Publication ahead of print
Journal
Mov Sport Sci/Sci Mot
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/sm/2022002
Published online 10 February 2022
  • Angel, V., & Hermans, J. (2019). Théorie des focus régulateurs : état de l’art et défis pour la cognition entrepreneuriale. Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat , 18(1), 23–71. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bartlett, M.S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Psychology , 3(2), 77–85. [Google Scholar]
  • Boesen-Mariani, S., Gomez, P., & Gavard-Perret, M.L. (2010). L’orientation régulatrice : un concept prometteur en marketing. Recherche et Applications en Marketing , 25(1), 87–106. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Brendl, C.M., & Higgins, E.T. (1996). Principles of judging valence: What makes events positive or negative? In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 95–160). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Brislin, R.W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. Lonner & J. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  • Caci, H., Deschaux, O., & Baylé, F.J. (2007). Psychometric properties of the French versions of the BIS/BAS scales and the SPSRQ. Personality and Individual Differences , 42(6), 987–998. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Clément-Guillotin, C., & Fontayne, P. (2011). Adaptation française d’une version courte de l’Inventaire des rôles sexués de Bem pour enfants (Child Sex Role Inventory). Psychologie Française , 56(1), 59–72. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Comrey, A.L. & Lee, H.B. (1973). A first course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika , 16, 297–334. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Crowe, E., & Higgins, E.T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 69(2), 117–132. [Google Scholar]
  • Cury, F., Sarrazin, P., Pérès, C., & Famose, J.P. (1999). Mesurer l’anxiété du sportif en compétition : présentation de l’Échelle d’État d’Anxiété en Compétition (EEAC). In C. Le Scanff & J.P. Famose (Eds.), La gestion du stress : entraînement et compétition (pp. 47–53). Paris : Revue EPS. [Google Scholar]
  • Debanne, T., & Laffaye, G. (2015). Motivational cues predict the defensive system in team handball: A model based on regulatory focus theory. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports , 25, 558–567. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Debanne, T., & Volossovitch, A. (in press). Team regulatory focus strategies and performance in team handball. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. [Google Scholar]
  • Debanne T., Angel V., & Fontayne P. (2014). Decision-making during games by professional handball coaches using regulatory focus theory. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology , 6, 111–124. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Debanne, T., Laffaye, G., & Trouilloud, D. (2018). Motivational orientations and performance in penalty throws during elite male team handball games. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports , 28(3), 1288–1294. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G. & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods , 39, 175–191. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Faur, C., Martin, J.C., & Clavel, C. (2017). Measuring chronic regulatory focus with proverbs: The developmental and psychometric properties of a french scale. Personality and Individual Differences , 107, 137–145. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Fontayne, P., Martin-Krumm, C., Buton, F., & Heuzé, J.P. (2003). Validation française de la version révisée de l’échelle de mesure des attributions causales (CDSII). Les cahiers internationaux de psychologie sociale , 58, 59–72. [Google Scholar]
  • Friedman, R.S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 81(6), 1001–1013. [Google Scholar]
  • Gomez, P., Borges, A., & Pechmann, C.C. (2013). Avoiding poor health or approaching good health: Does it matter? The conceptualization, measurement, and consequences of health regulatory focus. Journal of Consumer Psychology , 23(4), 451–463. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gray, J.A., & McNaughton, N. (2003). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septohippocampal system. London: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Harlow, R., Friedman, R.S., & Higgins, E.T. (1997). The regulatory focus questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, Columbia University. [Google Scholar]
  • Harmon-Jones, E. (2003). Anger and the behavioral approach system. Personality and Individual Differences , 35(5), 995–1005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Haws, K.L., Dholakia, U.M., & Bearden, W.O. (2010). An assessment of chronic regulatory focus measures. Journal of Marketing Research , 47(5), 967–982. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Higgins, E.T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review , 94(3), 319–340. [Google Scholar]
  • Higgins, E.T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist , 52, 1280–1300. [Google Scholar]
  • Higgins, E.T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M.E. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–46). New York: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Higgins, E.T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist , 55, 1217–1230. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Higgins, E.T. (2005). Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 14(4), 209–213. [Google Scholar]
  • Higgins, T., & Tykocinski, O. (1992). Self-discrepancies and biographical memory: Personality and cognition at the level of psychological situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 18(5), 527–535. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Higgins, E.T., & Cornwell, J.F. (2016). Securing foundations and advancing frontiers: Prevention and promotion effects on judgment & decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 136, 56–67. [Google Scholar]
  • Higgins, E.T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 72(3), 515–525. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [Google Scholar]
