@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{KrishnaRodriguesMitschkeetal.2021,
  author    = {Krishna, Anand and Rodrigues, Johannes and Mitschke, Vanessa and Eder, Andreas B.},
  title     = {Self-reported mask-related worrying reduces relative avoidance bias toward unmasked faces in individuals with low Covid19 anxiety syndrome},
  series = {Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications},
  doi       = {10.1186/s41235-021-00344-8},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-265720},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Facial masks have become and may remain ubiquitous. Though important for preventing infection, they may also serve as a reminder of the risks of disease. Thus, they may either act as cues for threat, priming avoidance-related behavior, or as cues for a safe interaction, priming social approach. To distinguish between these possibilities, we assessed implicit and explicit evaluations of masked individuals as well as avoidance bias toward relatively unsafe interactions with unmasked individuals in an approach-avoidance task in an online study. We further assessed Covid19 anxiety and specific attitudes toward mask-wearing, including mask effectiveness and desirability, hindrance of communication from masks, aesthetic appeal of masks, and mask-related worrying. Across one sample of younger (18-35 years, N = 147) and one of older adults (60+ years, N = 150), we found neither an average approach nor avoidance bias toward mask-wearing compared to unmasked individuals in the indirect behavior measurement task. However, across the combined sample, self-reported mask-related worrying correlated with reduced avoidance tendencies toward unmasked individuals when Covid19 anxiety was low, but not when it was high. This relationship was specific to avoidance tendencies and was not observed in respect to explicit or implicit preference for mask-wearing individuals. We conclude that unsafe interaction styles may be reduced by targeting mask-related worrying with public interventions, in particular for populations that otherwise have low generalized Covid19 anxiety.},
  language  = {en}
}