References

@book{thorndike_psychology_1935,
	address = {Oxford,  England},
	series = {The psychology of wants, interests and attitudes.},
	title = {The psychology of wants, interests and attitudes.},
	abstract = {A report of experiments on aspects of the learning problem conducted under the author's direction at Teachers' College. Wants, interests and attitudes are related by implication to such factors as relevance and belongingness, which are responsible for the confirming reaction at the basis of the law of effect. It is shown again that learning can take place when only tendencies are learned, that adjacent connections on both sides of the rewarded ones are strengthened, and that connections can be formed without awareness on the part of the subject either of the nature of the connection of the fact that it is being formed. Part II is concerned with changes in wants. It is shown that they may change somewhat under the influence of various degrees of reward and punishment, and possibly also as a result of simple repetition, though it is difficult to separate this from some degree of reward. The influence of punishments, particularly as their amount, is studied. There are chapters on the history of the use of rewards and punishments and on practical applications, appendices giving in extenso the material used, bibliography, and index. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)},
	publisher = {Appleton-Century},
	author = {Thorndike, E. L.},
	year = {1935},
	keywords = {Motivation}
}

@article{higgins_beyond_1997,
	title = {Beyond pleasure and pain.},
	volume = {52},
	issn = {1935-990X(Electronic),0003-066X(Print)},
	doi = {10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280},
	abstract = {People approach pleasure and avoid pain. To discover the true nature of approach–avoidance motivation, psychologists need to move beyond this hedonic principle to the principles that underlie the different ways that it operates. One such principle is regulatory focus, which distinguishes self-regulation with a promotion focus (accomplishments and aspirations) from self-regulation with a prevention focus (safety and responsibilities). This principle is used to reconsider the fundamental nature of approach–avoidance, expectancy–value relations, and emotional and evaluative sensitivities. Both types of regulatory focus are applied to phenomena that have been treated in terms of either promotion (e.g., well-being) or prevention (e.g., cognitive dissonance). Then, regulatory focus is distinguished from regulatory anticipation and regulatory reference, 2 other principles underlying the different ways that people approach pleasure and avoid pain. ({PsycINFO} Database Record (c) 2016 {APA}, all rights reserved)},
	pages = {1280--1300},
	number = {12},
	journal = {American Psychologist},
	author = {Higgins, E. Tory},
	year = {1997},
	keywords = {*Motivation, Regulatory focus, *Pain, *Pleasure, *Self-Control, Theories, Seminal}
}

@incollection{scholer_regulatory_nodate,
	location = {Oxford,  England},
	title = {Regulatory focus theory and research: Catching up and looking forward after 20 years.},
	volume = {2},
	booktitle = {Oxford Handbook of Motivation},
	publisher = {Oxford University Press},
	author = {Scholer, Abigail A. and Cornwell, James F. M. and Higgins, E. Tory},
	year = {in press},
	editor = {Ryan, R.}
}

@article{higgins_making_2000,
	title = {Making a good decision: {Value} from fit.},
	volume = {55},
	issn = {1935-990X(Electronic),0003-066X(Print)},
	doi = {10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217},
	abstract = {The classic answer to what makes a decision good concerns outcomes. A good decision has high outcome benefits (it is worthwhile) and low outcome costs (it is worth it). I propose that, independent of outcomes or value from worth, people experience a regulatory fit when they use goal pursuit means that fit their regulatory orientation, and this regulatory fit increases the value of what they are doing. The following postulates of this value from fit proposal are examined: (a) People will be more inclined toward goal means that have higher regulatory fit, (b) people's motivation during goal pursuit will be stronger when regulatory fit is higher, (c) people's (prospective) feelings about a choice they might make will be more positive for a desirable choice and more negative for an undesirable choice when regulatory fit is higher, (d) people's (retrospective) evaluations of past decisions or goal pursuits will be more positive when regulatory fit was higher, and (e) people will assign higher value to an object that was chosen with higher regulatory fit. Studies testing each of these postulates support the value-from fit proposal. How value from fit can enhance or diminish the value of goal pursuits and the quality of life itself is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)},
	number = {11},
	journal = {American Psychologist},
	author = {Higgins, E. Tory},
	year = {2000},
	keywords = {*Motivation, Regulatory fit, *Choice Behavior, *Decision Making, Values, Seminal},
	pages = {1217--1230}
}

