RESEARCH PAPER
Perseverance and effectiveness of action: the effect of the fit between individual differences in willpower and the situational context
Online publication date: 2014-02-23
Current Issues in Personality Psychology 2013;1(1):26-38
KEYWORDS
person-environment fit theoryperseveranceeffectivenessaction vs. state orientationautonomyexternal control
ABSTRACT
Background
Invoking the fit theory between a person and the environment, the author of which is Lawrence A. Pervin, an attempt to explain the influence exerted by willpower differences and the situational context on perseverance and action effectiveness is made.
Participants and procedure
Two studies were conducted to test the effect of the situational context and willpower differences on perseverance and action effectiveness. The first study involved
120 participants (88 females and 32 males) between 17 and 19 years of age (M = 18.28; SD = 0.56). The researched group in the second study included 230 participants (160 females and 70 males) between 20 and 53 years of age (M = 25.19; SD = 5.04). In the first study perseverance and action effectiveness were assessed on the basis of the performance level and the amount of time spent on the computer task. In the study 2 to evaluate the effectiveness used subjective progress assessment in achieving individual goals. In both of these studies, evoked a sense of autonomy vs. induced a sense of external control and the measurement of will-power differences was conducted on the basis of Kuhl’s ACS-90 questionnaire.
Results
The results of study 1 confirm that perseverance and action effectiveness in the case of people with low willpower level (state-oriented) is greater in conditions creating a sense of pressure/external control. In the case of people with high willpower (action-oriented), the method of influencing by the situational context is not of major significance to their perseverance and effectiveness. The results of study 2 show that intention implementation in conditions creating a sense of external control increases progress assessment in achieving goals declared by the state-oriented. However, no positive influence of intention implementation on the assessments of progress made by action-oriented individuals was confirmed.
Conclusions
The cumulative results of the two presented studies confirm that the perseverance and action effectiveness of people with low willpower (state-oriented) are determined by the specific kind of fit between personal predispositions and
the situational context. In turn, people with high willpower (action-oriented) act, to a larger extent, on the basis of internal regulatory mechanisms, somehow regardless of the way in which the situational context exerts an influence on them.
Invoking the fit theory between a person and the environment, the author of which is Lawrence A. Pervin, an attempt to explain the influence exerted by willpower differences and the situational context on perseverance and action effectiveness is made.
Participants and procedure
Two studies were conducted to test the effect of the situational context and willpower differences on perseverance and action effectiveness. The first study involved
120 participants (88 females and 32 males) between 17 and 19 years of age (M = 18.28; SD = 0.56). The researched group in the second study included 230 participants (160 females and 70 males) between 20 and 53 years of age (M = 25.19; SD = 5.04). In the first study perseverance and action effectiveness were assessed on the basis of the performance level and the amount of time spent on the computer task. In the study 2 to evaluate the effectiveness used subjective progress assessment in achieving individual goals. In both of these studies, evoked a sense of autonomy vs. induced a sense of external control and the measurement of will-power differences was conducted on the basis of Kuhl’s ACS-90 questionnaire.
Results
The results of study 1 confirm that perseverance and action effectiveness in the case of people with low willpower level (state-oriented) is greater in conditions creating a sense of pressure/external control. In the case of people with high willpower (action-oriented), the method of influencing by the situational context is not of major significance to their perseverance and effectiveness. The results of study 2 show that intention implementation in conditions creating a sense of external control increases progress assessment in achieving goals declared by the state-oriented. However, no positive influence of intention implementation on the assessments of progress made by action-oriented individuals was confirmed.
Conclusions
The cumulative results of the two presented studies confirm that the perseverance and action effectiveness of people with low willpower (state-oriented) are determined by the specific kind of fit between personal predispositions and
the situational context. In turn, people with high willpower (action-oriented) act, to a larger extent, on the basis of internal regulatory mechanisms, somehow regardless of the way in which the situational context exerts an influence on them.
REFERENCES (54)
1.
Bargh, J.A., Gollwitzer, P.M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K. & Trötschel, R. (2001). The automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1014-1027.
2.
Bargh, J.A., Gollwitzer, P.M. & Oettingen, G. (2010). Motivation. In: S. Fiske, D. Gilbert & G. Lindzey (eds.). Handbook of social psychology (pp. 268-316). New York: Wiley.
3.
Baumann, N., Kaschel, R. & Kuhl, J. (2005). Striving for unwanted goals: Stress-depend discrepancies between explicit and implicit achievement motives reduce subjective well-being and increase psychosomatic symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 781-799.
4.
Baumann, N. & Kuhl, J. (2002). Intuition, affect, and personality: Unconscious coherence judgments and self-regulation of negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1213-1223.
5.
