The Work Regulatory Focus Scale: Turkish Adaptation Study

Year 2023, , 553 - 581, 25.12.2023

Yasemin Bozkurt , Pınar Ünsal

https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2022-1131503

Abstract

According to regulatory focus theory, two types of focus, namely, promotion and prevention, regulate goal-directed behavior. The promotion focus is related to development needs such as progress, growth, and achievement, and those of promotion-focused individuals are goals, hopes, ideals, and aspirations. Alternatively, prevention focus is related to protection needs such as safety, security, and responsibility, and the goals of prevention-focused individuals are duties, obligations, and requirements. Although many fields have examined the theory for many years, the literature points out its effect on work attitudes in the previous years. In the local context, a Turkish scale that addresses the concept of regulatory focus does not exist. To fill this research gap, the current study aims to adapt the Work Regulatory Focus Scale (Neubert et al., 2008) into Turkish and examined its psychometric properties. After translation, two studies were conducted to test the fitness of the psychometric properties of the scale. Study 1 was conducted on 260 employees to test the construct validity of the scale, to perform exploratory factor analysis, and to examine the relationship of the factors with one another and with employee voice. Study 2 recruited 157 employees, performed confirmatory factor analysis, and focused on the relationship with risk taking to test construct validity. Both studies calculated for the internal consistency coefficient. Analysis in Study 1 indicated a two-factor structure composed of prevention and promotion, which is consistent with the original scale. The result of correlation analysis suggested significant relationships between prevention and promotion focuses and between prohibitive and promotive voices. In addition, the findings of Study 2 supported the two-factor structure, and the study noted a significant correlation of promotion and prevention focuses with risk-taking tendency. The reliability analysis in Studies 1 and 2 produced internal consistency coefficients of .91 and .93 for prevention and .85 and .87 for promotion factor, respectively. The findings provided various evidence for the validity of the Turkish form of the scale and the reliability of the measurement.

Keywords

Work Regulatory Focus Scale, regulatory focus theory, prevention focus, promotion focus, validity, reliability

Project Number

yoktur.

İş Bağlamında Düzenleyici Odak Ölçeği: Türkçeye Uyarlama Çalışması

Abstract

Düzenleyici odak teorisine göre hedefe yönelik davranışlar teşvik ve önlem olmak üzere iki farklı odak tarafından düzenlenmektedir. Teşvik odağı, ilerleme, büyüme ve başarı gibi gelişim ihtiyaçları ile ilişkilidir ve bu odağa sahip bireylerin amaçları hedefler, umutlar, idealler ve özlemlerdir. Öte yandan, önlem odağı; güvenlik, emniyet ve sorumluluk gibi koruma ihtiyacı ile ilişkilidir ve bu odağa sahip bireyin amaçları görevler, yükümlülükler ve gerekliliklerdir. Teori uzun yıllardır birçok alanda araştırılmış olsa da işe yönelik tutumlar üzerindeki etkisi son yıllarda dikkat çekmektedir. Ulusal yazın incelendiğinde, düzenleyici odak kavramını işe yönelik tutumlar kapsamında ele alan Türkçe bir ölçeğe rastlanmamıştır. Bu boşluğu doldurmak amacıyla bu çalışma kapsamında, İş Bağlamında Düzenleyici Odak Ölçeği’nin (Work Regulatory Focus Scale (Neubert ve ark., 2008) Türkçeye uyarlanması ve psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Ölçeğin çeviri çalışmalarının ardından psikometrik özelliklerinin uygunluğu iki ayrı çalışma ile test edilmiştir. Çalışma 1 260 çalışan birey ile yürütülmüş, bu çalışmada ölçeğin yapı geçerliğini sınamak üzere açımlayıcı faktör analizi ile faktörlerin birbiriyle ve çalışan sesliliği ile ilişkisi incelenmiştir. Çalışma 2 ise 157 çalışan birey ile gerçekleştirilmiş, yine ölçeğin yapı geçerliğini kapsamında doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve ölçeğin risk alma ile ilişkisi incelenmiştir. Ölçümün güvenirliğini test etmek üzere ise her iki çalışmada da iç tutarlılık katsayısı hesaplanmıştır. Çalışma 1’den elde edilen faktör analizi bulguları orijinal ölçekle tutarlı olarak önlem ve teşvik boyutlarından oluşan iki faktörlü yapıyı ortaya koymaktadır. Korelasyon analizi sonucunda önlem ve teşvik odağı arasında; odaklar ile engelleyici ve destekleyici ses türleri arasında beklenen yönde anlamlı ilişkiler bulunmuştur. Çalışma 2’den elde edilen bulgular da iki faktörlü yapıyı desteklemiş ve teşvik odağı ile risk alma eğilimi arasında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmuştur. Güvenirlik analizi sonucunda, çalışma 1 ve 2’de sırasıyla önlem boyutu için iç tutarlılık katsayısı .91 ve .93; teşvik boyutu için .85 ve .87 olarak bulunmuştur. Sonuç olarak, ölçeğin Türkçe formunun geçerliği ve ölçümün güvenirliği için çeşitli kanıtlar sunulmuştur.

