Author
Inge Schweiger Gallo
Bio: Inge Schweiger Gallo is an academic researcher from Complutense University of Madrid. The author has contributed to research in topics: Disgust & Implementation intention. The author has an hindex of 13, co-authored 32 publications receiving 1066 citations.
Papers
More filters
University of Sussex1, University of Toulouse2, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile3, University of Miami4, Barry University5, Northwestern University6, West University of Timișoara7, University of Buea8, Nanyang Technological University9, Makerere University10, University of Namibia11, National Research University – Higher School of Economics12, Université catholique de Louvain13, University of Iceland14, American University of Beirut15, Complutense University of Madrid16, Ateneo de Manila University17, University of Cambridge18, Chinese Academy of Sciences19, North China University of Science and Technology20, University of Gdańsk21, Hokkaido University22, Osaka University23, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru24, University of Tartu25, Istanbul Şehir University26, University of Ghana27, Yaşar University28, Bilkent University29, Thammasat University30, University of Colorado Colorado Springs31, University of Wisconsin-Madison32, University of Los Andes33, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul34, University of Malaya35, University of Agder36, Victoria University of Wellington37, Uludağ University38, Ankara University39, Sultan Qaboos University40, Addis Ababa University41, The Chinese University of Hong Kong42, Hungarian Academy of Sciences43, Federal University of Paraíba44, Federal University of Pará45, Leipzig University46, University of Jena47, University of Milan48, Hong Kong Polytechnic University49
TL;DR: A new 7-dimensional model of self-reported ways of being independent or interdependent is developed and validated across cultures and will allow future researchers to test more accurately the implications of cultural models of selfhood for psychological processes in diverse ecocultural contexts.
Abstract: Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) theory of independent and interdependent self-construals had a major influence on social, personality, and developmental psychology by highlighting the role of culture in psychological processes. However, research has relied excessively on contrasts between North American and East Asian samples, and commonly used self-report measures of independence and interdependence frequently fail to show predicted cultural differences. We revisited the conceptualization and measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals in 2 large-scale multinational surveys, using improved methods for cross-cultural research. We developed (Study 1: N = 2924 students in 16 nations) and validated across cultures (Study 2: N = 7279 adults from 55 cultural groups in 33 nations) a new 7-dimensional model of self-reported ways of being independent or interdependent. Patterns of global variation support some of Markus and Kitayama’s predictions, but a simple contrast between independence and interdependence does not adequately capture the diverse models of selfhood that prevail in different world regions. Cultural groups emphasize different ways of being both independent and interdependent, depending on individualism-collectivism, national socioeconomic development, and religious heritage. Our 7-dimensional model will allow future researchers to test more accurately the implications of cultural models of selfhood for psychological processes in diverse ecocultural contexts. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
309 citations
TL;DR: Only implementation-intention participants succeeded in reducing their disgust and fear reactions as compared to goal-intention and control participants, and the theoretical and applied implications of the present findings for emotion regulation via implementation intentions are discussed.
Abstract: As implementation intentions are a powerful self-regulation tool for thought and action (meta-analysis by P. M. Gollwitzer & P. Sheeran, 2006), the present studies were conducted to address their effectiveness in regulating emotional reactivity. Disgust- (Study 1) and fear- (Study 2) eliciting stimuli were viewed under 3 different self-regulation instructions: the goal intention to not get disgusted or frightened, respectively, this goal intention furnished with an implementation intention (i.e., an if-then plan), and a no-self-regulation control group. Only implementation-intention participants succeeded in reducing their disgust and fear reactions as compared to goal-intention and control participants. In Study 3, electrocortical correlates (using dense-array electroencephalography) revealed differential early visual activity in response to spider slides in ignore implementation-intention participants, as reflected in a smaller P1. Theoretical and applied implications of the present findings for emotion regulation via implementation intentions are discussed.
201 citations
TL;DR: In this article, an action control perspective on emotion regulation is adopted, contextualizing the gap between emotion control goals (e.g., I want to remain calm) and emotional outcomes.
Abstract: The present review adopts an action control perspective on emotion regulation, contextualising the gap between emotion control goals (e.g., I want to remain calm) and emotional outcomes (e.g., anger, anxiety, and aggression) in terms of the broader literature on goal pursuit. We propose that failure to effectively regulate emotions can result from difficulties with the self-regulatory tasks of (i) identifying the need to regulate, (ii) deciding whether and how to regulate, and (iii) enacting a regulation strategy. Next we review evidence that a technique traditionally associated with regulating behavioural goals (forming implementation intentions or “if-then” planning) can help to overcome these difficulties. Meta-analysis indicated that forming implementation intentions is effective in modifying emotional outcomes, with a large effect relative to no regulation instructions (k = 21, N = 1306 d + = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.61 to 1.20) and a medium-sized effect relative to goal intention instructions (k = 29, N = 1208, d + = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.42 to 0.65). Our conclusion is that research on emotion regulation might benefit from an action control perspective and the interventions that this perspective offers.
174 citations
University of Sussex1, Université catholique de Louvain2, Paul Verlaine University – Metz3, Federal University of Paraíba4, Federal University of Pará5, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul6, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile7, The Chinese University of Hong Kong8, University of Hong Kong9, University of Los Andes10, Estonian Literary Museum11, Addis Ababa University12, Hungarian Academy of Sciences13, University of Milan14, American University of Beirut15, Sultan Qaboos University16, University of Namibia17, Ateneo de Manila University18, University of Gdańsk19, West University of Timișoara20, University of KwaZulu-Natal21, Complutense University of Madrid22, Bilkent University23
TL;DR: Multilevel analysis confirmed that it is the prevailing beliefs and values in an individual's context, rather than the individual's own beliefs andvalues, that account for these differences.
