Applied Psychology

Although studies show that regulatory focus influences decision making and risk taking, theories of risky decision making typically conflate different regulatory orientations and the related distinctions between the positive and negative risks associated with acts of omission and commission. In contrast, we argue that different regulatory orientations influence risk perception and risk propensity in different ways and underpin complex emotional responses in risky decision making. We propose a new model of these processes and suggest that regulatory focus may be important in priming and managing risk taking behavior. We conclude by discussing implications for research and practice.

Bien que des recherches montrent que le centre de régulation influence la prise de décision et la prise de risque, les théories de la prise décision risquée regroupent habituellement différentes formes de régulation et les distinctions connexes entre les risques positifs et négatifs associés au passage à l’acte ou non. Contrairement à ces théories, nous avançons que les différentes formes de régulation influencent la perception et la propension au risque selon différentes modalités et sous‐tendent les réponses émotionnelles complexes dans la prise de décision risquée. Nous proposons un nouveau modèle de ces processus et suggérons que le centre de régulation peut être important dans l’amorce et la gestion du comportement de prise de risque. Nous concluons en discutant des implications de ces résultats pour la recherche et la pratique.

Lý thuyết Bảo tồn Tài nguyên (COR) dự đoán rằng việc mất tài nguyên là yếu tố chính trong quá trình căng thẳng. Việc thu được tài nguyên được mô tả là ngày càng quan trọng trong bối cảnh mất mát. Bởi vì tài nguyên cũng được sử dụng để ngăn chặn sự mất mát tài nguyên, ở mỗi giai đoạn của quá trình căng thẳng, con người sẽ ngày càng dễ bị tổn thương trước những hậu quả tiêu cực của căng thẳng, nếu diễn ra lâu dài sẽ dẫn đến những vòng xoáy mất mát nhanh chóng và nghiêm trọng. Lý thuyết COR được coi là một sự thay thế cho các lý thuyết căng thẳng dựa trên đánh giá vì nó dựa nhiều hơn vào bản chất khách quan và được xây dựng văn hóa của môi trường trong việc xác định quá trình căng thẳng, thay vì cách hiểu cá nhân của từng người. Lý thuyết COR đã được áp dụng thành công trong việc dự đoán một loạt các kết quả liên quan đến căng thẳng trong môi trường tổ chức, bối cảnh sức khỏe, sau khi trải qua căng thẳng chấn thương, và đối mặt với các yếu tố căng thẳng hàng ngày. Những tiến bộ gần đây trong việc hiểu biết về cơ sở sinh học, nhận thức và xã hội của phản ứng căng thẳng được xem là nhất quán với cách hình thành ban đầu của lý thuyết COR, nhưng kêu gọi việc hình dung lý thuyết COR và quá trình căng thẳng trong một bối cảnh tập thể hơn so với những gì đã được đề xuất ban đầu. Vai trò của việc mất tài nguyên và sự thu được tài nguyên trong việc dự đoán các kết quả tích cực của căng thẳng cũng được xem xét. Cuối cùng, các hạn chế và ứng dụng của lý thuyết COR được thảo luận.

Reading the seven commentaries has provided me with an opportunity to reflect further on many of the issues confronting researchers and practioners in the field of migration studies. Because the area is so complex, it is not surprising that there is great diversity in coverage and in perspectives. However, many of the points made are similar in that they all suggest emphasis, elaboration, or addition to the text and figures that I presented. My reply is that no text (no matter how generous the word allocation), nor figure (no matter how complicated), can represent every aspect of the realities of the acculturation process. I (and others) have previously written on many of the points made, and I will take this opportunity to refer to them, and to link them to what I presented in the lead article.

The acculturation of immigrants does not take place in a social vacuum; it occurs and unfolds itself within the context of intragroup and intergroup relations that provide at times the support and at times the challenge for the reconstruction of selves and identities. In his comprehensive and integrative review, John Berry points to the importance of contextual “societal” factors (subsumed under the “group‐level” category in his acculturation framework) and their effects on individual adaptation. It is on an important component of this category of factors, namely the attitudes of the host (or majority) society towards immigrants and immigration, that I would like to elaborate in the first part of this commentary.

Cet article présente plusieurs des principaux résultats d’une grande étude internationale sur l’acculturation et l’adaptation de jeunes immigrés (âgés de 13 à 18 ans) qui se sont implantés dans treize pays (N = 5,366); il y est adjoint un échantillon de jeunes nationaux (N = 2,631). La recherche s’appuyait sur trois questions centrales: comment les jeunes migrants gèrent‐ils le processus d’acculturation? Comment parviennent‐ils à s’adapter? Et y a‐t‐il un lien manifeste entre la forme d’acculturation et le succès de l’adaptation? L’analyse en clusters déboucha sur quatre profils d’acculturation: intégrateur, ethnique, national et diffus. L’analyse factorielle de cinq variables d’adaptation mit en évidence deux types d’adaptation: psychologique et socioculturel. Il existe une forte relation entre la façon dont les jeunes s’acculturent et leur adaptation: ceux qui présentent un profil intégrateur bénéficient des meilleurs indicateurs d’adaptations psychologique et socioculturelle alors que ceux souffrant d’un profil diffus ont les pires. Entre les deux, le profil ethnique présente une adaptation psychologique relativement bonne et une adaptation socioculturelle plutôt pauvre, tandis que le profil national a une adaptation psychologique relativement pauvre et une adaptation socioculturelle légèrement négative. Cette configuration de résultats fut en grande partie retrouvée à travers une modélisation en équation structurelle. Les conséquences pour l’implantation des jeunes immigrés sont claires: ils devraient être encouragés à préserver l’appartenance à leur culture d’origine tout en établissant des liens étroits avec la société d’accueil.

