task-relevant stereotypes. We draw on prior work suggesting that negative stereotypes induce a prevention focus, and other research suggesting that people exhibit greater flexibility when their regulatory focus matches the reward structure of the task. This work suggests that stereotype threat effects

usually output one (or a few) high scoring patterns, they often fail to find composite regulatory signals consisting of weak monad parts. In this paper, we present a MITRA (MIsmatch TRee Algorithm) approach for discovering composite signals. We demonstrate that MITRA performs well for both monad

with preventionframed task incentives, individuals ' ought strength increases motivation for prevention-related means (avoiding losing points). These results suggest that motivation and performance are greater when the regulatory focus of task incentives and means match (vs. mismatch) the chronic regulatory focus

with either a gains or losses reward structure, creating two conditions of regulatory fit (promotion/gain, prevention/loss) and two conditions of regulatory mismatch (promotion/loss, prevention/gain). It was predicted that subjects in the regulatory fit conditions would be more likely to reach a criterion

This paper builds a bridge between research on regulatory focus in motivation and classification learning. It tests the hypothesis that a fit between the situational regulatory focus and the reward structure of the task leads to greater cognitive flexibility than a mismatch between situational

This paper implements a liquidity measure proposed by Brunnermeier, Gorton and Krishnamurthy (2011), "the Liquidity Mismatch Index (LMI), " to measure the mismatch between the market liquidity of assets and the funding liquidity of liabilities. In the LMI each asset and liability has a

with each choice. Our experiment revealed that participants in a regulatory fit were more likely to engage in systematic exploration of the task environment than were participants in a regulatory mismatch and performed more optimally as a result. Implications for contemporary models of human reinforcement

sensitivity but no response bias differences, relative to participants in a regulatory mismatch. When familiarity and sensitivity were high, participants in a regulatory fit showed a response bias toward the high-payoff stimulus but no differences in perceptual sensitivity. Speculations are offered

business reality and legal form which has led so frequently to poor legal and regulatory decision-making and ineffectual public control. While there is change stirring today, overall the law’s response to this mismatch has been piecemeal

These include: This article cites 51 articles, 21 of which can be accessed free at: