Jurnal Psikologi, 2023 (April), Vol.

22(1), 34-43

ADAPTATION OF THE INDONESIAN VERSION OF THE WORK

REGULATORY FOCUS SCALE
Tuti Rahmi 1,2, Hendriati Agustiani 2, Diana Harding 2, Efi Fitriana2
1
Faculty of Psychology and Health, Universitas Negeri Padang,
Jl. Prof. Dr. Hamka, Air Tawar, Padang, West Sumatera, Indonesia 25132
2
Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaran,
Jl. Raya Bandung-Sumedang Km.21, Jatinangor, Sumedang, West Java, Indonesia 45363

[email protected]

Abstract
This current study aims to adapt the Work Regulatory Focus Scale into the Indonesian version, following the
International Test Commission (ITC) Guidelines for Test Adaptation. Thisis cross-sectional study involved 218
participants from a local bank with several branches in Indonesia. Confirmatory Factor Analysis using Lisrel
8.80 was employed to analyze the data. Regulatory focus and work engagement are correlated to determine
convergent validity, while CR (Construct Reliability) evaluates reliability. The results of the Confirmatory Factor
Analysis indicate that the Work Regulatory Focus Scale model fits the data best (RMSEA = .073, NFI = .94, CFI
= .96, Standardized RMR = .065, and AGFI = .93, p = .000). The scale also demonstrates good reliability, with a
CR value of .798 for promotion focus and .778 for prevention focus. Furthermore, a relationship between work
regulatory focus and work engagement was found. These findings indicate that the Work Regulatory Focus has
good psychometric properties and provides supports for applicability in the Indonesian context.

Keywords: work regulatory focus scale; adaptation; Indonesian

INTRODUCTION Van Dijk, 2007). Individuals with a

prevention focus prefer to do something
The regulatory focus has an important role carefully with the potential to be too limited in
when someone is undertaking something in assessing and looking for possible chances to
their life. A person is triggered to comply with circumvent some mistakes that could undercut
various basic needs centered on their physical their security, even resulting in missed
and social well-being. Regarding the opportunities for rewards and benefits.
conditions, scholars often differentiate Therefore, the prevention focus is related to
between progressive (e.g., growth and responsibility and security, as well as
development) and security (e.g., safety and strategies to avoid unwanted end states, and
protection). Expanding on this difference, the can be considered a motivation for security
regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997) and constancy (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007).
suggests that, with different needs, the
regulatory focus consists of two things: gain Promotion focus and prevention focus have
(promotion focus) and security (prevention different relationships with performance
focus). consequences and attitudes. For example, one
of the meta-analytic studies showed that
Persons with a promotion focus choose to take promotion focus positively influences
risks in evaluating and chasing possible innovative performance, creativity, job
opportunities and escaping missing out on satisfaction, organizational citizenship
something that might benefit them, even if this behavior and maintains work motivation in the
results in setbacks and mistakes (Molden & face of qualitative job insecurity (Gorman et
Higgins, 2012). Promotion focus is oriented to al., 2012; Kark et al., 2018; Lanaj et al., 2012;
aspirations and growth, related to strategies Tu et al., 2020). In contrast, prevention focus
for approaching the desired final state, and can is more beneficial to overcome the stress
be considered as a motivation for associated with quantitative job insecurity,
experimentation and transformation (Kark & decreases counterproductive work behavior,