This paper reports some of the main findings from a large international study of the acculturation and adaptation of immigrant youth (aged 13 to 18 years) who are settled in 13 societies (N= 5,366), as well as a sample of national youth (N= 2,631). The study was guided by three core questions: How do immigrant youth deal with the process of acculturation? How well do they adapt? Are there important relationships between how they acculturate and how well they adapt? Cluster analysis produced four distinct acculturation profiles: integration, ethnic, national, and diffuse. Factor analysis of five adaptation variables revealed two distinct forms of adaptation: psychological and sociocultural. There were substantial relationships between how youth acculturate and how well they adapt: those with an integration profile had the best psychological and sociocultural adaptation outcomes, while those with a diffuse profile had the worst; in between, those with an ethnic profile had moderately good psychological adaptation but poorer sociocultural adaptation, while those with a national profile had moderately poor psychological adaptation, and slightly negative sociocultural adaptation. This pattern of results was largely replicated using structural equation modeling. Implications for the settlement of immigrant youth are clear: youth should be encouraged to retain both a sense of their own heritage cultural identity, while establishing close ties with the larger national society.

La psychologie interculturelle a montré qu'il existait des rapports étroits entre le contexte culturel et le développement comportemental de l'individu. Cette relation établie, l'effort des recherches interculturelles a de plus en plus porté sur ce qu'il advenait des individus quand ils tentaient de refaire leur vie dans une culture différente de leur culture d'origine. Les conséquences psychologiques à long terme de ce processus d'acculturation sont très variables, dépendant de variables sociales et personnelles qui renvoient à la société de départ, à la société d'accueil et à des phénomènes qui existent avant, mais qui émergent pendant la période d'acculturation. Cet article esquisse un schéma conceptuel à partir duquel acculturation et adaptation peuvent ětre étudiées, puis présente quelques conclusions et résultats généraux tirés d'un échantillon de travaux empiriques. On envisage des applications possibles à la politique et aux programmes d'insertion en prenant en considération les couts et les bénéfices sociaux et psychologiques émanant de l'adoprion d'une orientation pluraliste et intégrationniste.

Cross‐cultural psychology has demonstrated important links between cultural context and individual behavioural development. Given this relationship, cross‐cultural research has increasingly investigated what happens to individuals who have developed in one cultural context when they attempt to re‐establish their lives in another one. The long‐term psychological consequences of this process of acculturation are highly variable, depending on social and personal variables that reside in the society of origin, the society of settlement. and phenomena that both exist prior to, and arise during, the course of acculturation. This article outlines a conceptual framework within which acculturation and adaptation can be investigated, and then presents some general findings and conclusions based on a sample of empirical studies. Applications to public policy and programmes are proposed. along with a consideration of the social and psychological costs and benefits of adopting a pluralist and integrationist orientation to these issues.

Theories are needed to explain and predict health behavior, as well as for the design and evaluation of interventions. Although there has been a history of developing, testing, applying, and refining health behavior theories, debates and limitations in evidence exist: The component of theories which, for example, predicts change should be better elaborated so that we can more easily understand what actually drives behavior change. Theories need to be empirically testable in two ways. Theories need to specify a set of changeable predictors to describe, explain, and predict behavior change, and they should enable us to design an effective intervention that produces exactly those changes in behavior that are predicted by the relevant theory. To make this possible, theories need to be specified in such a way that they can be rigorously tested and falsified. Moreover, for the design of theory‐based interventions it must be possible to derive change techniques from the theory and to use them to generate changes in behavior. Based on eight state‐of‐the‐science articles that make conceptual and empirical contributions to the current debate on health behavior theories, various approaches are discussed to gain further insights into explaining and changing health behaviors and the iterative process of theory development.

This study uses a multi‐level approach to examine the moderating influence of two aspects of the ethical context on the relationship between ethical leadership and follower helping and courtesy. Using multi‐source data from a field sample of leaders and followers and controlling for transformational leadership, we found that shared perceptions of moral awareness and empathic concern of the work group moderated the relationship between ethical leadership and follower helping and courtesy. Relationships between individual and group‐level perceptions of ethical leadership and these two follower behaviors were positive when moral awareness was low, whereas these relationships weakened when moral awareness was higher. The relationship between individual and group perceptions of ethical leadership and courtesy was positive when empathic concern was high, whereas this relationship weakened when empathic concern was lower. Thus, although ethical leadership relates positively to follower helping and courtesy, the strength of this relationship differs depending on the level of empathic concern and moral awareness in the work group.