The Influence of Regulatory Focus on Media Choice in Interpersonal Conflicts
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Media Choice
2.1.1. Uses, Gratifications and Motives
2.1.2. Media as Means to an End
2.2. Regulatory Focus Theory
2.2.1. Outcomes and Strategies
2.2.2. Regulatory Focus in Conflicts
2.3. The Present Study
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Design
3.2. Materials
3.2.1. Chronic Regulatory Focus
3.2.2. Regulatory Focus Induction
“Think about an aspiration, a hope, or an ideal that you currently hold and want to accomplish. It should be something at which you want to have success. Afterward, list three things you can do to most possibly succeed in that.”
“Think about a duty, responsibility, or obligation that you currently hold and have to fulfill. It should be something at which you should not make mistakes. Afterward, list three things you can do to most possibly not fail in that.”
3.2.3. Vignette
“Imagine a situation, in which you are about to communicate with another person. This should be about an issue that could lead to a conflict between you and this person. This potential conflict could result from
you having different opinions about a topic, you doing something the other person considers unacceptable, or you having critique, that might hurt the other person.Please shortly describe the concrete situation that you are imagining.”
3.2.4. Media Choice
3.2.5. Interpersonal Closeness
3.2.6. Buffer Score
3.2.7. Attention Check
3.3. Procedure
3.4. Sample
4. Results
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Implications
5.2. Practical Implications
5.3. Limitations and Future Research
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Purdy, J.M.; Nye, P.; Balakrishnan, P. The impact of communication media on negotiation outcomes. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 2000, 11, 162–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kingsbury, M.; Coplan, R. RU mad @ me? Social anxiety and interpretation of ambiguous text messages. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 54, 368–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofschneider, A. Bosses Say ‘Pick up the Phone’: Managers Have a Message for Younger Employees: Get off Email and Talk on the Phone. Wall Street J. 2013. Available online: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323407104579036714155366866 (accessed on 7 January 2020).
- Derks, D.; Bakker, A.B. The impact of e-mail communication on organizational life. Cyberpsychol. J. Psychosocial Res. Cyberspace 2010, 4, 4. [Google Scholar]
- O’Sullivan, B. What you don’t know won’t hurt me: Impression management functions of communication channels in relationships. Hum. Commun. Res. 2000, 26, 403–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riordan, M.A.; Kreuz, R.J. Emotion encoding and interpretation in computer-mediated communication: Reasons for use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 1667–1673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riordan, M.A.; Trichtinger, L.A. Overconfidence at the Keyboard: Confidence and Accuracy in Interpreting Affect in E-Mail Exchanges. Hum. Commun. Res. 2016, 43, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Byron, K. Carrying too Heavy a Load? The Communication and Miscommunication of Emotion by Email. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2008, 33, 309–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cramer, H.; Jacobs, M.L. Couples’ communication channels: What, when & why? In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, Korea, 18–23 April 2015; Kim, J., Ed.; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 709–712. ISBN 9781450331456. [Google Scholar]
- El-Shinnawy, M.; Markus, M. The poverty of media richness theory: Explaining people’s choice of electronic mail vs. voice mail. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 1997, 46, 443–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Robert, L.; Dennis, A.R. Paradox of Richness: A Cognitive Model of Media Choice. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Comput. 2005, 48, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Daft, R.L.; Lengel, R.H. Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design. Manag. Sci. 1986, 32, 554–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dennis, A.R.; Fuller, R.M.; Valacich, J.S. Media, Tasks, and Communication Processes: A Theory of Media Synchronicity. MIS Q. 2008, 32, 575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Shinnawy, M.; Markus, M.L. Media Richness Theory and New Electronic Communication Media: A Study of Voice Mail and Electronic Mail. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Information Systems, Dallas, TX, USA, 13–16 December 1992; University of Minnesota: Dallas, TX, USA, 1992; pp. 91–105. [Google Scholar]
- Katz, E.; Blumler, J.G.; Gurevitch, M. Uses and Gratifications Research. Public Opin. Q. 1973, 37, 509–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Keefe, G.J.; Sulanowski, B.K. More Than Just Talk: Uses, Gratifications, and the Telephone. J. Mass Commun. Q. 1995, 72, 922–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whiting, A.; Williams, D. Why people use social media: A uses and gratifications approach. Qual. Mark. Res. Int. J. 2013, 16, 362–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Canary, D.J.; Manusov, V.L.; Cody, M.J. Interpersonal Communication. A Goals-Based Approach, 4th ed.; Bedford/St. Martin’s: Boston, MA, USA; New York, NY, USA, 2008; ISBN 0312451113. [Google Scholar]