34
Rahmi et al. 35

and increases safety performance (Lanaj et al., creativity. Research conducted using a three-
2012; Tu et al., 2020). In addition, the meta- wave longitudinal study with 279 employees
analysis conducted by (Gorman et al., 2012) shows that promotion focus mediates the
showed that promotion focus is associated relationship between transformational
positively with task performance, job leadership and employee creativity (Henker et
satisfaction, continuance commitment, al., 2015).
affective commitment, LMX, normative
commitment, and organizational citizenship. Regulatory focus is a construct that can
In contrast, prevention focus is associated explain how the relationship between choice
negatively with job satisfaction but positively and goals can be related to performance
related to normative and continuance (Higgins, 1997). A meta-analysis of 77 studies
commitments. also shows the importance of regulatory focus
for research in organizational settings
A person with a promotion focus will work (Gorman et al., 2012). Research on regulatory
faster (Förster et al., 2003; Wallace & Chen, focus in organizational behavior settings has
2006), be involved in different and curious been carried out; for example, several recent
ways of thinking (Crowe & Higgins, 1997), studies have examined the relationship
generate and support a variety of possible between regulatory focus related to
explanations for outcomes (Liberman et al., performance measurement (Rokhayati et al.,
2001), and is willing to change goals when 2022), entrepreneurial passion (Santosa et al.,
better opportunities appear (Liberman et al., 2022), leadership (Shing Leung, 2020; Xu &
1999; Molden & Hui, 2011). On the other Wang, 2019), some of these studies used the
hand, a person with a prevention focus will act Work Regulatory Focus Scale (Andrews et al.,
safer at work (Wallace & Chen, 2006), be 2014; Koopmann et al., 2016; Petrou et al.,
better at detecting errors (Förster et al., 2003), 2015; Roczniewska et al., 2013). In contrast to
and procrastinate (Freitas et al., 2002). other countries, there are not as many studies
on regulatory focus in Indonesia, and there has
Regulatory focus also plays a role in not been a work regulatory focus measuring
explaining the dynamics of the influence instrument that has been adapted in the
relationship between variables. The research Indonesian version.
on the effect of work events on affective well-
being at work and physiological well-being at The measuring tool developed by Higgins
home shows that daily promotion focus has a (1997), the founder of the regulatory focus
positive relationship with well-being. Still, the theory, is the Regulation Focus Questionnaire
relationship between this can be weakened (RFQ), which is a scale that measures how a
when a person has a strong relationship with person's subjective reaction when assessing
their supervisors, the promotion focus on events that have occurred on the success or
improving well-being. Conversely, the impact failure of promotion and prevention of self-
of the promotion focus on well-being is more regulation. RFQ measures common things in a
substantial when the prevention focus is person's life related to prevention and
weakened (Koopmann et al., 2016). promotion focus. The scale adapted in this
study is the measuring instrument developed
Another study investigated the association by Neubert et al. (2008), the scale is developed
between transformational leadership and by using its two dimensions in the individual
employee creativity by specializing in perspective at work. The measuring tool is
promotion focus as a mediator. The research based on the work context to capture the
proved that promotion focus is a mediator regulatory focus level in the work
between transformational leadership and environment. So, the focus of the items
employee creativity, and creative process developed on this measuring instrument are
engagement mediates the relationship related to work situations and ask respondents
between promotion focus and employee to consider their behavior at work. Several

