This study focused on the relationship between regulatory focus and creative performance. We investigated the effects of ego involvement on enhancing motivation in task performance. We hypothesized that there are no differences in creativity based on the degree of ego involvement in promotion-focused individuals, whereas creativity would be higher in prevention-focused individuals with higher ego involvement. University students (N = 128) participated in the study. The results supported the hypothesis. When ego involvement was high, there were no differences in creativity between promotion-focused and prevention-focused individuals on three indicators of creativity. Based on these three indicators, prevention-focused individuals were more creative than promotion-focused individuals. Moreover, prevention-focused individuals who worked on a task patiently and persistently achieved equal or better creative performance than promotion-focused individuals.

The present study involves the construction of a measure called the Japanese version of the Parental Meta-Emotion Philosophy about Anger Questionnaire (PMEPA-J) and examination of its reliability and validity. Participants consisted of 272 mothers of children aged 2-5 years who completed the PMEPA-J and other questionnaires. Confirmation factor analysis yielded a 19-item, 4-factor structure with the following factors: Coaching, Non-Involvement, Dysfunction, and Dismissing. Cronbach’s α values were .75-.89 and ω values were .78-.89, which indicated adequate internal consistency. The sub-scales were correlated in the expected directions with other measures in the Parental Attitude and Parenting Self-Efficacy Scales. Coaching was significantly positively correlated with “Parenting Self-Efficacy”, “Acceptance and Child-Centeredness” and negatively correlated with “Inconsistent and Lax Discipline” as well as “Control”. In contrast, Non-Involvement, Dysfunction, and Dismissing were significantly negatively correlated with “Parenting Self-Efficacy”, “Acceptance and Child-Centeredness” and positively correlated with “Inconsistent and Lax Discipline” as well as “Control”.

When measuring the instability of self-esteem, the standard deviation of state self-esteem over a period of several days has been considered the gold standard. As an alternative, the perceived self-esteem instability measure (P-SEI measure) was developed as a single-administration scale. The present study involved the development of the Japanese version of the P-SEI measure and evaluation of its reliability and validity. In Study 1, the P-SEI measure was translated into Japanese. Confirmatory factor analysis on the 8-item P-SEI measure confirmed factorial validity and internal consistency. In addition, the P-SEI measure was related to mental health (K6) when controlling for the Rosenberg self-esteem scale or the standard deviation of state self-esteem measured over 7 days. In Study 2, the test-retest reliability of the P-SEI measure was confirmed. Finally, this study evaluated considerations about using the P-SEI measure in research and other applications as well as the possibility of a longitudinal developmental study.

This study aims to explore how the relationship between punitiveness and attributional style differs between Japan and Korea. Data from 330 Japanese and 339 Koreans were analyzed. Multi-group structural equation modeling showed that in both Japan and Korea, punitiveness consisted of three factors (support for harsher punishment, greater criminalization, and use of the death penalty) while the attributional style consisted of two factors (dispositional attribution and situational attribution). In both countries, dispositional attribution was related to punitiveness. Regarding differences, the scores for punitiveness on all three subscale scores and for dispositional attribution were higher in Korea whereas the negative relationship between punitiveness subscale scores and situational attribution was stronger in Japan. This suggests that Japanese are less likely to support punitive measures for criminals and to attribute the causes of crime to the criminals themselves than Koreans. In addition, when deciding on the severity of punishment, Japanese are more likely to take situational causes into consideration.

This study involved the development of a questionnaire about monitoring in learners’ interaction and examined its role in peer tutoring. Confirmatory factor analysis yielded a 4-factor model: “self-understanding”(checking one’s own level of understanding), “other-understanding” (checking others’ level of understanding)”, “difference” (checking difference in one’s own and others’ ideas), and “engagement” (checking one’s own level of engagement). In the main study, 54 college students conducted a peer tutoring session and completed the questionnaire about monitoring after the session. Data analysis on the relationship between monitoring scores and protocols revealed that tutors’ scores of self-understanding and other-understanding were positively correlated with interpretive explanations, while the score for difference was negatively associated with descriptive explanations. The score of engagement only showed a positive association with non-explanatory utterances. The results also suggested that tutees’ score for self-understanding and other-understanding are positively associated with complimentary explanations. Finally, the importance of focusing on learners’ monitoring during interactions and future perspectives for research studies about cooperative learning are discussed.

Tormala and Clarkson (2007) demonstrated the effects of assimilation and contrast with two consecutive messages. We investigated the effects of regulatory focus on assimilation and contrast in a multiple message situation in an experimental study. We hypothesized that the effect of assimilation would be observed among people with a promotion focus and the effect of contrast would be observed among people with a prevention focus. The results partially supported our hypothesis. There was a contrast effect in people with a prevention focus when evaluating the perceived credibility of the message. Moreover, the effect of assimilation was observed mostly in people with a promotion focus when evaluating the perceived credibility of the message, although this effect was not statistically significant. Finally, possible explanations for why our hypothesis regarding the evaluations of attitudes about the message was not supported are discussed.