Katariina Roininen

Food risk perceptions, gender, and individual differences in avoidance and approach motivation, intuitive and analytic thinking styles, and anxiety.

Risks appear to be perceived in two different ways, affectively and rationally. Finnish adult internet users were contacted via e-mail and asked to fill an internet questionnaire consisting of questions of food risks and measures of avoidance and approach motivation, analytic and intuitive information processing style, trait anxiety, and gender in order to find out (1) whether food risks are perceived two-dimensionally, (2) how individual differences in motivation, information processing, and anxiety are associated with the different dimensions of food risk perceptions, and (3) whether gender moderates these associations. The data were analyzed by factor, correlation and regression analyses. Three factors emerged: risk scariness, risk likelihood, and risks of cardiovascular disease. Personality and gender x personality interactions predicted food risk perceptions. Results showed that food risk perceptions generally form two dimensions; scariness and likelihood, but that this may depend on the nature of the risk. In addition, results imply that individuals with high avoidance motivation perceive food risks as scarier and more likely than others, and that individuals with an analytic information processing style perceive food risks as less likely than others. Trait anxiety seems to be associated with higher food risk perceptions only among men.

Avoidance motivation, risk perception and emotional processing.

The present studies examined the moderating role of state motivation on the associations between trait avoidance motivation, risk perception and emotional processing. In Studies 1 and 2, avoidance or approach states were evoked in participants who then completed a risk perception task and a trait avoidance motivation measure. Both studies showed that trait avoidance only correlated with risk perceptions among individuals in approach state. In Study 3, emotional interpretation was measured. State and trait avoidance motivation did not interact in predicting emotional interpretation. The results showed that the effect of state motivation can explain the low correlations found between trait avoidance and risk perceptions, and suggested that the avoidance system may operate on an on–off principle rather than synergistically. Copyright

Boundaries of regulatory fit: Is it the thought that counts?

The feeling of regulatory fit is thought to arise from the right kind of goal pursuit, but some studies imply that it may be evoked even by lesser involvement in the right kind of strategies. The present experiment explored the minimum of involvement necessary to evoke regulatory fit. Participants (N = 71) first completed a regulatory focus manipulation task and were then led to believe that they would receive either rich or accurate information concerning vegetable sterols, evoking beliefs that they used eager or vigilant information search strategies. In reality, all participants received the same information. Participants in promotion focus reported more positive attitudes in the rich information condition, whereas prevention-focused participants reported more positive attitudes in the accurate information condition. The results showed that regulatory fit can be evoked through mere thought, without actual goal pursuit and even without engagement in the goal pursuit strategies.