Jurnal Psikologi, 2023 (April), Vol. 22(1), 34-43

36 Adaptation of The Indonesian Version of
The Work Regulatory Focus Scale

scales have been adapted in several languages, people who have adequate knowledge of the
including Turkish (Kuş & Ünsal, 2023) and languages involved, the culture, the content of
Polish (Roczniewska et al., 2013). the test, and the principles of the test in
general. The experts are lecturers teaching
In conclusion, it is crucial to conduct research English with a Doctoral Education
involving regulatory focus as one of the qualification and expert translators. Even
research variables. The regulatory focus though they come from the same educational
studied in organizational settings, in background, one of the translators has
particular, can affect individual behavior, translation linguistic qualifications and also
which also impacts organizational studies culture, while the other translator has
performance, including in Indonesia. Translation Studies and English Applied
Therefore, a valid and reliable psychological Linguistics. The translation from English and
scale is needed. Based on this, this research Indonesian is carried out independently by
aims to adapt the work regulatory focus scale each translator. Meanwhile, backward
into the Indonesian version. translation is carried out by language experts
who are native English, have a Masters's
METHOD Education qualification in Indonesian Studies,
and have been teaching in Indonesia since
A cross-sectional study was conducted to 2011. In addition, the expert committee
prove the validation of the scale. The data was consists of five experts from Psychology and
gathered in a local bank in West Sumatera, Management who have good English skills,
Indonesia; because bank employees have a with criteria having a minimum TOEFL score
high target to gain a bigger company market of 500 or having lived abroad; the role of the
share; on the other hand, they must do every expert committee is to carry out the synthesis
work precisely to prevent financial loss and by discussing the translation results of the two
fraud. The prior study involved some translators facilitated by the researcher. One
participants with 155 employees of different complete translation is obtained based on the
professions from diverse companies agreement of two translators. This stage
(Roczniewska et al., 2013), 187 university- resulted in a draft Indonesian translation. The
affiliated managerial development workshops next stage is to do a backward translation,
(Koopmann et al., 2016), and 226 employees which is assessed for suitability with the Work
of Dutch organizations experiencing organize Regulatory Focus Scale item by Neubert et al.
(Petrou et al., 2015). (2008). Most of the backward results showed
suitability, and some that were not suitable
As a result, 267 people filled out the research were discussed again with the forward
scale, but only 218 people met the research translator and expert committee facilitated by
criteria where the respondent had been a the researcher so that a final scale draft was
permanent employee for at least two years. obtained for further process. After that, a
The adaptation process was conducted based readability test was conducted with a ten-
on the International Test Commission (ITC, question pilot study. Then, few items undergo
2017). This guide explains how to develop and some adjustments, which then ready to be
evaluate, including adapting to a tested.
psychological test or scale. The first step
before validating, we asked permission by The measurement instrument scale distributed
email from the owner of the measuring online also contains information about
instrument by Neubert (Neubert et al., 2008). research and informed consent. Previously,
After obtaining permission, we carried out this research was also declared eligible and
forward and backward translations. Two has ethical clearance registered with the Ethics
experts carry out translation from English to Committee of Padjadjaran University No.
Indonesian; the criteria for translators are 379/UN6.KEP/EC/2020. The research

Jurnal Psikologi, 2023 (April), Vol. 22(1), 34-43

Rahmi et al. 37

measurement scale link was submitted to the Indonesian version of the Work Regulatory
Human Capital Division of the bank to be Focus Scale adaptation measurement tool with
distributed to qualified employees so they answer choices ranging from 1-5 or strongly
could fill out the questionnaire. Measuring disagree to agree (Neubert et al., 2008). The
tools distributed online contain a work construct validity was proved by
regulatory focus scale and a measuring scale Confirmatory Factor Analysis using Lisrel
that will later be used as convergent validity 8.80 maximum likelihood estimation.
using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
(UWES). RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Based on the data collected, 267 people filled
Work engagement was assessed using the out the research scale, but only 218 met the
Indonesian version of the short version of the requirements. It can be seen from Table 1,
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), where the average age of the respondents is
which consisted of nine items. The UWES 36.43 years, and the average length of work is
score ranges from 1-5, with the answer 12.57 years, while most respondents who fill
choices being never to always. The Indonesian out the research scale are men (56%).
version of UWES was adapted and validated Meanwhile, based on education level, most
by Rahmadani et al. (2019). The regulatory are graduates from colleges or universities
focus measurement was used in the (78%).
Table 1.
Demographic Details
Range M(SD)
Age (years) 21-54 36.43(7.95)
Length of work (years) 2-33 12.57(7.38)
n %
Gender
Female 95 44%
Male 123 56%
Education level
Senior high school 33 15%
College or university 170 78%
Graduate school 15 7%

This study aims to adapt the work regulatory Chi-Square (129.19) = 276.19, p = 0.000, and
focus scale into the Indonesian version. After RMSEA = 0.073, the reason for correlating
translation, the measuring instrument was errors is to get a better Goodness of Fit based
complete, and the validity of the research on the advice given by Lisrel, it is allowed to
measuring instrument was tested. execute as long as it does not violate the
Confirmatory Factor analysis was conducted conceptual understanding (Hair et al., 2014),
to test the validity of the multi-dimensional in this case the correlated error variances are
construct of the study measuring instrument still within one construct. In addition, it can
according to the model proposed by Neubert also be seen in Table 2 from other Goodness
(Neubert et al., 2008). The results of the of Fit values, which indicate the standards that
analysis using Lisrel 8.80, namely, Chi- are expected to be achieved quite well, namely
Squared (129) = 331.99, p = 0.000, and NFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.96, Standardized RMR =
RMSEA = 0.085, show results that do not fit. 0.065, and AGFI = 0.93. After ensuring the
After modification by correlating model fits the data, the loading factor for each
measurement error (Bollen, 2014), we get item is presented below.

