promotion/High Prevention, and Low Promotion/Low Prevention.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Regulatory Focus Questionnaire was formally published in 2001 by E. Tory Higgins, Ronald S. Friedman, Rachel E. Harlow, Lorraine Chen Idson, Ozlem N. Ayduk, and Amy Taylor in the European Journal of Social Psychology. The instrument was developed with support from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH Grant MH 39429).

Permissions and Accessibility: The RFQ is considered an open-access psychometric instrument for academic, scientific, non-commercial research and educational applications. Professor E. Tory Higgins and Columbia University made the full questionnaire, including scoring instructions, openly available to the international scientific community via Columbia University’s Department of Psychology web portal (Higgins Laboratory Measures). No user fees, royalties, or formal administrative licensing agreements are required for standard academic and scholarly research use, provided that proper scientific attribution is maintained by citing Higgins et al. (2001). Commercial entities, proprietary consulting assessments, or profit-generating testing platforms seeking to integrate the RFQ into commercial software should contact Columbia Technology Ventures or the primary author regarding appropriate corporate licensing terms.

References

• Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
• Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “feeling right”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 388–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.388
• Gorman, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B. L., Apodaca, S., McIntyre, A. L., Park, P., & Godbey, J. N. (2012). A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network: Work-related antecedents and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.07.005
• Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
• Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1–46). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0
• Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.27
• Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 252–274. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1402
• Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854
• Summerville, A., & Roese, N. J. (2008). Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(1), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.05.005

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)