- Carlson, P.J.; Davis, G.B. An Investigation of Media Selection among Directors and Managers: From “Self” to “Other” Orientation. MIS Q. 1998, 22, 335–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trevino, L.K.; Lengel, R.H.; Bodensteiner, W.; Gerloff, E.A.; Muir, N.K. The Richness Imperative and Cognitive Style. Manag. Commun. Q. 1990, 4, 176–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higgins, E.T. Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory Focus as a Motivational Principle. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Elsevier BV: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1998; Volume 30, pp. 1–46. [Google Scholar]
- Higgins, E.T.; Idson, L.C.; Freitas, A.L.; Spiegel, S.; Molden, D.C. Transfer of value from fit. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 84, 1140–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bies, R.J. The Delivery of Bad News in Organizations. J. Manag. 2012, 39, 136–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sussman, S.W.; Sproull, L. Straight Talk: Delivering Bad News through Electronic Communication. Inf. Syst. Res. 1999, 10, 150–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Johnsen, J.-A.K.; Kummervold, P.E.; Wynn, R. Media Preferences in Scenarios Involving Relationship Closeness and Information Valence: Evidence of Strategic Self-Presentation and Sex Differences. Psychol. Rep. 2014, 114, 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wotipka, C.D. Embracing the Screen of Mediated Environments: An Exploration of the Buffer Effect’s Role in Communication Surrounding Transgressions. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Feaster, J.C. Expanding the Impression Management Model of Communication Channels: An Information Control Scale. J. Comput. Commun. 2010, 16, 115–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Trevino, L.K.; Webster, J.; Stein, E.W. Making Connections: Complementary Influences on Communication Media Choices, Attitudes, and Use. Organ. Sci. 2000, 11, 163–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tretter, S.; Diefenbach, S. Emotion and Interaction Control: A Motive-Based Approach to Media Choice in Socio-Emotional Communication. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higgins, E.T. Beyond pleasure and pain. Am. Psychol. 1997, 52, 1280–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Higgins, E.T. Making a good decision: Value from fit. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 1217–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higgins, E.T. Promotion and prevention: How “0” can create dual motivational forces. In Dual-Process Theories of the Social Mind; Sherman, J.W., Gawronski, B., Trope, Y., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 423–435. ISBN 978-1-4625-1439-7. [Google Scholar]
- Higgins, E.T.; Nakkawita, E.; Cornwell, J.F.M. Beyond outcomes: How regulatory focus motivates consumer goal pursuit processes. Consum. Psychol. Rev. 2020, 3, 76–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crowe, E.; Higgins, E. Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1997, 69, 117–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jensen-Campbell, L.A.; Graziano, W.G. Agreeableness as a Moderator of Interpersonal Conflict. J. Pers. 2001, 69, 323–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hazlett, A.; Molden, D.C.; Sackett, A.M. Hoping for the Best or Preparing for the Worst? Regulatory Focus and Preferences for Optimism and Pessimism in Predicting Personal Outcomes. Soc. Cogn. 2011, 29, 74–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sassenrath, C.; Sassenberg, K.; Scheepers, D.; Information, R. The Impact of Regulatory Focus on Challenge and Threat. Swiss J. Psychol. 2016, 75, 91–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gino, F.; Margolis, J.D. Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (un)ethical behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2011, 115, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Appelt, K.C.; Higgins, E.T. My way: How strategic preferences vary by negotiator role and regulatory focus. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 46, 1138–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrigues, D.L.; Huic, A.; Lopes, D.; Kumashiro, M. Regulatory focus in relationships and conflict resolution strategies. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2019, 142, 116–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fox, J.; McEwan, B. Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: The perceived social affordances of communication channels scale. Commun. Monogr. 2017, 84, 298–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmitz, J.; Fulk, J. Organizational Colleagues, Media Richness, and Electronic Mail. Commun. Res. 1991, 18, 487–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlson, J.R.; Zmud, R.W. Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Acad. Manag. J. 1999, 42, 153–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rice, R.E. Task Analyzability, Use of New Media, and Effectiveness: A Multi-Site Exploration of Media Richness. Organ. Sci. 1992, 3, 475–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlson, J.R.; George, J.F. Media Appropriateness in the Conduct and Discovery of Deceptive Communication: The Relative Influence of Richness and Synchronicity. Group Decis. Negot. 2004, 13, 191–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheer, V.C.; Chen, L. Improving Media Richness Theory. Manag. Commun. Q. 2004, 18, 76–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dennis, A.R.; Kinney, S.T. Testing Media Richness Theory in the New Media: The Effects of Cues, Feedback, and Task Equivocality. Inf. Syst. Res. 1998, 9, 256–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dennis, A.R.; Valacich, J.S.; Speier, C.; Morris, M.G. Beyond media richness: An empirical test of media synchronicity theory. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kohala Coast, HI, USA, 9 January 1998; pp. 48–57. [Google Scholar]