@article{scholer_when_2010,
	title = {When risk seeking becomes a motivational necessity.},
	volume = {99},
	issn = {1939-1315(Electronic),0022-3514(Print)},
	doi = {10.1037/a0019715},
	abstract = {Four studies demonstrate the importance of self-regulatory mechanisms for understanding risk-seeking behavior under loss. Findings suggest that risk seeking becomes a motivational necessity under 3 conditions: (a) when an individual is in a state of loss; (b) when the individual is in a prevention-focused regulatory state (E. T. Higgins, 1997); and (c) when the risky option alone offers the possibility of eliminating loss. In situations involving loss, prevention motivation but not promotion motivation (whether measured or manipulated) was uniquely associated with behaviors that served the motivation to maintain the status quo. When the risky option offered the sole possibility of returning to the status quo, prevention motivation predicted increased risk seeking. However, when a more conservative option was available that also offered the possibility to return to the status quo, prevention motivation predicted risk aversion. When neither option offered the possibility to return to the status quo, prevention motivation was not associated with risky choice. The authors discuss the benefits of complementing existing accounts of risky decision making under loss with regulatory focus motivational mechanisms. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)},
	number = {2},
	journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
	author = {Scholer, Abigail A. and Zou, Xi and Fujita, Kentaro and Stroessner, Steven J. and Higgins, E. Tory},
	year = {2010},
	keywords = {*Motivation, *Decision Making, *Risk Taking, *Self-Regulation, Prospect Theory},
	pages = {215--231}
}

@article{zou_pursuit_2014,
	title = {In pursuit of progress: {Promotion} motivation and risk preference in the domain of gains.},
	volume = {106},
	issn = {1939-1315(Electronic),0022-3514(Print)},
	doi = {10.1037/a0035391},
	abstract = {This article examines the role of promotion motivation in decision making in the domain of gains. Using a stock investment paradigm in which individuals believed that they were making decisions that were real and consequential, we found that promotion motivation, and not prevention motivation, predicted the likelihood of switching between risky and conservative choices in the domain of gains. Promotion-focused participants chose a relatively risky option when their stock portfolio remained unchanged (stuck at 0, the status quo) but switched to a relatively conservative option when they had just experienced a large gain (Studies 1–4), both when regulatory focus was measured (Study 1) and manipulated (Studies 2–4). Studies in which progress was manipulated (Study 3) and measured (Study 4) provided evidence that it is perceptions of progress that underlie this tactical switch in risk preferences within the promotion system. We discuss the implications of these findings for decision making and the role of progress in self-regulation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)},
	number = {2},
	journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
	author = {Zou, Xi and Scholer, Abigail A. and Higgins, E. Tory},
	year = {2014},
	keywords = {*Motivation, *Decision Making, *Self-Regulation, *Prospect Theory, Preferences, Risk Factors},
	pages = {183--201}
}

@incollection{shah_goal_2003,
	address = {Mahwah,  NJ,  US},
	series = {Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology.},
	title = {Goal systems theory: {Integrating} the cognitive and motivational aspects of self-regulation.},
	isbn = {0-8058-4036-2 (Hardcover)},
	abstract = {Addresses fundamental self-regulatory issues by considering the basic ways in which goals can differ from each other not only in terms of their motivational contents but also in terms of their significant cognitive properties. To integrate these differing goal qualities under a general perspective, this chapter adopts a systematic approach in assuming that an individual's goals and means can be viewed as a network of cognitive associations endowed with specific structural properties. The authors begin by portraying the fundamental characteristics of goal systems: how goals inter-connect with other goals and with their attainment means and what significant configurations result from these associations. In doing so, they outline a number of characteristics of goal-systems such as their potential for implicit activation, their contextual dependence, and the transfer of properties that may occur between their components. This chapter then considers the consequences of goal systems for various self-regulatory phenomena including goal commitment, choice, substitution, and intrinsic motivation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)},
	booktitle = {Motivated social perception:  {The} {Ontario} symposium, {Vol}. 9.},
	publisher = {Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers},
	author = {Shah, James Y. and Kruglanski, Arie W. and Friedman, Ron},
	year = {2003},
	keywords = {*Cognition, *Goals, *Motivation, *Self-Regulation, Systems Theory},
	pages = {247--275}
}