Baumann, N. & Kuhl, J. (2005). How to resist temptation: The effects of external control versus autonomy. Journal of Personality, 73, 444-472.
6.
Beckmann, J. & Kellmann, M. (2004). Self-regulation and recovery: Approaching an understanding of the process of recovery from stress. Psychological Reports, 95, 1135-1153.
7.
Carver, C.S. & Scheier, M.F. (2011). Self-regulation of action and affect. In: K.D. Vohs & R.F. Baumeister (eds.). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. 2nd ed. (pp. 3-21). New York, NY: Guilford.
8.
Cervone, D., Mor, N., Orom, H., Scott, W. & Shadel, W. (2004). Self-efficacy beliefs and the architecture of personality On knowledge, appraisal, and self-regulation. In: R.F. Baumeister & K.D. Vohs (eds.). Handbook of self-regulation Research, theory, and applications (pp. 188-210). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
9.
Cervone, D., Mor, N., Orom, H., Shadel, W.G., Scott, W.D. (2011). Self-efficacy beliefs on the architecture of personality: On knowledge, appraisal, and self-regulation. In: K. Vohs & R.F. Baumeister (eds.). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 188-210). 2nd ed. New York: Guilford.
10.
Fuhrmann, A. & Kuhl, J. (1998). Maintaining a healthy diet: Effects of personality and self-reward versus self-punishment on commitment to and enactment of self-chosen and assigned goals. Psychology and Health, 13, 651-686.
11.
Gollwitzer, P.M. & Brandstätter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 186-199.
12.
Gollwitzer, P.M., Fujita, K. & Oettingen, G. (2004). Planning and the implementation of goals. In: R.F. Baumeister & K.D. Vohs (eds.). Handbook of self-regulation. Research, theory, and applications (pp. 211-228). New York: The Guilford Press.
13.
Gollwitzer, P.M. & Oettingen, G. (2011). Planning promotes goal striving. In: K.D. Vohs & R.F. Baumeister (eds.). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 162-185). 2nd ed. New York: Guilford.
14.
Kadzikowska-Wrzosek, R. (2010). Wolna wola w świetle badań współczesnej psychologii nad procesami samoregulacji oraz samokontroli. Psychologia Społeczna, 5, 330-344.
15.
Kadzikowska-Wrzosek, R. (2011a). Subiektywna ocena postępu w realizacji celu: Wpływ implementacji intencji i różnic indywidualnych w sposobie formułowania celów oraz sile woli. Psychologia Społeczna, 6, 49-66.
16.
Kadzikowska-Wrzosek, R. (2011b). Wytrwałość i skuteczność działania: Wpływ kontekstu sytuacyjnego oraz siły woli. Roczniki Psychologiczne, 14, 159-186.
17.
Kadzikowska-Wrzosek, R. (2012). Typ regulacji działania w wytrwałość i skuteczność działania: Wpływ siły woli i kontekstu sytuacyjnego. Studia Psychologiczne, 50, 31-47.
18.
Kaschel, R. & Kuhl, J. (2004). Motivational counseling in an extended functional context: Personality systems interaction theory and assessment. In: W.M. Cox & E. Klinger (eds.). Motivational counseling: Motivating people for change (pp. 99-119). Sussex: Wiley.
19.
Kazén, M., Baumann, N. & Kuhl, J. (2003). Self-infiltration vs. self-compatibility checking in dealing with unattractive tasks: The moderating influence of state vs. action orientation. Motivation and emotion, 27, 157-197.
20.
Koestner, R., Horberg, E.J., Gaudreau, P., Powers, T., Di Dio, P., Bryan, Ch., Jochum, R. & Salter, N. (2006). Bolstering implementation plans for the long haul: The benefits of simultaneously boosting self-concordance or self-efficacy. Personality and social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 1547-1558.
21.
Koole, S.L. (2009). The psychology of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Cognition and Emotion, 23, 4-41.
22.
Koole, S.L. & Kuhl, J. (2007). Dealing with unwanted feelings: The role of affect regulation in volitional action control. In: J. Shah & W. Gardner (eds.). Handbook of motivation science (pp. 295-307). New York: Guilford.
23.
Koole, S.L., Kuhl, J., Jostmann, N.B. & Vohs, K.D. (2005). On the hidden benefits of state orientation: Can people prosper without efficient affect regulation skills? In: A. Tesser, J. Wood & D.A. Stapel (eds.). On building, defending, and regulating the self:.
25.
Koole, S.L., McCullough, M.L., Kuhl, J. & Roelofsma, P.H.M.P. (2010). Why religion’s burdens are light: From religiosity to implicit self-regulation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 95-107.
26.
Kuhl, J. (1996). Who controls whom “when I control myself”? Psychological Inquiry, 7, 61-68.
27.