Abstract: The motive to attain a distinctive identity is sometimes thought to be stronger in, or even specific to, those socialized into individualistic cultures. Using data from 4,751 participants in 21 cultural groups (18 nations and 3 regions), we tested this prediction against our alternative view that culture would moderate the ways in which people achieve feelings of distinctiveness, rather than influence the strength of their motivation to do so. We measured the distinctiveness motive using an indirect technique to avoid cultural response biases. Analyses showed that the distinctiveness motive was not weaker—and, if anything, was stronger—in more collectivistic nations. However, individualism–collectivism was found to moderate the ways in which feelings of distinctiveness were constructed: Distinctiveness was associated more closely with difference and separateness in more individualistic cultures and was associated more closely with social position in more collectivistic cultures. Multilevel analysis confirmed that it is the prevailing beliefs and values in an individual's context, rather than the individual's own beliefs and values, that account for these differences.
120 citations
University of Sussex1, University of Michigan2, Osaka University3, Queen's University Belfast4, Makerere University5, National Research University – Higher School of Economics6, Sultan Qaboos University7, University of Buea8, University of Miami9, Addis Ababa University10, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart11, Ankara University12, West University of Timișoara13, University of Namibia14, Chinese Academy of Sciences15, Victoria University of Wellington16, Federal University of Paraíba17, Nanyang Technological University18, Østfold University College19, University of KwaZulu-Natal20, Leipzig University21, University of Jena22, American University of Beirut23, University of Tartu24, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru25, University of Malaya26, Hokkaido University27, Thammasat University28, Hungarian Academy of Sciences29, University of Gdańsk30, The Chinese University of Hong Kong31, Hong Kong Polytechnic University32, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile33, University of Iceland34, University of Colorado Colorado Springs35, Université catholique de Louvain36, Bilkent University37, Istanbul Şehir University38, Benue State University39, Ateneo de Manila University40, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul41, University of Ghana42, University of Delhi43, University of Los Andes44, Complutense University of Madrid45, American University in Cairo46
TL;DR: It is concluded that contextualism is an important part of cultural collectivism and highlights the importance of beliefs alongside values and self-representations and contributes to a wider understanding of cultural processes.
Abstract: Beliefs about personhood are understood to be a defining feature of individualism-collectivism (I-C), but they have been insufficiently explored, given the emphasis of research on values and self-construals. We propose the construct of contextualism, referring to beliefs about the importance of context in understanding people, as a facet of cultural collectivism. A brief measure was developed and refined across 19 nations (Study 1: N = 5,241), showing good psychometric properties for cross-cultural use and correlating well at the nation level with other supposed facets and indicators of I-C. In Study 2 (N = 8,652), nation-level contextualism predicted ingroup favoritism, corruption, and differential trust of ingroup and outgroup members, while controlling for other facets of I-C, across 35 nations. We conclude that contextualism is an important part of cultural collectivism. This highlights the importance of beliefs alongside values and self-representations and contributes to a wider understanding of cultural processes.
75 citations
Cited by
More filters
TL;DR: A review of the current status and future prospects of the field of emotion regulation can be found in this paper, where the authors define emotion and emotion regulation and distinguish both from related constructs.
Abstract: One of the fastest growing areas within psychology is the field of emotion regulation. However, enthusiasm for this topic continues to outstrip conceptual clarity, and there remains considerable uncertainty as to what is even meant by “emotion regulation.” The goal of this review is to examine the current status and future prospects of this rapidly growing field. In the first section, I define emotion and emotion regulation and distinguish both from related constructs. In the second section, I use the process model of emotion regulation to selectively review evidence that different regulation strategies have different consequences. In the third section, I introduce the extended process model of emotion regulation; this model considers emotion regulation to be one type of valuation, and distinguishes three emotion regulation stages (identification, selection, implementation). In the final section, I consider five key growth points for the field of emotion regulation.
2,060 citations
Journal Article•
1,217 citations
TL;DR: The authors synthesize research on intention-behavior relations to address questions such as: How big is the intention−behavior gap? When are intentions more or less likely to get translated into action? What kinds of problems prevent people from realizing their intentions? And what strategies show promise in closing the intention −behavior gap and helping people do the things that they intend to do.
Abstract: © 2016 John Wiley & Sons LtdBitter personal experience and meta-analysis converge on the conclusion that people do not always do the things that they intend to do. This paper synthesizes research on intention–behavior relations to address questions such as: How big is the intention–behavior gap? When are intentions more or less likely to get translated into action? What kinds of problems prevent people from realizing their intentions? And what strategies show promise in closing the intention–behavior gap and helping people do the things that they intend to do?.
923 citations
TL;DR: A heuristic individual differences framework is proposed and research on three sequential components of flexibility for which propensities and abilities vary are reviewed: sensitivity to context, availability of a diverse repertoire of regulatory strategies, and responsiveness to feedback.
Abstract: People respond to stressful events in different ways, depending on the event and on the regulatory strategies they choose. Coping and emotion regulation theorists have proposed dynamic models in which these two factors, the person and the situation, interact over time to inform adaptation. In practice, however, researchers have tended to assume that particular regulatory strategies are consistently beneficial or maladaptive. We label this assumption the fallacy of uniform efficacy and contrast it with findings from a number of related literatures that have suggested the emergence of a broader but as yet poorly defined construct that we refer to as regulatory flexibility. In this review, we articulate this broader construct and define both its features and limitations. Specifically, we propose a heuristic individual differences framework and review research on three sequential components of flexibility for which propensities and abilities vary: sensitivity to context, availability of a diverse repertoire of regulatory strategies, and responsiveness to feedback. We consider the methodological limitations of research on each component, review questions that future research on flexibility might address, and consider how the components might relate to each other and to broader conceptualizations about stability and change across persons and situations.
910 citations