@article{scholer_role_2016,
	title = {The role of metamotivation in creating task-motivation fit.},
	volume = {2},
	issn = {2333-8121(Electronic),2333-8113(Print)},
	doi = {10.1037/mot0000043},
	abstract = {One of the challenges of effective goal pursuit is being able to flexibly adapt to changing situations and demands. The current studies investigate whether individuals exhibit effective metamotivation—successful management of one’s motivational states—in creating fit between an optimal motivational orientation and specific task demands (e.g., inducing a promotion focus, as opposed to prevention focus, in preparation for an eager brainstorming task). Using regulatory focus theory as a framework, 5 studies provide evidence that although North American individuals exhibit some metamotivational awareness of task-motivation fit in the realm of regulatory focus, they may also have competing beliefs that promotion motivation is generally better, regardless of task type. Given this tension, having metamotivational awareness of task-motivation fit did not always lead to successful behavioral enactment (Studies 3–5). We discuss connections to metacognition and implications for the role of flexibility in self-regulation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)},
	number = {3},
	journal = {Motivation Science},
	author = {Scholer, Abigail A. and Miele, David B.},
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {*Metacognition, *Motivation, Self-Regulation, Metamotivation, Regulatory fit, Regulatory focus, Seminal},
	pages = {171--197}
}

@article{fitzsimons_outsourcing_2011,
	title = {Outsourcing {Self}-{Regulation}},
	volume = {22},
	issn = {0956-7976},
	doi = {10.1177/0956797610397955},
	abstract = {Three studies demonstrate a novel phenomenon—self-regulatory outsourcing—in which thinking about how other people can be instrumental (i.e., helpful) for a given goal undermines motivation to expend effort on that goal. In Experiment 1, participants who thought about how their partner helped them with health goals (as opposed to career goals) planned to spend less time and effort on health goals in the upcoming week. This pattern was stronger for depleted participants than for nondepleted participants. In Experiment 2, participants who thought about how their partner helped them with academic-achievement goals procrastinated more, leaving themselves less time for an academic task, than did participants in two control conditions. This pattern was stronger for participants who were told that procrastinating would drain their resources for the academic task than for participants who were told that procrastinating would not drain their resources for that task. In Experiment 3, participants who decreased their effort after thinking of an instrumental significant other reported higher relationship commitment to that individual than did participants who did not decrease their effort. The possibility for shared (or transactive) self-regulation is discussed.},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2018-12-30},
	journal = {Psychological Science},
	author = {Fitzsimons, Gráinne M. and Finkel, Eli J.},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {369--375}
}

@article{shah_automatic_2003,
	title = {Automatic for the people: {How} representations of significant others implicitly affect goal pursuit.},
	volume = {84},
	issn = {1939-1315(Electronic),0022-3514(Print)},
	doi = {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). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)},
	number = {4},
	journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology},
	author = {Shah, James Y.},
	year = {2003},
	keywords = {*Cognitions, *Goals, *Interpersonal Influences, *Priming, Significant Others},
	pages = {661--681}
}

@article{bohns_liking_2011,
	title = {Liking the {Same} {Things}, but {Doing} {Things} {Differently}: {Outcome} {Versus} {Strategic} {Compatibility} in {Partner} {Preferences} for {Joint} {Tasks}},
	volume = {29},
	issn = {0278-016X},
	shorttitle = {Liking the {Same} {Things}, but {Doing} {Things} {Differently}},
	doi = {10.1521/soco.2011.29.5.497},
	abstract = {We propose a distinction between two types of interpersonal compatibility in determining partner preferences for joint tasks: outcome compatibility and strategic compatibility. We argue that these two types of compatibility correspond to preferences for similar and complementary task partners, respectively. Five studies support this distinction. A pilot study demonstrates that established scales for measuring attitudes and values (variables associated with similarity effects) capture more information about desired outcomes, whereas established scales for measuring dominance (the variable most widely associated with complementarity effects) capture more information about desired strategies. Studies 1a and 1b demonstrate that framing the same variable as either an outcome variable or a strategic variable can predict partner preference (i.e., similar or complementary). Finally, Studies 2a and 2b address why complementarity may offer a strategic advantage over similarity in task pursuit: complementarity allows two individuals with contrasting strategic preferences to “divide and conquer” tasks that require multiple strategies.},
	number = {5},
	urldate = {2019-01-03},
	journal = {Social Cognition},
	author = {Bohns, Vanessa K. and Higgins, E. Tory},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {497--527},
	file = {Snapshot:/Users/alexandermoore/Zotero/storage/68ZPESPV/soco.2011.29.5.html:text/html}
}