Keywords

İş Bağlamında Düzenleyici Odak Ölçeği, düzenleyici odak teorisi, önlem odağı, teşvik odağı, geçerlik, güvenirlik

Supporting Institution

yoktur.

Project Number

yoktur.

Thanks

yoktur.

References

• Akhtar, S. ve Lee, J. S. (2014). Assessing factor structure and convergent validity of the work regulatory focus scale. Psychological Reports, 115(1), 133-147. doi: 10.2466/08.01.PR0.115c13z5 google scholar
• Akın, M. ve Özdevecioğlu, M. (2021). İşyerindeki dışlanmanın, işyerindeki sapkın davranışlar üzerindeki etkisi: Personelin düzenleyici odağının rolü. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(4), 29162926. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2021.1298 google scholar
• Andrews, M. C., Kacmar, K. M. ve Kacmar, C. (2014). The mediational effect of regulatory focus on the relationships between mindfulness and job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Career Development International, 19(5), 494-507. doi: 10.1108/CDI-02-2014-0018 google scholar
• Arbuckle, J. L. (2014). IBM® SPSS® AmosTM 23 User’s guide. Amos Development Corporation. google scholar
• Arslan, A. (2015). Bireysel girişimcilik ve düzenleyici odaklar kuramı ilişkisinde çevresel belirsizliğin düzenleyici rolü: emlak sektöründe bir araştırma. Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 10(1). 147-166. google scholar
• Bentham, J. (1789). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford: Clarendon press. (01.03.2022 tarihinde http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/ Philosophers/Bentham/ principlesofMoralsAndLegislation.pdf adresinden alınmıştır). google scholar
• Brenninkmeijer, V., Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P. M. ve Hetty van Emmerik, I. J. (2010). Regulatory focus at work: The moderating role of regulatory focus in the job demands-resources model. Career Development International, 15(7), 708-728. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431011094096 google scholar
• Brockner, J. ve Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 35-66. https://doi. org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2972 google scholar
• Bryant, P. ve Dunford, R. (2008). The influence of regulatory focus on risky decision-making. Applied Psychology, 57(2), 335-359. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00319.x google scholar
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. google scholar
• Ceylan, H. H. ve Köse, B. (2020). Cazibe etkisi ve düzenleyici odağın tüketici seçimindeki rolü. Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2), 71-80. doi: 10.46482/ ebyuiibfdergi.829273 google scholar
• Civelek, A. B. ve Bayraktar, A. (2020). Online alışveriş yapan tüketicilerin düzenleyici uyumlarının algılanan değer ve güvene etkisi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(2), 371393. https://doi.org/10.24889/ifede.839815 google scholar
• Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98-104. google scholar
• Crowe, E. ve 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. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2675 google scholar
• Doğruyol, B. (2008). The impact of parental control and support on the development of chronic self-regulatory focus. [Yüksek lisans tezi]. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi. google scholar
• Dyne, L. V., Ang, S. ve Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359-1392. google scholar
• Förster, J. ve Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16(8), 631-636. google scholar
• Förster, J., Higgins, E. T. ve Bianco, A. T. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns?. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 148-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00509-5 google scholar
• Friedman, R. S. ve Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1001-1013. https:// doi/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1001 google scholar
• Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216 google scholar
• Gorman, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B. L., Apodaca, S., McIntyre, A. L., Park, P. ve 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 google scholar
• Hamstra, M. R., Bolderdijk, J. W. ve Veldstra, J. L. (2011). Everyday risk taking as a function of regulatory focus. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(1), 134-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jrp.2010.11.017 google scholar
• Haws, K. L., Dholakia, U. M. ve Bearden, W. O. (2010). An assessment of chronic regulatory focus measures. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 967-982. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.5.967 google scholar
• Henker, N., Sonnentag, S. ve Unger, D. (2015). Transformational leadership and employee creativity: the mediating role of promotion focus and creative process engagement. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2), 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9348-7. google scholar
• Higgins, E. T. (1989). Continuities and discontinuities in self-regulatory and self-evaluative processes: A developmental theory relating self and affect. Journal of Personality, 57(2), 407-444. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00488.x google scholar
• Higgins, E. T. (1996). Ideals, oughts, and regulatory focus: Affect and motivation from distinct pains and pleasures. P. M. Gollwitzer ve J. A. Bargh (Ed.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior içinde (s. 91-114). Guilford. google scholar
• Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280 google scholar
• Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1-46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0 google scholar
• Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), 12171230. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217 google scholar
• Higgins, E. T. (2002). How self-regulation creates distinct values: The case of promotion and prevention decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(3), 177-191. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15327663JCP1203_01 google scholar
• Higgins, E. T. (2005). Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(4), 209-213. doi: https://doi.org/10.10.1002/ejsp.27 google scholar
• Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N. ve Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 3-23. doi: https://doi.org/10.10.1002/ejsp.27 google scholar
• Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J. R., Crowe, E. ve Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), 276-286. https://doi.Org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.276 google scholar
