@article{KrishnaRiedMeixner2021,
  author    = {Krishna, Anand and Ried, Sophia and Meixner, Marie},
  title     = {State-trait interactions in regulatory focus determine impulse buying behavior},
  series = {PLoS One},
  volume    = {16},
  journal   = {PLoS One},
  number    = {7},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0253634},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-261206},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Little research has focused on motivational state-trait interactions to explain impulse buying. Although the trait chronic regulatory focus has been linked to impulse buying, no evidence yet exists for an effect of situational regulatory focus and no research has examined whether the fit of chronic and situational regulatory focus can influence impulse buying with actual consumptive consequences rather than purchase intentions. Two laboratory experiments (total N = 250) manipulated situational regulatory focus before providing opportunities for impulse buying. In addition, cognitive constraint was manipulated as a potential boundary condition for regulatory focus effects. Situational promotion focus increased impulse buying relative to situational prevention focus in participants with strong chronic promotion, consistent with regulatory fit theory and independently of cognitive constraint. Surprisingly, situational promotion focus also increased impulse buying in participants with strong chronic prevention, but only under low cognitive constraint. These results may be explained by diverging mediating cognitive processes for promotion vs. prevention focus' effect on impulse buying. Future research must focus more on combining relevant states and traits in predicting consumer behavior. Marketing implications are discussed.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{EderRothermundDeHouwer2013,
  author    = {Eder, Andreas B. and Rothermund, Klaus and De Houwer, Jan},
  title     = {Affective Compatibility between Stimuli and Response Goals: A Primer for a New Implicit Measure of Attitudes},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {11},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0079210},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-129872},
  pages     = {e79210},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {We examined whether a voluntary response becomes associated with the (affective) meaning of intended response effects. Four experiments revealed that coupling a keypress with positive or negative consequences produces affective compatibility effects when the keypress has to be executed in response to positively or negatively evaluated stimulus categories. In Experiment 1, positive words were evaluated faster with a keypress that turned the words ON (versus OFF), whereas negative words were evaluated faster with a keypress that turned the words OFF (versus ON). Experiment 2 showed that this compatibility effect is reversed if an aversive tone is turned ON and OFF with keypresses. Experiment 3 revealed that keypresses acquire an affective meaning even when the association between the responses and their effects is variable and intentionally reconfigured before each trial. Experiment 4 used affective response effects to assess implicit ingroup favoritism, showing that the measure is sensitive to the valence of categories and not to the valence of exemplars. Results support the hypothesis that behavioral reactions become associated with the affective meaning of the intended response goal, which has important implications for the understanding and construction of implicit attitude measures.},
  language  = {en}
}