@article{oyserman_unfair_2007,
	title = {Unfair treatment and self-regulatory focus},
	volume = {43},
	issn = {0022-1031},
	doi = {10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.014},
	abstract = {Ample correlational evidence exists that perceived unfair treatment is negatively related to well-being, health, and goal striving but the underlying process is unclear. We hypothesized that effects are due in part to contextual priming of prevention focus and the negative consequences of chronic prevention-focused vigilance. Indeed, reasonable responses to unfair treatment—to avoid situations in which it occurs or if this is not possible, confront it head on—fit prevention self-regulatory focus response patterns. Results from three experiments support this notion. Priming stigmatized social category membership heightened students’ prevention (not promotion) focus (n=117). Priming non-stigmatized social category membership (i.e., white) did not change prevention focus (n=46). Priming prevention (not promotion) increased perceptions of unfair treatment (and aroused prevention-relevant fight or flight responses) in response to a negative ambiguous job situation among low and moderate income adults (n=112).},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2019-01-03},
	journal = {Journal of Experimental Social Psychology},
	author = {Oyserman, Daphna and Uskul, Ayse K. and Yoder, Nicholas and Nesse, Randy M. and Williams, David R.},
	year = {2007},
	keywords = {Discrimination, African American, Prevention, Promotion, Self-regulatory focus, Social class, Unfair treatment},
	pages = {505--512},
	file = {ScienceDirect Snapshot:/Users/alexandermoore/Zotero/storage/66S7QGLR/S0022103106000965.html:text/html}
}

@article{higgins_culture_2008,
	title = {Culture and {Personality}: {Variability} across {Universal} {Motives} as the {Missing} {Link}},
	volume = {2},
	copyright = {© 2008 The Author},
	issn = {1751-9004},
	shorttitle = {Culture and {Personality}},
	doi = {10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00075.x},
	abstract = {What is the relation between culture and personality? I argue that to address this question, it is necessary to meet five criteria: (1) to identify universal principles of human functioning that underlie both culture and personality; (2) to treat those principles at different levels of analysis for culture and personality; (3) to define culture and personality in terms of those principles in a manner that maintains the integrity of these concepts; (4) to select specific psychological factors that, because of their survival value, are present in every culture and individual, although to varying degrees; and (5) to postulate how different cultures and personalities emerge from variability in the predominance of those specific psychological factors. I then propose that these criteria can be met by identifying specific human motives that are both universal and vary across individuals, situations, and groups. I propose a five-step model that describes how cultures influence the personalities that emerge among its members, with particular emphasis on the human-defining period of development between 3 and 6 years of age, and how those personalities in turn influence the culture (from effects of regulatory fit). As initial support for the model, evidence is reviewed for commonality among cultures in the existence of promotion, prevention, locomotion, and assessment motives; for variability across cultures in the predominance of these motives as modal personalities; and for universality in the relations between each motive and Big Five and self-esteem trait characteristics. Combining the latter universal relations with the cultural variability in modal personalities yields cultural differences in manners of goal pursuit.},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2019-01-03},
	journal = {Social and Personality Psychology Compass},
	author = {Higgins, E. Tory},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {608--634},
	file = {Full Text PDF:/Users/alexandermoore/Zotero/storage/HEHLSRGV/Higgins - 2008 - Culture and Personality Variability across Univer.pdf:application/pdf;Snapshot:/Users/alexandermoore/Zotero/storage/JZP3WQB9/j.1751-9004.2007.00075.html:text/html}
}

@article{gelfand_differences_2011,
	title = {Differences {Between} {Tight} and {Loose} {Cultures}: {A} 33-{Nation} {Study}},
	volume = {332},
	copyright = {Copyright © 2011, American Association for the Advancement of Science},
	issn = {0036-8075, 1095-9203},
	shorttitle = {Differences {Between} {Tight} and {Loose} {Cultures}},
	doi = {10.1126/science.1197754},
	abstract = {With data from 33 nations, we illustrate the differences between cultures that are tight (have many strong norms and a low tolerance of deviant behavior) versus loose (have weak social norms and a high tolerance of deviant behavior). Tightness-looseness is part of a complex, loosely integrated multilevel system that comprises distal ecological and historical threats (e.g., high population density, resource scarcity, a history of territorial conflict, and disease and environmental threats), broad versus narrow socialization in societal institutions (e.g., autocracy, media regulations), the strength of everyday recurring situations, and micro-level psychological affordances (e.g., prevention self-guides, high regulatory strength, need for structure). This research advances knowledge that can foster cross-cultural understanding in a world of increasing global interdependence and has implications for modeling cultural change. The differences across cultures in the enforcement of conformity may reflect their specific histories.},
	language = {en},
	number = {6033},
	urldate = {2019-01-03},
	journal = {Science},
	author = {Gelfand, Michele J. and Raver, Jana L. and Nishii, Lisa and Leslie, Lisa M. and Lun, Janetta and Lim, Beng Chong and Duan, Lili and Almaliach, Assaf and Ang, Soon and Arnadottir, Jakobina and Aycan, Zeynep and Boehnke, Klaus and Boski, Pawel and Cabecinhas, Rosa and Chan, Darius and Chhokar, Jagdeep and D’Amato, Alessia and Ferrer, Montse and Fischlmayr, Iris C. and Fischer, Ronald and Fülöp, Marta and Georgas, James and Kashima, Emiko S. and Kashima, Yoshishima and Kim, Kibum and Lempereur, Alain and Marquez, Patricia and Othman, Rozhan and Overlaet, Bert and Panagiotopoulou, Penny and Peltzer, Karl and Perez-Florizno, Lorena R. and Ponomarenko, Larisa and Realo, Anu and Schei, Vidar and Schmitt, Manfred and Smith, Peter B. and Soomro, Nazar and Szabo, Erna and Taveesin, Nalinee and Toyama, Midori and Vliert, Evert Van de and Vohra, Naharika and Ward, Colleen and Yamaguchi, Susumu},
	year = {2011},
	pmid = {21617077},
	pages = {1100--1104},
	file = {Snapshot:/Users/alexandermoore/Zotero/storage/8ZG3ZQXS/1100.html:text/html}
}

