تمرکز نظارتی و پدیده میکل آنژ: چگونه دوستان نزدیک خویشتن آرمانی را یکدیگر را ترویج می کنند؟

This work examines the consequences of regulatory focus in the context of the Michelangelo phenomenon, a process whereby interaction partners shape one another's goal pursuits. We advanced predictions regarding the intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences of target and partner promotion orientation using the concepts of target-goal congruence, partner-goal congruence, and interpersonal match. We used data from four complementary measurement methods—self-report questionnaires, daily diary records, partners' ratings of ideal-relevant interaction behaviors, and coders' ratings of interaction behaviors—and using both target- and partner-reports of model criteria. Consistent with predictions, (a) target promotion orientation is associated with the elicitation of partner affirmation, (b) partner promotion orientation is associated with the display of partner affirmation, and (c) partner affirmation partially mediates the associations of target and partner promotion orientation with target movement toward the ideal self. We also examine the motivational, cognitive, and behavioral mechanisms that account for these associations.

People have hopes, dreams, and aspirations, or mental representations of the skills and traits that they would ideally like to acquire. Ideal self representations shape cognition, emotion, and motivation, such that people dedicate considerable effort to the goal of bringing the actual self into closer alignment with the ideal self (Higgins, 1987). Success at goal pursuit rests on diverse individual-level attributes, including insight, ability, and motivation. But such intrapersonal processes do not tell the whole story, in that people do not pursue goals in social isolation. Goal pursuit also rests on interpersonal processes, the most prominent theory of which is the Michelangelo phenomenon, a model of the process whereby interaction partners shape one another's ideal goal pursuits ( Rusbult, Kumashiro, Stocker, & Wolf, 2005). To date, we know a good deal about individual-level elements of goal pursuit. The sizeable intrapersonal literature has examined such phenomena as the nonconscious activation of goals, goal attainment and emotional experiences, and the association of strategic inclinations with decision making and creativity (e.g., Bargh et al., 2001, Friedman and Förster, 2001 and Higgins et al., 1997). In this tradition, regulatory focus theory highlights the distinction between promotion and prevention orientation—whether people are attuned to that which they ideally wish to become versus that which they believe they ought to become ( Higgins, 1998). Unfortunately, we know far less about the interpersonal elements of goal pursuit. The handful of extant studies has examined nonconscious mimicry, the association of significant other representations with goals and goal pursuits, and how close partners may promote versus inhibit core elements of one another's ideals (e.g., Chartrand and Bargh, 1999, Drigotas et al., 1999, Fitzsimons and Bargh, 2003 and Shah, 2003). However, the existing literature overlooks interpersonal effects involving promotion and prevention orientation. The present work examines the intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences of promotion orientation in the context of the Michelangelo model ( Rusbult et al., 2005). The Michelangelo Phenomenon Michelangelo Buonarroti described sculpting as a process whereby the artist releases an ideal figure from the block of stone in which it slumbers (cf. Gombrich, 1995). The artist's task is simply to chip away at the stone, allowing the ideal form to emerge. Humans, too, possess ideal forms. The human equivalent of the ideal form is the ideal self—the internal representation of the attributes that an individual would ideally like to possess (hopes, dreams, aspirations). For example, one element of Mary's ideal self may be to publish innovative and important research. Mary may to some extent reduce the discrepancy between her actual self and her ideal self through her own actions—for example, by regularly asking herself “what makes this work important?” or by reading thought-provoking works of fiction and nonfiction. However, Mary's pursuit of the ideal self is also shaped by interpersonal experience. The Michelangelo phenomenon describes a process whereby interaction partners sculpt one another in such a manner as to move each person closer to (vs. further from) each person's ideal self (Drigotas et al., 1999 and Rusbult et al., 2005). This process is likely to be particularly powerful in close relationships, in that interdependence creates a basis for powerful reciprocal influence across diverse behavioral domains. As such, close partners shape one another over the course of extended interaction—over time, the behaviors that begin as interaction-specific adaptations become embodied in relatively stable skills, traits, and behavioral tendencies (Kelley, 1983). Partner affirmation describes the extent to which a partner elicits key elements of the target's ideal self. For example, John may affirm Mary's ideal self by rewarding specific ideal-relevant behaviors (e.g., praising her most original ideas), by creating situations that elicit ideal congruent behaviors (e.g., suggesting a sabbatical in an inspirational locale), or by enacting ideal-congruent behaviors that Mary may imitate (e.g., carrying out creative work, earning an innovation grant). In turn, partner affirmation yields target movement toward the ideal self: As a result of adjusting to John's behavior, Mary increasingly achieves key aspects of her ideal self. To the extent that this process is successful—that is, John affirms Mary and Mary moves toward her ideal self—personal well-being and couple well-being are enhanced ( Rusbult et al., 2005). Targets differ in the extent to which they elicit partner affirmation and achieve movement toward the ideal self, and partners differ in the extent to which they affirm the target's ideals. For example, targets with greater locomotion focus are easier to sculpt, and partners with greater locomotion focus exhibit superior affirmation-relevant insight, ability, and motivation (Kumashiro, Rusbult, Finkenauer, & Stocker, 2007). Also, partners are more affirming to the extent that they are more strongly committed to the target, possess key elements of the target's ideal self, and sculpt toward the target's ideals rather than their own ideals (Rusbult et al., 2009, Rusbult et al., 2005 and Rusbult et al., in press).