Jurnal Psikologi, 2023 (April), Vol. 22(1), 34-43

38 Adaptation of The Indonesian Version of
The Work Regulatory Focus Scale

Table 2.
Goodness of Fit Before and After Modification
Before Modification After Modification
Acceptable Level of
Criteria Estimated Estimated
Conformity Note Note
Results Results

χ2 p > .05 .000 NF .000 NF

RMSEA ≤ .08 .085 NF .073 Fit
NFI ≥ .90 .93 Fit .94 Fit
CFI ≥ .92 .95 Fit .96 Fit
Standardized RMR ≤ 0.10 .067 Fit .065 Fit
AGFI > .90 .91 Fit .93 Fit
Note. NF = Not Fit.

Figure 1. CFA of Work Regulatory Focus Scale (Loading Factor)

The results of the CFA calculation for the menjamin saya tidak akan kehilangan
variables in Figure 1 above shows that the pekerjaan saya” (I concentrate on completing
highest loading factor was found in the 6th my work tasks correctly to increase my job
item at 0.81. As for the dimensions, it can be security) shows a loading factor of 0.72. The
seen that the Loss Dimensions loading factor fifth item “Di tempat kerja, saya sering fokus
is the highest compared to the other dalam menyelesaikan tugas yang akan
dimensions. From Figure 1, it can be seen that mendukung kebutuhan saya akan jaminan
all indicators forming the latent variable have tidak kehilangan pekerjaan” (At work, I am
a loading factor (λ) ≥ 0.5. For instance, the often focused on accomplishing tasks that will
first item “Saya berkonsentrasi dalam support my need for security) shows a loading
menyelesaikan tugas dengan benar untuk factor of 0.769. The range of the loading factor

Jurnal Psikologi, 2023 (April), Vol. 22(1), 34-43

Rahmi et al. 39

is 0.50-0.86, which indicates that all items are the latent variable is declared reliable, where
moderately to highly correlated with the all manifest variables can provide consistent
underlying factor. In addition, all dimensions measurements of the dimensions of the latent
and items of the Work Regulatory Focus Scale variable Work Regulatory Focus. In addition,
have a t-value score > 1.96, the observed range it is done by correlating work regulatory focus
of the t-value is 4.13-10.93 which indicates with work engagement to get convergent
that all dimensions and items can be said to be validity. Associations between dimensions are
valid. The CR value of this measuring tool for also observed, in which result can be seen in
promotion focus is 0.798 > 0.7, and the CR for Table 3.
prevention focus is 0.778 > 0.7, indicating that

Table 3.
Intercorrelation and Convergent Validity of Work Regulatory Focus Scale
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1
2 .607**
3 .757** .578**
4 .909** .817** .897**
5 .294** .233** .372** .345**
6 .252** .226** .281** .289** .411**
7 .399** .360** .491** .478** .430** .544**
8 .392** .337** .477** .461** .815** .781** .798**
9 .203** .338** .307** .319** .212** .141* .265** .259**
10 .237** .419** .329** .369** .197** .119 .330** .268** .760**
11 .270** .325** .348** .357** .221** .185** .394** .330** .587** .639**
12 .268** .410** .373** .396** .238** .168* .374** .324** .891** .909** .840**
Note. 1 = Security, 2 = The Oughts, 3 = Losses, 4 = Prevention Focus, 5 = Gain, 6 =
Achievement, 7 = Ideals, 8 = Promotion Focus, 9 = Vigor, 10 = Dedication, 11 =
Absorption, 12 = Work Engagement.
*
p < .05 (2-tailed), **p < .01 (2-tailed).