• Higgins, E. T. ve Silberman, I. (1998). Development of regulatory focus: Promotion and prevention as ways of living. J. Heckhausen ve C. S. Dweck (Ed.), Motivation and self-regulation across the life span içinde (1. bs, ss. 78-113). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511527869.005 google scholar
• Higgins, E. T. ve Spiegel, S. (2004). Promotion and prevention strategies for self-regulation. Handbook of Self-regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications, 171-187. google scholar
• Higgins, E. T., Cesario, J., Hagiwara, N., Spiegel, S., ve Pittman, T. (2010). Increasing or decreasing interest in activities: The role of regulatory fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 559. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018833 google scholar
• Jackson, D. N. (1994). Jackson Personality Inventory—Revised manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems, Inc. google scholar
• Jackson, D. N. (1977). Reliability of the Jackson Personality Inventory. Psychological Reports, 40(2),613-614. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1977.40.2.613 google scholar
• Johnson, R. E. ve Chang, C. H. (2008, Nisan). Development and validation of a work-based regulatory focus scale [Bildiri]. 23. Endüstri ve Örgüt Psikolojisi Derneği Yıllık Konferası, San Francisco, CA. google scholar
• Johnson, R. E., Chang, C. H. ve Yang, L. Q. (2010). Commitment and motivation at work: The relevance of employee identity and regulatory focus. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 226245. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.48463332 google scholar
• Karagonlar, G. ve Emirza, S. (2021). Sosyal değer yönelimi ve sosyal ikilemlerde iş birliği: Düzenleyici odağın ve tanımlayıcı normların etkisi. Psikoloji Çalışmaları, 41(3), 991-1035. https://doi. org/10.26650/SP2020-81676 google scholar
• Kark, R. ve Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500-528.doi: https://doi. org/10.5465/amr.2007.24351846 google scholar
• Kuş, Y. (2023). Düzenleyici odakların ortaya çıkmasında etkili olan faktörlerin ve sonuçların incelenmesi. [Doktora tezi]. İstanbul Üniversitesi. google scholar
• Lanaj, K., Chang, C. H. ve Johnson, R. E. (2012). Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(5), 998-1034. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027723 google scholar
• Liang, J., Farh, C. I. ve Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71-92. https://www.jstor. org/stable/41413625 google scholar
• Lin, S. H. J. ve Johnson, R. E. (2015). A suggestion to improve a day keeps your depletion away: Examining promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors within a regulatory focus and ego depletion framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000018 google scholar
• Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H. ve 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. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854 google scholar
• Markovits, Y., Ullrich, J., van Dick, R. ve Davis, A. J. (2008). Regulatory foci and organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(3), 485-489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.09.004 google scholar
• Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B. ve Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1220-1233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012695 google scholar
• Neubert, M. J., Wu, C. ve Roberts, J. A. (2013). The influence of ethical leadership and regulatory focus on employee outcomes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(2), 269-296. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/41968852 google scholar
• Ryan, R. M. ve Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/ ceps.1999.1020 google scholar
• Scholer, A. A. ve Higgins, E. T. (2010). Regulatory focus in a demanding world. R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of personality and self-regulation içinde (s. 291-314). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781444318111.ch13 google scholar
• Sober, E. ve Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Harvard University Press. (01.03.2022 tarihinde https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=ouw g5swAV5oC&lpg=PA1&ots=-Vrg6NgLxd&lr&pg=PP15#v=onepage&q=psychological%20 hedo&f=false adresinden alınmıştır). google scholar
• Song, Y., Peng, P. ve Yu, G. (2020). I would speak up to live up to your trust: The role of psychological safety and regulatory focus. Frontiers in Psychology, 10:2966. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02966 google scholar
• To, C., Kilduff, G. J., Ordonez, L. ve Schweitzer, M. E. (2018). Going for it on fourth down: Rivalry increases risk taking, physiological arousal, and promotion focus. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1281-1306. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0850 google scholar
• Wallace, C. ve Chen, G. (2006). A multilevel integration of personality, climate, self-regulation, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 529-557. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00046.x google scholar
• Wallace, J. C., Johnson, P. D. ve 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. doi: 10.1002/job.572 google scholar
• Wallace, J. C., Little, L. M. ve Shull, A. (2008). The moderating effects of task complexity on the relationship between regulatory foci and safety and production performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(2), 95- 104. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.13.2.95 google scholar
• Wu, C., McMullen, J. S., Neubert, M. J. ve Yi, X. (2008). The influence of leader regulatory focus on employee creativity. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(5), 587-602. doi https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusvent.2007.09.005 google scholar
• Yalçındağ, B. ve Özkan, T. (2015). Düzenleme Odağı Ölçeği (DOÖ), Sebat ve Risk Alma Ölçeklerinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması ve DOÖ’nün psikometrik açıdan değerlendirilmesi. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 18 (36), 49-68. google scholar
• Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 46, 74-85. google scholar
• Zhang, Y. ve Mittal, V. (2007). The attractiveness of enriched and impoverished options: Culture, self-construal, and regulatory focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(4), 588-598. https:// doi/10.1177/0146167206296954 google scholar