Kuhl, J. (2000). A functional-design approach to motivation and self-regulation: The dynamics of personality systems interactions. In: Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P.R. & Zeidner, M. (eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 111-169). San Diego: Academic Press.
28.
Kuhl, J. (2011). Adaptive and maladaptive pathways of self-development: Mental health and interactions among personality systems. Psychologia Rozwojowa, 16, 9-31.
29.
Kuhl, J. & Kazén, M. (1994). Self-discrimination and memory: State orientation and false self-ascription of assigned activities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1103-1115.
30.
Kuhl, J. & Kazén, M. (1999). Volitional facilitation of difficult intentions: Joint activation of intention memory and positive affect removes Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 382-399.
31.
Kuhl, J., Kazén, M. & Koole, S.L. (2006). Putting self-regulation theory into practice: A user’s manual. Applied Psychology: An international Review, 55, 408-418.
32.
Little, B.R. (1993). Personal Projects and the distributed self: Aspects of a conative psychology. In:.
33.
J. Suls (ed.). Psychological perspectives in the self and social perspective. Vol. 4. New Jersey: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Little, B.R., Lecci, L. & Watkinson, B. (1992). Personality and personal projects: Linking Big Five and PAC units of analysis. Journal of Personality, 60, 501-525.
34.
Łukaszewski, W. & Marszał-Wiśniewska, M. (2006). Wytrwałość w działaniu. Wyznaczniki sytuacyjne.
35.
i osobowościowe [Perseverance in action. Situational and personality determinants]. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo GWP.
36.
Markus, H. & Ruvalo, A. (1989). Possible selves: Personalized representations of goals. In: L.A. Pervin (ed.). Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 211-241). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
37.
Marszał-Wiśniewska, M. (2002). Adaptacja Skali Kontroli Działania J. Kuhla (ACS-90). Studia Psychologiczne, 40, 77-102.
38.
Mądrzycki, T. (1996). Osobowość jako system tworzący i realizujący plany życiowe. [Personality as a system creating and implementing life plans]. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo GWP.
39.
McCrae, R.R. & Costa P.T., Jr. (1995). Trait explanations in personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 9, 231-252.
40.
Parker, S.L., Jimmieson, N.L. & Amiot, C.E. (2013). Self-determination, control, and reactions to changes in workload: A work simulation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18, 173-190.
41.
Pervin, L.A. (1968). Performance and satisfaction as a function of individual-environment fit. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 56-68.
42.
Polivy, J. & Herman, C.P. (2000). The False Hope Syndrome: Unfulfilled expectations of self-change. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 128-131.
43.
Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C. & Norcross, J.C. (1992). In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behavior. American Psychologist, 47, 1102-1114.
44.
Rothman, A.J. (2000). Toward a theory-based analysis of behavioral maintenance. Health Psychology, 19, 64-69.
45.
Rothman, A.J., Baldwin, A. & Hertel, A. (2004). Self- regulation and behavior change: Disentangling behavioral initiation and behavioral maintenance. In: R.F. Baumeister & K.D. Vohs (eds.). The handbook of self-regulation (pp. 130-150). New York: Guilford.
46.
Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
47.
Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination and will? Journal of Personality, 74, 1557-1585.
48.
Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2008). From Ego Depletion to Vitality: Theory and Findings Concerning the Facilitation of Energy Available to the Self. Social and Personality Psychology, 2, 702-717.
49.
Sansone, C. & Harackiewicz, J.M. (1996). “I don’t feel like it” The function of interest in self-regulation. In: L.L. Martin & A. Tesser (eds.). Interactions among goals, affect, and self-regulation (pp. 175-202). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50.
Sansone, C., Wiebe, D.J. & Morgan, C. (1999). Self- Regulating Interest: The Moderating Role of Hardiness and Conscientiousness. Journal of Personality, 4, 701-735.
51.
Vansteenkiste, M. & Sheldon, K.M. (2006). There’s nothing more practical than a good theory: Integrating motivational interviewing and self-determination theory. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 63-82.
52.
Vohs, K.D. & Schmeichel, B.J. (2007). Self-Regulation: How and Why People Reach (and Fail to Reach) Their Goals. In: C. Sedikides & S. Spencer (eds.). Frontiers in Social Psychology: The Self (pp. 139-162). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
53.
Webb, T.L., Christian, J. & Armitage, C.J. (2007). Helping students turn up for class: Does personality moderate the effectiveness of an implementation intention intervention? Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 316-327.
54.
Wieber, F. & Gollwitzer, P.M. (2010). Overcoming procrastination through planning. In: C. Andreou & M.D. White (eds.). The thief of time: Philosophical essays on procrastination (pp. 185-205). New York: Oxford University Press.
Copyright: © Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2353-561X |
| ISSN: | 2353-4192 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