Based on Table 3, it can be seen that the total positive correlation with work engagement,
score of prevention focus and promotion which has also been proven in previous
focus, each dimension of regulatory focus, research (Andrews et al., 2016; Delle et al.,
also shows a positive correlation with each 2023; Rahmi et al., 2021). The limitation of
dimension of work engagement, except for the this study is that the discriminant validity was
dimensions of achievement (dimension of not conducted to prove the scale has a
promotion focus) and dedication (dimension conceptually different meaning from other
of work engagement), proved to be concepts, which is indicated by showing a
insignificant (p > .5). negative correlation.
The convergent correlation was proven by the CONCLUSION
positive correlation between the promotion
focus, which is also in line with several studies The results show that the work regulatory
(Alamri, 2023; Andrews et al., 2016; Delle et focus scale is valid and reliable in Indonesia.
al., 2023; Idike et al., 2020; Lichtenthaler & It can be seen from the proven psychometric
Fischbach, 2019; Rahmi et al., 2021). In properties of the Work Regulatory Focus
addition, the prevention focus shows a Scale that the adaptation of this scale can be

Jurnal Psikologi, 2023 (April), Vol. 22(1), 34-43

40 Adaptation of The Indonesian Version of
The Work Regulatory Focus Scale

said to be quite good. This scale can be tested Bollen, K. A. (2014). Structural equations
for convergent validity using other with latent variables. In Structural
psychological constructs for further research. Equations with Latent Variables. John
In addition, this study has not conducted Wiley & Sons, Inc.
validity discrimination. Moreover, this https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118619179
measuring tool can also be tested on other
research subjects with different business cores Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997).
from where this research is carried out. Regulatory focus and strategic
inclinations: Promotion and prevention
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT in decision-making. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision
The authors would like to acknowledge the Processes, 69(2), 117–132.
support of the experts' committee Pak Zul, https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2675
Yoli, Mario, Zakwan, dan Maya, and our
colleagues at Universitas Negeri Padang, Delle, E., Kumasey, A. S., Agyabeng, A. N.,
West Sumatera, Indonesia. We also Alfa, A. A., & Hossain, F. (2023). Work
acknowledge the support of Bank Nagari, engagement: the role of psychological
particularly the Human Capital team, ownership and self-regulatory focus
especially Pak Zil and Bu Nong dan Halfizh. behavior. Journal of Organizational
Thank you very much. Effectiveness: People and Performance,
10(1), 77–93.
REFERENCES https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-12-2021-
0344
Alamri, M. (2023). Transformational
leadership and work engagement in Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Bianco, A. T.
public organizations: promotion focus (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task
and public service motivation, how and performance: Built-in trade-off or
when the effect occurs. Leadership & separate strategic concerns?
Organization Development Journal, Organizational Behavior and Human
44(1), 137–155. Decision Processes, 90(1), 148–164.
https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-12-2021- https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-
0544 5978(02)00509-5

Andrews, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., & Kacmar, Freitas, A. L., Liberman, N., Salovey, P., &
C. (2014). The mediational effect of Higgins, E. T. (2002). When to begin?
regulatory focus on the relationships Regulatory focus and initiating goal
between mindfulness and job satisfaction pursuit. Personality and Social
and turnover intentions. Career Psychology Bulletin, 28(1), 121–130.
Development International, 19(5), 494– https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202281
507. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-02- 011
2014-0018
Gorman, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B.
Andrews, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., & Valle, M. L., Apodaca, S., McIntyre, A. L., Park,
(2016). Regulatory Focus and Perceived P., & Godbey, J. N. (2012). A meta-
Self-Value as Predictors of Work analysis of the regulatory focus
Engagement. The Journal of Applied nomological network: Work-related
Management and Entrepreneurship, antecedents and consequences. Journal
21(1), 5–18. of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 160–172.
https://doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.3709.20 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.07.00
16.ja.00003 5