The data provided by a given participant on multiple research occasions are nonindependent, as are data from the two partners in a given relationship; in like manner, the data from the two ideal-relevant interactions are nonindependent. Accordingly, we analyzed our data using hierarchical linear modeling (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). This technique accounts for the nonindependence of observations by simultaneously examining variance associated with each level of nesting, thereby providing unbiased hypothesis tests. Our analyses were of the following form: (a) target and partner self-report questionnaire measures—data obtained at Times 1, 3, and 5 were nested within participants, and data from the two partners in a given relationship were nested within couple; (b) target and partner daily diary measures—data from the two partners in a relationship were nested within couple; and (c) target, partner, and coder ratings of interaction behaviors—data from the two conversations were nested within participants, and data from the two partners in a relationship were nested within couple. Following recommended procedures for couples research, we represented intercept terms as random effects and represented slope terms as fixed effects (Kenny, Mannetti, Pierro, Livi, & Kashy, 2002). In order to examine the unique variance attributable to each predictor variable, we performed key analyses as multiple-predictor models, regressing each criterion simultaneously onto all four predictors—target promotion, target prevention, partner promotion, and partner prevention. Indeed, although preliminary within-participant analyses revealed that promotion orientation and prevention orientation are independent (β = −.04, p = .26), across-partner analyses revealed significant associations between partners' orientations—target promotion orientation is positively associated with partner promotion orientation (β = .12, p < .01), and target prevention orientation is positively associated with partner prevention orientation (β = .19, p < .01). The analyses reported below not only: (a) test key predictions using data obtained via four complementary measurement methods—self-report questionnaires, daily diary records, target and partner interaction ratings, and coder interaction ratings; but also (b) test key predictions using criteria as reported by both the target and the partner—partner affirmation of target as reported by both the target (perceived partner affirmation) and the partner (partner affirmation) as well as target movement toward ideal as reported by both the target (target movement) and the partner (perceived target movement).4 Thus, these are challenging tests, not only in that they (a) rest on diverse measurement methods as reported by both target and partner, but also in that (b) they examine variance uniquely attributable to each of four regulatory orientations (i.e., controlling for the other three predictors), and (c) half of the associations that we examine are across-partner effects (e.g., target-reported criterion, partner-reported regulatory orientation). We performed preliminary analyses to explore possible moderation by participant sex, performing the Table 1 analyses including main effects and interactions for sex. These analyses revealed very few sex effects—out of 90 possible main effects or interactions involving participant sex, only eight effects were even marginal. Given that very few associations were significantly moderated by participant sex, and given that these effects were quite inconsistent across predictors and criteria, we dropped participant sex from the analyses. Consequently, we treated dyad members as if they were indistinguishable. This means that when describing the effects of target variables we considered both members in the couple as a target (having the role of the target in our model) and when describing the effects of partner variables we considered both members in the couple as a partner (having the role of the partner in our model) (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006).