@article{roos_societal_2015,
	series = {{SI}: {Social} {Norms} and {Cultural} {Dynamics}},
	title = {Societal threat and cultural variation in the strength of social norms: {An} evolutionary basis},
	volume = {129},
	issn = {0749-5978},
	shorttitle = {Societal threat and cultural variation in the strength of social norms},
	doi = {10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.01.003},
	abstract = {The strengths of social norms vary considerably across cultures, yet little research has shown whether such differences have an evolutionary basis. Integrating research in cross-cultural psychology with evolutionary game theory, we show that groups that face a high degree of threat develop stronger norms for organizing social interaction, with a higher degree of norm–adherence and higher punishment for deviant behavior. Conversely, groups that have little threat can afford to have weaker norms with less punishment for deviance. Our results apply to two kinds of norms: norms of cooperation, in which individuals must choose whether to cooperate (thereby benefitting everyone) or enrich themselves at the expense of others; and norms of coordination, in which there are several equally good ways for individuals to coordinate their actions, but individuals need to agree on which way to coordinate. This is the first work to show that different degrees of norm strength are evolutionarily adaptive to societal threat. Evolutionary game theoretic models of cultural adaptation may prove fruitful for exploring the causes of many other cultural differences that may be adaptive to particular ecological and historical contexts.},
	urldate = {2019-01-03},
	journal = {Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes},
	author = {Roos, Patrick and Gelfand, Michele and Nau, Dana and Lun, Janetta},
	year = {2015},
	keywords = {Coordination, Cultural evolution, Evolutionary game theory, Norms, Public Goods Game, Punishment},
	pages = {14--23},
	file = {ScienceDirect Full Text PDF:/Users/alexandermoore/Zotero/storage/FRHX5MSC/Roos et al. - 2015 - Societal threat and cultural variation in the stre.pdf:application/pdf;ScienceDirect Snapshot:/Users/alexandermoore/Zotero/storage/ANY5MRPC/S0749597815000047.html:text/html}
}

@article{uskul_cultural_2009,
	title = {The cultural congruency effect: {Culture}, regulatory focus, and the effectiveness of gain- vs. loss-framed health messages},
	volume = {45},
	issn = {0022-1031},
	shorttitle = {The cultural congruency effect},
	doi = {10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.005},
	abstract = {The present study contributes a cultural analysis to the literature on the persuasive effects of matching message frame to individuals’ motivational orientations. One experiment examines how members of cultural groups that are likely to differ in their regulatory focus respond to health messages focusing on either the benefits of flossing or the costs of not flossing. White British participants, who had a stronger promotion focus, were more persuaded by the gain-framed message, whereas East-Asian participants, who had a stronger prevention focus, were more persuaded by the loss-framed message. This cultural difference in persuasion was mediated by an interaction between individuals’ self-regulatory focus and type of health message. Thus health messages framed to be culturally congruent led participants to have more positive attitudes and stronger intentions to perform the health behaviors, and the interaction between self-regulatory focus and message frame emerged as the pathway through which the observed cultural difference occurs. Discussion focuses on the integration of individual difference, socio-cultural, and situational factors into models of health persuasion.},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2019-01-03},
	journal = {Journal of Experimental Social Psychology},
	author = {Uskul, Ayse K. and Sherman, David K. and Fitzgibbon, John},
	year = {2009},
	keywords = {Congruency effect, Culture, Gain- and loss-framed messages, Regulatory focus},
	pages = {535--541},
	file = {ScienceDirect Full Text PDF:/Users/alexandermoore/Zotero/storage/GTKD769H/Uskul et al. - 2009 - The cultural congruency effect Culture, regulator.pdf:application/pdf;ScienceDirect Snapshot:/Users/alexandermoore/Zotero/storage/NLQWYP45/S0022103108002436.html:text/html}
}