  • Hoyle, R. (2012). Handbook of structural equation modeling. Guilford, New York, NY, USA. [Google Scholar]
  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling , 6(1), 1–55. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8 user’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software. [Google Scholar]
  • Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Kutzner, F.L.W., Förderer, S., & Plessner, H. (2012). Regulatory fit improves putting in top golfers. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology , 2, 130–137. [Google Scholar]
  • Laroche, M. (2019). Contribution à l’analyse de la pratique de l’activité physique en contexte de santé : les apports des orientations régulatrices. Doctoral dissertation, Aix-Marseille. [Google Scholar]
  • Laveault, D., & Grégoire, J. (2002). Introduction aux théories des tests en psychologie et en éducation. Bruxelles, Belgique : De Boeck Université. [Google Scholar]
  • 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, 854–864. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Mardia, K.V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika , 57(3), 519–530. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
  • Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R., & McDonald, R.P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin , 103(3), 391–411. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Memmert, D., Plessner, H., Hüttermann, S., Froese, G., Peterhänsel, C., & Unkelbach, C. (2015). Collective fit increases team performances: Extending regulatory fit from individuals to dyadic teams. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 45, 274–281. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. [Google Scholar]
  • Ouschan, L., Boldero, J.M., Kashima, Y., Wakimoto, R., & Kashima, E.S. (2007). Regulatory focus strategies scale: A measure of individual differences in the endorsement of regulatory strategies. Asian Journal of Social Psychology , 10(4), 243–257. [Google Scholar]
  • Partouche-Sebban, J. (2013). Entre prévention et promotion : l’impact de la saillance de mortalité sur le cadrage situationnel en consommation et sur les préférences produits. Economics Thesis from University Paris Dauphine. [Google Scholar]
  • Plaisant, O., Courtois, R., Réveillère, C., Mendelsohn, G.A., & John, O.P. (2010). Validation par analyse factorielle du Big Five Inventory français (BFI-Fr). Analyse convergente avec le NEO-PI-R. Annales Médico-psychologiques, revue psychiatrique , 168(2), 97–106. Elsevier Masson. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Plessner, H., Unkelbach, C., Memmert, D., Baltes, A. & Kolb, A. (2009). Regulatory fit as a determinant of sport performance. Psychology of Sport & Exercise , 10, 108–115. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Romeu, J.L., & Ozturk, A. (1993). A comparative study of goodness-of-fit tests for multivariate normality. Journal of Multivariate Analysis , 46(2), 309–334. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
  • Schmid, J., & Leiman, J.M. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika , 22(1), 53–61. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Scholer, A.A., & Higgins, E.T. (2008). Distinguishing levels of approach and avoidance: An analysis using regulatory focus theory. In A.J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 489–503). New York, NY: Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Scholer, A.A., Zou, X., Fujita, K., Stroessner, S.J., & Higgins, E.T. (2010). When risk seeking becomes a motivational necessity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 99(2), 215–231. [Google Scholar]
  • Shah, J., Higgins, E.T., & Friedman, R.S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 74, 285–293. [Google Scholar]
  • Spielberger, C.D., & Sharma, S. (1976). Cross-cultural measurement of anxiety. In C.D. Spielberger & R. diaz-Guerrero (Eds.), Cross-cultural anxiety (pp. 13–25). Washington: Hemisphere. [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [Google Scholar]
  • Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  • Thomson, G.H. (1951). The factorial analysis of human ability (5th ed.). London: London Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Vahé, A., & Debanne, T. (2019). Effet d’interaction entre stratégie régulatrice et structure de récompense de la situation : étude sur la performance au pénalty en handball. Movement & Sport Sciences , 106(4), 19–26. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Vallerand, R.J. (1989). Vers une méthodologie de validation trans-culturelle de questionnaires psychologiques : implications pour la recherche en langue française. Psychologie Canadienne , 30, 662–680. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Vallières, E.F., & Vallerand, J. (1990). Traduction et validation franco-canadienne de l’échelle d’estime de soi de Rosenberg. International Journal of Psychology , 25, 305–316. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Vaughn, L.A., Baumann, J., & Klemann, C. (2008). Openness to experience and regulatory focus: Evidence of motivation from fit. Journal of Research in Personality , 42(4), 886–894. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Vogel, T., & Genshow, O. (2013). When do chronic differences in self-regulation count? Regulatory focus effects in easy and difficult soccer tasks. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology , 35, 216–220. [Google Scholar]
  • Wallace, J.C., Johnson, P.D., & Frazier, M.L. (2009). An examination of the factorial, construct, and predictive validity and utility of the regulatory focus at work scale. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 30(6), 805–831. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wegner, M., Grätzer, R., Egli, J., & Schüler, J. (2019). Regulatory fit in the interactive sports of badminton and volleyball: A closer look at task framing applications. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science , 15(2), 105–114. [Google Scholar]
  • Wherry, R.J., Jr. (1984). Contributions to correlational analysis. New York: Academic Press. [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.