The Role of Regulatory Focus in How Much We Care About Enemies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past cross-cultural research studies in regulatory focus have showed that East Asians in general tend to be prevention-focused, whereas Westerners tend to be promotion-focused. Three studies extend these findings by investigating the role of regulatory focus on people’s experiences in enemyship—how people deal with their personal enemies. Study 1 demonstrated that Hong Kong Chinese, as one of representative prevention-focused East Asian groups, showed greater concern about their enemies in terms of perceived threats from their enemies, subjective awareness of enemies, and negative emotional experiences in enemyship, compared with European Canadians as one of representative promotion-focused Western groups. In addition, Study 2 demonstrated that Hong Kong Chinese memorized more pieces of information about a hypothetical enemy than did their Canadian counterparts, which demonstrated a greater concern about enemies among Hong Kong Chinese. Finally, while replicating Study 1, Study 3 demonstrated that participants’ regulatory focus explained the cultural differences in enemyship experiences. Implications for regulatory focus, cross-cultural research, and interpersonal relationship research are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".