Jurnal Psikologi, 2023 (April), Vol. 22(1), 34-43

Rahmi et al. 41

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Koopmann, J., Lanaj, K., Bono, J., &
Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Campana, K. (2016). Daily shifts in
Data Analysis (7th ed.). Pearson regulatory focus: The influence of work
Education Limited Harlow, essex. events and implications for employee
well-being. Journal of Organizational
Henker, N., Sonnentag, S., & Unger, D. Behavior, 37(8), 1293–1316.
(2015). Transformational Leadership and https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2105
Employee Creativity: The Mediating
Role of Promotion Focus and Creative Kuş, Y., & Ünsal, P. (2023). The Work
Process Engagement. Journal of Regulatory Focus Scale: Turkish
Business and Psychology, 30(2), 235– Adaptation Study. Studies in Psychology,
247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869- 0–0. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2022-
014-9348-7 1131503
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and Lanaj, K., Daisy Chang, C. H., & Johnson, R.
pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), E. (2012). Regulatory focus and work-
1280–1300. related outcomes: A review and meta-
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(5),
066x.52.12.1280 998–1034.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027723
Idike, A. N., Egwu, O. I., Ugwu, F. O., Okorie,
C. O., & Akwara, F. A. (2020). Abusive Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, C. J., &
supervision and work engagement in the Higgins, E. T. (1999). Promotion and
Nigerian public service sector: Do prevention choices between stability and
strengths use, and promotion focus change. Journal of Personality and
matter? Journal of Psychology in Africa, Social Psychology, 77(6), 1135–1145.
30(4), 300–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2020. 3514.77.6.1135
1796021
Liberman, N., Molden, D. C., Idson, L. C., &
Jason, V., & S. N., G. (2021). Regulatory Higgins, E. T. (2001). Promotion and
focus and innovative work behavior: The prevention focus on alternative
role of work engagement. Current hypotheses: Implications for attributional
Psychology, 40(6), 2791–2803. functions. Journal of Personality and
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019- Social Psychology, 80(1), 5–18.
00220-1 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.80.1.5
Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation
to Lead, Motivation to Follow: The Role Lichtenthaler, P. W., & Fischbach, A. (2019).
of the Self-Regulatory Focus in A meta-analysis on promotion- and
Leadership Processes. Academy of prevention-focused job crafting.
Management Review, 32(2), 500–528. European Journal of Work and
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24351 Organizational Psychology, 28(1), 30–
846 50.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.
Kark, R., Van Dijk, D., & Vashdi, D. R. 1527767
(2018). Motivated or Demotivated to Be
Creative: The Role of Self-Regulatory Molden, D. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2012).
Focus in Transformational and Motivated Thinking. Oxford University
Transactional Leadership Processes. Press.
Applied Psychology, 67(1), 186–224. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/97801
https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12122 99734689.013.0020

