3.3. ELECTIVE
Motivation, self-regulation, and performance
PROBLEM 1
STRUCTURE OF SELF-REGULATION AND NUDGING
LEARNING GOALS
– Part 1
- What is self-regulation?
- What types of self-regulation theories can be distinguished?
- Which self-regulation processes and beliefs can be distinguished?
– Part 2
- What is the thermostat model of self-regulation, how does it work (control theory)?
- What is the social cognitive theory / self-efficacy theory?
- What are the differences between the control theory and social cognitive theory?
– Part 3
- What is the nudge theory, how does it work?
- Which different nudges can be distinguished?
· (optional: criticism, from ethical point of view? from long term point of view: behavioral change?)
ARTICLE SUMMARIES
PART 1
ARTICLE 1
DIEFENDORFF & LORD (2008) – Goal-Striving and self-regulation processes.
– Review article
– Aims to review theory and research on self-regulation and identify areas for future research.
– Departs from traditional ideas on self-regulation
DEFINING SELF-REGULATION
– Ability to guide ones activities over time and across changing circumstances.
– Regulation à implies deliberate or that it requires attention, conscious. Can become automated.
– Control over oneself.
– Attaining and maintaining goals.
, – Involves conscious, deliberate processes, as well as unconscious, automatic processes.
– Reflects willpower to reach goals, but also flexibility in using a variety of means to attain them.
TAXONOMY OF SELF-REGULATION THEORIES
– Taxonomy of self-regulation theories that distinguishes among structure, phase, and content approaches.
- The theories focus more or less on these aspects. Emphasises one of these approaches more.
– Structural theories – describe self-regulation constructs and their interrelationship over time, without addressing
the content that is being regulated.
– Phase theories – focus on the sequence of activities involved in goal pursuit, starting with goal selection and
ending at goal attainment or revision. Describes that’s to be completed + cognitive, emotional, and behavioural
resources the individual brings to each step.
– Content theories – describes types of activities that individuals pursue and the ways in which the nature of one’s
foals affect self-regulation. Thus, do not emphasise mechanisms or activities that need to be tackled along the
way, but on how what types of activities individuals chose to pursue affect the self-regulation process and
outcomes.
STRUCTURAL THEORIES
– Two theories below have been criticised on relative merits à authors of paper believe they have been
exaggerated: they essentially use different terminology to describe the same phenomena.
– CONTROL THEORY (CT)
- Like thermostat metaphor in pre-discussion.
- William Glasser.
- Dynamic view on behaviour based on reciprocal interdependence of a
person interacting with the environment over time.
- Useful to explain how a controlled variable (goal) can be kept withing
specific limits in a changing environment.
- In core: negative feedback loop with 4 components (see figure):
· Input function – sees information in environment and brings into
loop (perception).
· Standard – goal. What the individual is trying to attain.
· Comparator – matches input value with a goal or standard. Determines whether input and reference values
are different, if so:
· Output function – activates when input and reference are different to bring subsequent input in line with
reference value. Change output = behaviour, e.g., increase/decrease effort.
- Assumes hierarchical structuring of goals.
· Short-term, concreate goals = lower.
· Long-term, abstract goals = higher.
· Lower-level goals (can be subgoals) can be seen as strategies for attaining higher-level ones.
– SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY (SCT)
- By Bandura, derived from Social Learning Theory (bo-bo dolls).
- Similar to CT, views self-regulation as a cyclical process with feedback about goal
- Also assumes hierarchical structuring of goals.
– Differences between them
- Bandura and Locke (2003) argues difference between theories is that SCT emphasises discrepancy production
(each new goal is set higher than previous performance), while CT discrepancy reduction (striving to reach one’s
goal).
· Argument: motivation resides in the want to achieve challenging goals (result of discrepancy production), not
in the desire to reduce discrepancy.
, · Furter: discrepancy reduction is only a by-product of the motivation to achieve challenging goals, not a source
of motivation.
· Authors à this is a semantic difference, as achieving a goal and reducing a discrepancy involve identical
processes.
- Another criticism highlighted by Bandura and Locke:
· CT is indifferent to whether discrepancies are eliminated by lowering one’s goal or working hard to reach it.
- This is not the case à this would create discrepancies for goals higher up in the hierarchy. Thus, not an
adaptive long-term response. May however work for some short-term goals. Can, however, lead to
increased goal conflict.