- Schmalbach, B.; Zenger, M.; Spina, R.; Steffens-Guerra, I.; Kliem, S.; Michaelides, M.P.; Hinz, A. Gain +1 or Avoid −1: Validation of the German Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ). BMC Psychol. 2017, 5, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Freitas, A.L.; Higgins, E.T. Enjoying Goal-Directed Action: The Role of Regulatory Fit. Psychol. Sci. 2002, 13, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aron, A.; Aron, E.N.; Smollan, D. Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 63, 596–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaechter, S.; Starmer, C.; Tufano, F. Measuring the Closeness of Relationships: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the ‘Inclusion of the Other in the Self’ Scale. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0129478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pierce, T. Social anxiety and technology: Face-to-face communication versus technological communication among teens. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2009, 25, 1367–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minsky, B.D.; Marin, D.B. Why Faculty Members Use E-Mail: The Role of Individual Differences in Channel Choice. J. Bus. Commun. 1999, 36, 194–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spitzberg, B.H. Preliminary Development of a Model and Measure of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) Competence. J. Comput. Commun. 2006, 11, 629–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cinnirella, M.; Green, B. Does ‘cyber-conformity’ vary cross-culturally? Exploring the effect of culture and communication medium on social conformity. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2007, 23, 2011–2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geiger, I.; Laubert, C. Situational strategic versus personal influences on negotiation medium choice. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 2018, 29, 398–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winterheld, H.A.; Simpson, J.A. Seeking security or growth: A regulatory focus perspective on motivations in romantic relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 101, 935–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Higgins, E.T.; Cornwell, J.F. Securing foundations and advancing frontiers: Prevention and promotion effects on judgment & decision making. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2016, 136, 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Förster, J.; Higgins, E.T. How Global Versus Local Perception Fits Regulatory Focus. Psychol. Sci. 2005, 16, 631–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Armengol, X.; Fernandez, V.; Simo, P.; Sallan, J.M. An Examination of the Effects of Self-Regulatory Focus on the Perception of the Media Richness: The Case of E-Mail. Int. J. Bus. Commun. 2015, 54, 394–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kark, R.; Van Dijk, D. Motivation to Lead, Motivation to Follow: The Role of the Self-Regulatory Focus in Leadership Processes. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 500–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lanaj, K.; Chang, C.-H.; Johnson, R.E. Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 2012, 138, 998–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keller, P.A. Regulatory Focus and Efficacy of Health Messages. J. Consum. Res. 2006, 33, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uskul, A.K.; Keller, J.; Oyserman, D. Regulatory fit and health behavior. Psychol. Health 2008, 23, 327–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Lee, A.Y. The Role of Regulatory Focus in Preference Construction. J. Mark. Res. 2006, 43, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Werth, L.; Foerster, J. How regulatory focus influences consumer behavior. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 37, 33–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scissors, L.E.; Roloff, M.E.; Gergle, D. Room for interpretation: The role of self-esteem and CMC in romantic couple conflict. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Toronto, ON, Canada, 26 April–1 March 2014; Jones, M., Palanque, P., Schmidt, A., Grossman, T., Eds.; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 3953–3962, ISBN 9781450324731. [Google Scholar]
