中文摘要：

调节聚焦有长期倾向和短期状态两种形式,前者通过量表测量,后者通过情境工具诱发。本文将测量长期倾向调节聚焦的5种常见量表加以梳理,并结合最新研究文献评价各量表的测量效果。进一步分析发现这些量表存在概念偏离、测量不全等问题。相对而言,RFQ量表较为合适,但该量表缺乏对调节聚焦的情绪维度测量。本文可为研究者在选择和开发同类测量工具时提供新的视角。

英文摘要：

The Regulatory Focus Theory （Higgins, 1997） distinguishes between two sources of regulatory focus, chronic individual difference and situation-induced status. However, research tool reviews are inadequate owing to the scattered research topics. This review analyzes five different scales for chronic regulatory focus measurement and discusses their quality based on the latest literature. It introduces each measurement in terms of its main origin, item description, and how to conduct. The 11-item Regulatory Focus Questionnaire （RFQ, Higgins, Friedman, Harlow, Idson, Ayduk, Taylor, 2001） is a most frequently employed scale with 6 reflective items assessing chronic promotion focus and 5 reflective items assessing chronic prevention focus; the Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral Approach System （BIS/BAS Scales, Carever, White, 1994） is a 12-item scale, including 7 BIS items and 5 BAS items; the Selves Questionnaire （Higgins, Bond, Klein, Strauman, 1986; Shah, Higgins, Friedman, 1998; Brockner, Paruchuri, Idson, Higgins, 2002） assesses the degrees of congruency between people’s actual ideal, and ought selves. The researcher asks individuals to provide six different ideal or ought attributes and assesses the difference between their likeness to possess the attribute and the degree to which they currently possess that attribute;the Self-guide Strength Measure （Higgins, Shah, Friedman, 1997; Shah, Higgins, Friedman, 1998; Shah Higgins, 1997; Foster, Higgins, Strack, 2000） is a computer-based version of the Selves Questionnaire employing latencies of responses; the General Regulatory Focus Measures （GRFM, Lockwood, Jordan, Kunda, 2002; Study 3） is an 18-item scale with nine reflective items each for promotion and prevention focus. This review also introduces two assessment researches. Haws et al. （in press） assessed the above-mentioned five scales according to the criteria of theoretical coverage, internal consistency, homogeneity, stability, and predictive ability. Haws et al. found a lack