- Exceptions to above statement à maintaining goals that cannot me bet can lead to chronic dissatisfaction.
Thus, this case it can be situations where it can be adaptively beneficial to reduce the goal to maintain
motivation or reduce dissatisfaction. However, then also higher-level goals may need to be adjusted.
- Authors agree with Bandura and Locke’s (2003) assessment that the most interesting question is why ppl create
discrepancies (discrepancy production), rather than how individuals try to achieve the goals they have set.
· SCTs explanation of discrepancy production = result of ppl trying to motivate themselves.
· Not that different from CT = ppl raise their goals as part of a efforts to reduce discrepancies for goals higher
up in the hierarchy, which reflect important goals the person is motivated to attain.
· Both above = links between task goals and personality attributes.
- Vancouver (2005) said main difference is that SCT represents a system-level conceptualisation of self-
regulation, and CT a sub-system-level one.
· Authors agree to a point. Still argue that CT is equally equipped at representing system-level concepts. See
the analysis and structure described by CST to be subsumed within CT.
PHASE THEORIES
– Describe the distinct steps ppl go through when pursuing goals.
– Traced back to Lewin, Dembo, Festinger, and Sears (1944) who described motivation as consisting of 2 phases:
- Goal setting – weighing reasons for why pursuing some activities, dominant goal will “emerge”.
· The process of selecting a goal.
- Goal striving – performing behaviours that serve goat attainment, such as effort, strategies, perseverance in
face of obstacles.
· Behaviours directed toward a goal.
– Zimmerman (2000) built on before and added more.
- Three phases:
· Forethought – roughly equivalent to above goal setting.
· Performance – roughly equivalent to above goal striving.
· Self-reflection – distinct phase for evaluative reflection.
– Karoly (1993)
- 5 phases – adds a planning/strategy phase (2) and divides the self-reflection phase (4, 5).
· Goal selection
· Goal cognitive
· Directional maintenance
· Directional change or reprioritisation
· Goal termination
– One of most common approaches to describe phases of self-regulation = to use 4 phases:
· Goal establishment
· Planning
· Goal striving
· Goal revision
- This approach does not divide the last step.
Motivation, self-regulation, and performance
PROBLEM 1
STRUCTURE OF SELF-REGULATION AND NUDGING
LEARNING GOALS
– Part 1
- What is self-regulation?
- What types of self-regulation theories can be distinguished?
- Which self-regulation processes and beliefs can be distinguished?
– Part 2
- What is the thermostat model of self-regulation, how does it work (control theory)?
- What is the social cognitive theory / self-efficacy theory?
- What are the differences between the control theory and social cognitive theory?
– Part 3
- What is the nudge theory, how does it work?
- Which different nudges can be distinguished?
· (optional: criticism, from ethical point of view? from long term point of view: behavioral change?)
ARTICLE SUMMARIES
PART 1
ARTICLE 1
DIEFENDORFF & LORD (2008) – Goal-Striving and self-regulation processes.
– Review article
– Aims to review theory and research on self-regulation and identify areas for future research.
– Departs from traditional ideas on self-regulation
DEFINING SELF-REGULATION
– Ability to guide ones activities over time and across changing circumstances.
– Regulation à implies deliberate or that it requires attention, conscious. Can become automated.
– Control over oneself.
– Attaining and maintaining goals.
, – Involves conscious, deliberate processes, as well as unconscious, automatic processes.
– Reflects willpower to reach goals, but also flexibility in using a variety of means to attain them.
TAXONOMY OF SELF-REGULATION THEORIES
– Taxonomy of self-regulation theories that distinguishes among structure, phase, and content approaches.
- The theories focus more or less on these aspects. Emphasises one of these approaches more.
– Structural theories – describe self-regulation constructs and their interrelationship over time, without addressing
the content that is being regulated.
– Phase theories – focus on the sequence of activities involved in goal pursuit, starting with goal selection and
ending at goal attainment or revision. Describes that’s to be completed + cognitive, emotional, and behavioural
resources the individual brings to each step.
– Content theories – describes types of activities that individuals pursue and the ways in which the nature of one’s
foals affect self-regulation. Thus, do not emphasise mechanisms or activities that need to be tackled along the
way, but on how what types of activities individuals chose to pursue affect the self-regulation process and
outcomes.