@article{keller_development_2008,
	title = {On the development of regulatory focus: the role of parenting styles},
	volume = {38},
	copyright = {Copyright © 2007 John Wiley \& Sons, Ltd.},
	issn = {1099-0992},
	shorttitle = {On the development of regulatory focus},
	doi = {10.1002/ejsp.460},
	abstract = {The present study was designed to contribute to our understanding of the development of chronic self-regulatory orientations reflecting self-regulation with a promotion and prevention focus, respectively. Little research addressed this issue empirically, although regulatory focus theory (RFT) explicitly entails assumptions concerning the role of parenting styles in the development of habitual self-regulatory orientations. According to RFT, parenting styles involving a critical and punitive mode that is focused on attaining safety and meeting obligations increases the likelihood that the child will acquire a predominantly prevention-focused style of self-regulation. In contrast, parenting styles involving a bolstering mode that is focused on accomplishing ideal goals and fulfilling aspirations increases the likelihood that the child will acquire a predominantly promotion-focused style of self-regulation. To test these assumptions, the present study assessed via self-reports the degree to which participants experienced different parenting styles as well as their chronic self-regulatory focus. The results reveal positive associations between the critical and punitive parenting style and prevention-focused self-regulation and between the bolstering parenting style and promotion-focused self-regulation thus corroborating the propositions of RFT. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley \& Sons, Ltd.},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2019-01-03},
	journal = {European Journal of Social Psychology},
	author = {Keller, Johannes},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {354--364},
	file = {Full Text PDF:/Users/alexandermoore/Zotero/storage/HUZZS7FX/Keller - 2008 - On the development of regulatory focus the role o.pdf:application/pdf;Snapshot:/Users/alexandermoore/Zotero/storage/FQYTYVG8/ejsp.html:text/html}
}

@incollection{higgins_development_1998,
	address = {New York,  NY,  US},
	title = {Development of regulatory focus: {Promotion} and prevention as ways of living.},
	isbn = {0-521-59176-7 (Hardcover)},
	abstract = {Proposes a basic distinction between nurturance-oriented parenting, which instills a promotion focus in children, and security-oriented parenting, which instills a prevention focus. The authors consider both the socialization determinants and the motivational consequences of acquiring regulatory focus. The chapter begins with a general overview of self-regulatory development that describes how children at different developmental levels represent the interpersonal significance of their behavior and appearance: that is, how children learn about their own person–environment fit. This section sets the stage for considering how different styles of caretaker–child interaction might shape the strength and quality of children's regulatory focus in life. The final section describes how regulatory focus, in turn, can create ways of living in the world. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)},
	booktitle = {Motivation and self-regulation across the life span.},
	publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
	author = {Higgins, E. Tory and Silberman, Israela},
	year = {1998},
	doi = {10.1017/CBO9780511527869.005},
	keywords = {*Childhood Development, *Childrearing Practices, *Motivation, *Self-Management, *Socialization, Consequence, Nurturance, Parent Child Relations, Person Environment Fit},
	pages = {78--113}
}

@incollection{higgins_promotion_1998,
	title = {Promotion and {Prevention}: {Regulatory} {Focus} as {A} {Motivational} {Principle}},
	volume = {30},
	shorttitle = {Promotion and {Prevention}},
	abstract = {The hedonic principle that people approach pleasure and avoid pain has been the basic motivational principle throughout the history of psychology. This principle underlies motivational models across all levels of analysis in psychology from the biological to social. However, it is noted that the hedonic principle is very basic and is limited as an explanatory variable. Almost any area of motivation can be discussed in terms of the hedonic principle. This chapter describes two different ways in which the hedonic principle operates—namely, one with a promotion focus and other with a prevention focus. These different ways of regulating pleasure and pain, called “regulatory focus,” have a major impact on people's feelings, thoughts, and actions that is independent of the hedonic principle per se. The chapter also presents some background information about another regulatory variable, called the “regulatory reference.” A self-regulatory system with a positive reference value essentially has a desired end state as the reference point.},
	urldate = {2019-01-03},
	booktitle = {Advances in {Experimental} {Social} {Psychology}},
	publisher = {Academic Press},
	author = {Higgins, E. Tory},
	editor = {Zanna, Mark P.},
	year = {1998},
	doi = {10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0},
	pages = {1--46},
	file = {ScienceDirect Full Text PDF:/Users/alexandermoore/Zotero/storage/7IZ7G7FH/Higgins - 1998 - Promotion and Prevention Regulatory Focus as A Mo.pdf:application/pdf;ScienceDirect Snapshot:/Users/alexandermoore/Zotero/storage/63BQCSU5/S0065260108603810.html:text/html}
}