- Friedman, R.A.; Chi, S.-C.; Liu, L.A. An expectancy model of Chinese–American differences in conflict-avoiding. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2005, 37, 76–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, Z.-X.; Wei, X.; Chao, M.M.; Zheng, Y. When Do Conflicts Feel Right for Prevention-Focused Individuals? The Debiasing Effect of Low Need for Closure. Manag. Organ. Rev. 2017, 13, 375–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuster, M.; Bernecker, K.; Backes, S.; Brandstätter, V.; Nussbeck, F.W.; Bradbury, T.N.; Martin, M.; Sutter-Stickel, D.; Bodenmann, G. Avoidance orientation and the escalation of negative communication in intimate relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2015, 109, 262–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Friedman, R.S.; Förster, J. The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 81, 1001–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mehta, R.; Zhu, R. (Juliet) Blue or Red? Exploring the Effect of Color on Cognitive Task Performances. Science 2009, 323, 1226–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Elliot, A.J.; A Maier, M.; Moller, A.C.; Friedman, R.; Meinhardt, J. Color and psychological functioning: The effect of red on performance attainment. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2007, 136, 154–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bar, M.; Neta, M. Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation. Neuropsychologia 2007, 45, 2191–2200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dries-Tönnies, T.; Platz, A.; Burmester, M.; Laib, M.; Blanc, N. Visual characteristics’ inherent impact on people’s strategic orientation. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts Publication of the 33rd Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, Korea, 18–23 April 2015; Begole, B., Kim, J., Inkpen, K., Woo, W., Eds.; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 1863–1868, ISBN 9781450331463. [Google Scholar]
- Aguinis, H.; Bradley, K.J. Best Practice Recommendations for Designing and Implementing Experimental Vignette Methodology Studies. Organ. Res. Methods 2014, 17, 351–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walzenbach, S. Hiding sensitive topics by design? An experiment on the reduction of social desirability bias in factorial surveys. Surv. Res. Methods 2019, 13, 103–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trevino, L.K.; Lengel, R.H.; Daft, R.L. Media Symbolism, Media Richness, and Media Choice in Organizations. Commun. Res. 1987, 14, 553–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumeister, R.F.; Vohs, K.D.; Funder, D.C. Psychology as the Science of Self-Reports and Finger Movements: Whatever Happened to Actual Behavior? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2007, 2, 396–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dunning, D.; Heath, C.; Suls, J.M. Flawed Self-Assessment. Psychol. Sci. Public Interes. 2004, 5, 69–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lerner, D.K.J.S.; Keltner, D. Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cogn. Emot. 2000, 14, 473–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kayany, J.M.; Wotring, C.E.; Forrest, E.J. Relational Control and Interactive Media Choice in Technology-Mediated Communication Situations. Hum. Commun. Res. 1996, 22, 399–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cesario, J.; Grant, H.; Higgins, E.T. Regulatory Fit and Persuasion: Transfer from “Feeling Right”. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 86, 388–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Scale | M | SD | Min | Max | Cronbach’ s α |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Interpersonal Closeness (IOS) | 3.25 | 1.82 | 1.00 | 7.00 | n/a |
Regulatory Focus (RFQ) | |||||
Promotion Score | 3.50 | 0.61 | 2.00 | 4.67 | 0.725 |
Prevention Score | 3.32 | 0.72 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 0.797 |
Channel Buffer Score | |||||
text-based and a-synchronous (e.g., email, SMS) | 3.96 | 0.70 | 3.00 | 5.00 | 0.784 |
text-based and synchronous (e.g., chat, instant messenger) | 3.56 | 0.54 | 2.83 | 4.33 | 0.727 |
speech-based and a-synchronous (e.g., voice message, voicemail) | 3.11 | 0.99 | 2.00 | 4.83 | 0.648 |
speech-based and synchronous (e.g., telephone) | 2.41 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 4.00 | 0.775 |
Model | Variable | B 5 | SE 6 | Wald χ2 | p | OR 7 | 95%-CI OR | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | |||||||
Model I 2 | Regulatory Focus Manipulation 4 | 1.25 | 0.54 | 5.39 | 0.020 | 3.49 | 1.21 | 10.01 |
Model II 3 | Regulatory Focus Manipulation 4 | 1.27 | 0.54 | 5.43 | 0.020 | 3.55 | 1.22 | 10.28 |
Chronic Promotion Focus Score | −0.34 | 0.42 | 0.67 | 0.412 | 0.71 | 0.31 | 1.61 | |
Chronic Prevention Focus Score | 0.19 | 0.34 | 0.33 | 0.566 | 1.21 | 0.63 | 2.35 | |
Interpersonal Closeness | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.47 | 0.491 | 1.10 | 0.83 | 1.46 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tretter, S.; Diefenbach, S. The Influence of Regulatory Focus on Media Choice in Interpersonal Conflicts. Psych 2021, 3, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych3010001
Tretter S, Diefenbach S. The Influence of Regulatory Focus on Media Choice in Interpersonal Conflicts. Psych. 2021; 3(1):1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych3010001
Chicago/Turabian StyleTretter, Stefan, and Sarah Diefenbach. 2021. "The Influence of Regulatory Focus on Media Choice in Interpersonal Conflicts" Psych 3, no. 1: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych3010001
APA StyleTretter, S., & Diefenbach, S. (2021). The Influence of Regulatory Focus on Media Choice in Interpersonal Conflicts. Psych, 3(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych3010001