STRUCTURAL THEORIES
– Two theories below have been criticised on relative merits à authors of paper believe they have been
exaggerated: they essentially use different terminology to describe the same phenomena.
– CONTROL THEORY (CT)
- Like thermostat metaphor in pre-discussion.
- William Glasser.
- Dynamic view on behaviour based on reciprocal interdependence of a
person interacting with the environment over time.
- Useful to explain how a controlled variable (goal) can be kept withing
specific limits in a changing environment.
- In core: negative feedback loop with 4 components (see figure):
· Input function – sees information in environment and brings into
loop (perception).
· Standard – goal. What the individual is trying to attain.
· Comparator – matches input value with a goal or standard. Determines whether input and reference values
are different, if so:
· Output function – activates when input and reference are different to bring subsequent input in line with
reference value. Change output = behaviour, e.g., increase/decrease effort.
- Assumes hierarchical structuring of goals.
· Short-term, concreate goals = lower.
· Long-term, abstract goals = higher.
· Lower-level goals (can be subgoals) can be seen as strategies for attaining higher-level ones.
– SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY (SCT)
- By Bandura, derived from Social Learning Theory (bo-bo dolls).
- Similar to CT, views self-regulation as a cyclical process with feedback about goal
- Also assumes hierarchical structuring of goals.
– Differences between them
- Bandura and Locke (2003) argues difference between theories is that SCT emphasises discrepancy production
(each new goal is set higher than previous performance), while CT discrepancy reduction (striving to reach one’s
goal).
· Argument: motivation resides in the want to achieve challenging goals (result of discrepancy production), not
in the desire to reduce discrepancy.
, · Furter: discrepancy reduction is only a by-product of the motivation to achieve challenging goals, not a source
of motivation.
· Authors à this is a semantic difference, as achieving a goal and reducing a discrepancy involve identical
processes.
- Another criticism highlighted by Bandura and Locke:
· CT is indifferent to whether discrepancies are eliminated by lowering one’s goal or working hard to reach it.
- This is not the case à this would create discrepancies for goals higher up in the hierarchy. Thus, not an
adaptive long-term response. May however work for some short-term goals. Can, however, lead to
increased goal conflict.
- Exceptions to above statement à maintaining goals that cannot me bet can lead to chronic dissatisfaction.
Thus, this case it can be situations where it can be adaptively beneficial to reduce the goal to maintain
motivation or reduce dissatisfaction. However, then also higher-level goals may need to be adjusted.
- Authors agree with Bandura and Locke’s (2003) assessment that the most interesting question is why ppl create
discrepancies (discrepancy production), rather than how individuals try to achieve the goals they have set.
· SCTs explanation of discrepancy production = result of ppl trying to motivate themselves.
· Not that different from CT = ppl raise their goals as part of a efforts to reduce discrepancies for goals higher
up in the hierarchy, which reflect important goals the person is motivated to attain.
· Both above = links between task goals and personality attributes.
- Vancouver (2005) said main difference is that SCT represents a system-level conceptualisation of self-
regulation, and CT a sub-system-level one.
· Authors agree to a point. Still argue that CT is equally equipped at representing system-level concepts. See
the analysis and structure described by CST to be subsumed within CT.
PHASE THEORIES
– Describe the distinct steps ppl go through when pursuing goals.
– Traced back to Lewin, Dembo, Festinger, and Sears (1944) who described motivation as consisting of 2 phases:
- Goal setting – weighing reasons for why pursuing some activities, dominant goal will “emerge”.
· The process of selecting a goal.
- Goal striving – performing behaviours that serve goat attainment, such as effort, strategies, perseverance in
face of obstacles.
· Behaviours directed toward a goal.
– Zimmerman (2000) built on before and added more.
- Three phases:
· Forethought – roughly equivalent to above goal setting.
· Performance – roughly equivalent to above goal striving.
· Self-reflection – distinct phase for evaluative reflection.
– Karoly (1993)
- 5 phases – adds a planning/strategy phase (2) and divides the self-reflection phase (4, 5).
· Goal selection
· Goal cognitive
· Directional maintenance
· Directional change or reprioritisation
· Goal termination
– One of most common approaches to describe phases of self-regulation = to use 4 phases:
· Goal establishment
· Planning
· Goal striving
· Goal revision
- This approach does not divide the last step.