@article{tomasello_ultra-social_2014,
	title = {The ultra-social animal},
	volume = {44},
	copyright = {© 2014. The Authors. European Journal of Social Psychology published by John Wiley \& Sons, Ltd.},
	issn = {1099-0992},
	doi = {10.1002/ejsp.2015},
	abstract = {In evolutionary perspective, what is most remarkable about human sociality is its many and diverse forms of cooperation. Here, I provide an overview of some recent research, mostly from our laboratory, comparing human children with their nearest living relatives, the great apes, in various tests of collaboration, prosocial behavior, conformity, and group-mindedness (e.g., following and enforcing social norms). This is done in the context of a hypothetical evolutionary scenario comprising two ordered steps: a first step in which early humans began collaborating with others in unique ways in their everyday foraging and a second step in which modern humans began forming cultural groups. Humans' unique forms of sociality help to explain their unique forms of cognition and morality. © 2014. The Authors. European Journal of Social Psychology published by John Wiley \& Sons, Ltd.},
	language = {en},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2019-01-03},
	journal = {European Journal of Social Psychology},
	author = {Tomasello, Michael},
	year = {2014},
	pages = {187--194},
	file = {Full Text PDF:/Users/alexandermoore/Zotero/storage/KTEFK6TP/Tomasello - 2014 - The ultra-social animal.pdf:application/pdf;Snapshot:/Users/alexandermoore/Zotero/storage/9F8GXEH3/ejsp.html:text/html}
}

@book{henrich_secret_2015,
	title = {The {Secret} of {Our} {Success}: {How} {Culture} {Is} {Driving} {Human} {Evolution}, {Domesticating} {Our} {Species}, and {Making} {Us} {Smarter}},
	isbn = {978-1-4008-7329-6},
	shorttitle = {The {Secret} of {Our} {Success}},
	abstract = {Humans are a puzzling species. On the one hand, we struggle to survive on our own in the wild, often failing to overcome even basic challenges, like obtaining food, building shelters, or avoiding predators. On the other hand, human groups have produced ingenious technologies, sophisticated languages, and complex institutions that have permitted us to successfully expand into a vast range of diverse environments. What has enabled us to dominate the globe, more than any other species, while remaining virtually helpless as lone individuals? This book shows that the secret of our success lies not in our innate intelligence, but in our collective brains—on the ability of human groups to socially interconnect and learn from one another over generations.Drawing insights from lost European explorers, clever chimpanzees, mobile hunter-gatherers, neuroscientific findings, ancient bones, and the human genome, Joseph Henrich demonstrates how our collective brains have propelled our species' genetic evolution and shaped our biology. Our early capacities for learning from others produced many cultural innovations, such as fire, cooking, water containers, plant knowledge, and projectile weapons, which in turn drove the expansion of our brains and altered our physiology, anatomy, and psychology in crucial ways. Later on, some collective brains generated and recombined powerful concepts, such as the lever, wheel, screw, and writing, while also creating the institutions that continue to alter our motivations and perceptions. Henrich shows how our genetics and biology are inextricably interwoven with cultural evolution, and how culture-gene interactions launched our species on an extraordinary evolutionary trajectory.Tracking clues from our ancient past to the present, The Secret of Our Success explores how the evolution of both our cultural and social natures produce a collective intelligence that explains both our species' immense success and the origins of human uniqueness.},
	language = {en},
	publisher = {Princeton University Press},
	author = {Henrich, Joseph},
	year = {2015},
	note = {Google-Books-ID: HFHpCAAAQBAJ},
	keywords = {Psychology / Social Psychology, Science / Cognitive Science, Science / General, Science / Life Sciences / Biology, Science / Life Sciences / Evolution, Science / Life Sciences / Genetics \& Genomics, Social Science / Sociology / General}
}