Jurnal Psikologi, 2023 (April), Vol. 22(1), 34-43

42 Adaptation of The Indonesian Version of
The Work Regulatory Focus Scale

Molden, D. C., & Hui, C. M. (2011). Rokhayati, H., Sholihin, M., Supriyadi, S., &
Promoting de-escalation of commitment: Nahartyo, E. (2022). The effect of
A regulatory-focus perspective on sunk regulatory focus and performance
costs. Psychological Science, 22(1), 8– measurement on corporate social
12. responsibility investment decisions.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610390 Social Responsibility Journal, 18(5),
386 1004–1018. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-
04-2020-0138
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S.,
Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008). Santosa, M., Muafi, M., Widodo, W., &
Regulatory Focus as a Mediator of the Suprihanto, J. (2022). When
Influence of Initiating Structure and Entrepeneurial Passion Affect Green
Servant Leadership on Employee Innovation Performance in Indonesia?
Behavior. Journal of Applied Three-Way Interaction Effect of
Psychology, 93(6), 1220–1233. Emotion, Islamic Work Ethic, and
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012695 Cognition (pp. 779–791).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Häfner, M. 08087-6_54
(2015). When fit matters more: The Shing Leung, H. K. (2020). Unravelling
effect of regulatory fit on adaptation to Paradoxical Effects of Leader-Rated
change. European Journal of Work and Performance on Follower Turnover
Organizational Psychology, 24(1), 126– Intention: A Regulatory Focus
142. Perspective. International Journal of
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013. Business and Administrative Studies,
832209 6(1).
https://doi.org/10.20469/ijbas.6.10005-1
Rahmadani, V. G., Schaufeli, W. B., Ivanova,
T. Y., & Osin, E. N. (2019). Basic Tu, Y., Long, L., Wang, H.-J., & Jiang, L.
psychological need satisfaction mediates (2020). To prevent or to promote: How
the relationship between engaging regulatory focus moderates the
leadership and work engagement: A differentiated effects of quantitative
cross-national study. Human Resource versus qualitative job insecurity on
Development Quarterly. employee stress and motivation.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21366 International Journal of Stress
Management, 27(2), 135–145.
Rahmi, T., Agustiani, H., Harding, D., & https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000139
Fitriana, E. (2021). Pengaruh perceived
Wallace, C., & Chen, G. (2006). A multilevel
organizational support terhadap work
integration of personality, climate, self-
engagement dimediasi oleh regulatory
regulation, and performance. Personnel
focus ibu bekerja pada masa pandemi
Psychology, 59(3), 529–557.
Covid-19. Jurnal Kajian Manajemen
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
Bisnis, 10(1), 58.
6570.2006.00046.x
https://doi.org/10.24036/jkmb.11197500
Xu, F., & Wang, X. (2019). Transactional
Roczniewska, M., Retowski, S., Osowiecka, leadership and dynamic capabilities: the
M., Wrońska, M., & Słomska, I. (2013). mediating effect of regulatory focus.
Work Regulatory Focus Scale – Polish Management Decision, 57(9), 2284–
Adaptation. Polish Journal of Applied 2306. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-
Psychology, 12(2), 115–136. 2017-115

Jurnal Psikologi, 2023 (April), Vol. 22(1), 34-43

Rahmi et al. 43

APPENDIX
Work Regulatory Focus Scale Indonesian Version

No Pernyataan
1 Saya berkonsentrasi dalam menyelesaikan tugas dengan benar untuk menjamin saya
tidak akan kehilangan pekerjaan saya.
2 Di tempat kerja, saya memusatkan perhatian saya dalam menyelesaikan kewajiban
yang ditugaskan kepada saya.
3 Memenuhi tugas pekerjaan adalah sangat penting bagi saya.
4 Di tempat kerja, saya berusaha untuk memenuhi tanggung jawab dan tugas yang
diberikan kepada saya.
5 Di tempat kerja, saya sering fokus dalam menyelesaikan tugas yang akan mendukung
kebutuhan saya akan jaminan tidak kehilangan pekerjaan.
6 Saya melakukan segala yang saya bisa,untuk menghindari kehilangan di tempat kerja

7 Keamanan dalam bekerja merupakan faktor penting bagi saya dalam mencari
pekerjaan.
8 Saya memusatkan perhatian saya untuk menghindari kegagalan dalam bekerja
9 Saya sangat berhati-hati untuk menghindari kehilangan yang mungkin terjadi di tempat
ketja
10 Saya mengambil peluang di tempat kerja untuk memaksimalkan pencapaian tujuan
yang lebih tinggi
11 Saya cenderung mengambil risiko di tempat kerja demi mencapai kesuksesan
12 Jika saya diberi kesempatan untuk dilibatkan dalam suatu tugas yang berisiko tinggi
dan imbalan tinggi, saya pasti akan menerimanya.
13 Jika pekerjaan tidak memungkinkan saya untuk maju, saya kemungkinan akan mencari
pekerjaan yang baru.
14 Peluang untuk berkembang adalah faktor penting bagi saya ketika mencari pekerjaan.

15 Saya fokus menyelesaikan tugas yang akan mendukung kemajuan saya.

16 Saya memikirkan cara untuk menggapai cita-cita saya.
17 Prioritas pekerjaan saya dipengaruhi oleh gambaran yang jelas tentang apa yang saya
cita-citakan.
18 Pada saat bekerja, saya termotivasi oleh harapan dan cita-cita saya.

Jurnal Psikologi, 2023 (April), Vol. 22(1), 34-43