ArticlePloS one2023
Promotion and prevention regulatory focus LIWC dictionary. Polish adaptation and validation.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article describes the adaptation and validation of a Polish version of the regulatory focus (RF) Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) dictionary. RF theory proposes that there are two types of self-regulation: promotion (focus on gains, growth, and ideals) and prevention (focus on losses, security, and oughts). Apart from self-report questionnaires, one method to measure RF includes a linguistic analysis. LIWC counts the frequency of words from relevant categories and presents the output as a percentage of all words used in a writing sample. RF LIWC contains two categories: promotion (e.g., achieve, ideal) and prevention (e.g., afraid, fail). To test the psychometric properties of our Polish adaptation of the RF LIWC instrument, we performed three studies. In Study 1 (N = 10), experts in RF theory rated the extent to which each dictionary entry was related to promotion and prevention foci. Results showed that words from the promotion category were rated as more promotion than prevention-related, and the pattern was reversed for words from the prevention category. In Study 2 (N = 130) we examined the divergent validity of the instrument by experimentally manipulating RF and testing the writing patterns. When a promotion focus was activated, individuals wrote more words from the promotion than prevention category, and the pattern was reversed in the prevention group. Study 3 (N = 414) investigated whether the promotion and prevention scores obtained through RF LIWC are linked with results obtained using a self-report questionnaire that measures chronic RF. Promotion scores from RF LIWC correlated positively with chronic promotion RF and prevention scores from RF LIWC correlated positively with chronic prevention RF. These preliminary findings provide initial support for the validity of the Polish adaptation of the RF LIWC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.