@article{harrington_tightnesslooseness_2014,
	title = {Tightness–looseness across the 50 united states},
	copyright = {©  . Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.},
	issn = {0027-8424, 1091-6490},
	doi = {10.1073/pnas.1317937111},
	abstract = {This research demonstrates wide variation in tightness–looseness (the strength of punishment and degree of latitude/permissiveness) at the state level in the United States, as well as its association with a variety of ecological and historical factors, psychological characteristics, and state-level outcomes. Consistent with theory and past research, ecological and man-made threats—such as a higher incidence of natural disasters, greater disease prevalence, fewer natural resources, and greater degree of external threat—predicted increased tightness at the state level. Tightness is also associated with higher trait conscientiousness and lower trait openness, as well as a wide array of outcomes at the state level. Compared with loose states, tight states have higher levels of social stability, including lowered drug and alcohol use, lower rates of homelessness, and lower social disorganization. However, tight states also have higher incarceration rates, greater discrimination and inequality, lower creativity, and lower happiness relative to loose states. In all, tightness–looseness provides a parsimonious explanation of the wide variation we see across the 50 states of the United States of America.},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2019-01-03},
	journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
	author = {Harrington, Jesse R. and Gelfand, Michele J.},
	year = {2014},
	pmid = {24843116},
	keywords = {culture, ecology, index, norms},
	pages = {201317937},
	file = {Full Text PDF:/Users/alexandermoore/Zotero/storage/RPA8HT4U/Harrington and Gelfand - 2014 - Tightness–looseness across the 50 united states.pdf:application/pdf;Snapshot:/Users/alexandermoore/Zotero/storage/XCYPTAAM/1317937111.html:text/html}
}

@article{pelto_differences_1968,
	title = {The differences between “tight” and “loose” societies},
	volume = {5},
	issn = {1936-4725},
	doi = {10.1007/BF03180447},
	language = {en},
	number = {5},
	urldate = {2019-01-03},
	journal = {Trans-action},
	author = {Pelto, Pertii J.},
	year = {1968},
	keywords = {Corporate Ownership, Cultural Adaptability, Formal Authority, Indian Community, Personality Structure},
	pages = {37--40},
	file = {Springer Full Text PDF:/Users/alexandermoore/Zotero/storage/Y3T9HE5B/Pelto - 1968 - The differences between “tight” and “loose” societ.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{little_free_1996,
	title = {Free {Traits}, {Personal} {Projects} and {Idio}-{Tapes}: {Three} {Tiers} for {Personality} {Psychology}},
	volume = {7},
	issn = {1047-840X},
	shorttitle = {Free {Traits}, {Personal} {Projects} and {Idio}-{Tapes}},
	number = {4},
	urldate = {2019-01-12},
	journal = {Psychological Inquiry},
	author = {Little, Brian R.},
	year = {1996},
	pages = {340--344}
}

@article{fulmer_feeling_2010,
	title = {On “{Feeling} {Right}” in {Cultural} {Contexts}: {How} {Person}-{Culture} {Match} {Affects} {Self}-{Esteem} and {Subjective} {Well}-{Being}},
	volume = {21},
	issn = {0956-7976},
	shorttitle = {On “{Feeling} {Right}” in {Cultural} {Contexts}},
	doi = {10.1177/0956797610384742},
	abstract = {Whether one is in one’s native culture or abroad, one’s personality can differ markedly from the personalities of the majority, thus failing to match the “cultural norm.” Our studies examined how the interaction of individual- and cultural-level personality affects people’s self-esteem and well-being. We propose a person-culture match hypothesis that predicts that when a person’s personality matches the prevalent personalities of other people in a culture, culture functions as an important amplifier of the positive effect of personality on self-esteem and subjective well-being at the individual level. Across two studies, using data from more than 7,000 individuals from 28 societies, multilevel random-coefficient analyses showed that when a relation between a given personality trait and well-being or self-esteem exists at the individual level, the relation is stronger in cultures characterized by high levels of that personality dimension. Results were replicated across extraversion, promotion focus, and locomotive regulatory mode. Our research has practical implications for the well-being of both cultural natives and migrants.},
	language = {en},
	number = {11},
	urldate = {2019-01-12},
	journal = {Psychological Science},
	author = {Fulmer, C. Ashley and Gelfand, Michele J. and Kruglanski, Arie W. and Kim-Prieto, Chu and Diener, Ed and Pierro, Antonio and Higgins, E. Tory},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {1563--1569},
	file = {SAGE PDF Full Text:/Users/alexandermoore/Zotero/storage/FNE7IUNS/Fulmer et al. - 2010 - On “Feeling Right” in Cultural Contexts How Perso.pdf:application/pdf}
}