Adaptive self-regulation: When it fails in achieving the goal The aim of our study is to present the issue of self-regulation. In the study, we deal with the process of goal attainment, paying special attention to adaptive self-regulation. From the perspective of psychology as a helping profession, it is useful to focus on what to do when we are not successful on the way to a goal and its attainment is difficult or impossible. What should we do then? Persist or quit? In addition to specialist information, we will try in the conclusion to provide the reader with a qualified answer to these questions and offer a few useful recommendations based on theoretical and empirical knowledge.
Setting a goal means forming the intention to achieve a certain goal (Stuchlíková & Mazehóová, 2014). In setting a goal, consideration of its achievability, feasibility, likely outcomes and value plays an important role. Strong motivation to form a goal intention can be triggered by the knowledge that a goal is highly feasible—there are conditions and opportunities for its realization. Expectations and predictability of outcomes also play an important role (Achtziger & Gollwitzer, 2018).
Goal setting, or in other words, forming the intention to achieve a certain goal, is also metaphorically referred to as “crossing the Rubicon” (see Heckhausen’s Rubicon model, Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987), because returning to the state before the intention was formed is impossible without investing psychological effort—the goal is either abandoned or one begins pursuing it (Stuchlíková & Mazehóová, 2014).
After forming a goal intention, implementation intentions are subsequently formed. These represent a specific type of intention—they create a mental link between a specific future situation and a planned response to it. By specifying when, where, and how the goal will be achieved, implementation intentions enable automatic responding. Anticipation of the situation and the specific response to it form two components of implementation intentions or plans—the “if” and “then” components (Brandstätter, Heimbeck, Malzacher, & Frese, 2003; Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006; Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987). The function of implementation intentions is to connect mentally represented opportunities enabling goal attainment (“if”) with behavior in the sense of automatically responding to a cue (“then”). The effect of implementation intentions is especially evident for goals that are hard to realize, because their cognitive and volitional qualities facilitate goal-oriented behavior processes (Bagozzi & Edwards, 2000).
In more recent research, Gollwitzer, Schwӧrer, Stern, Gollwitzer, and Bargh (2017) examined implementation intentions in the context of automatic processes. It was found that implementation intentions can either increase or decrease projection—the highly automatic process of projecting one’s own attitudes onto other people. The conclusion is that forming implementation intentions can also regulate this type of unconscious process (Gollwitzer et al., 2017).
Koestner, Lekesová, Chicoine, and Powers (2002) found that implementation intentions, when associated with goal self-concordance, have an even stronger effect on goal progress. The term self-concordance is used to denote goals that are aligned with the self. According to the Self-Concordance Model (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998, 1999), attaining self-concordant goals is characterized by greater effort, which increases the probability of their successful attainment. Achievement of self-concordant goals is also associated with greater subjective well-being because such goals provide a sense of autonomy, competence, and coherence (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999).
Goals that do not correspond to the self (do not align with our interests and values) and are selected due to external pressure or expectations of what we “must” or “should” do create intrapersonal conflict. Poorly structured, ambiguous, abstract, distant, or difficult goals, as well as many goals that may conflict with one another, also have a negative impact on the efficiency and success of goal-oriented behavior. Current and concrete goals that are an appropriate challenge are especially likely to succeed, particularly if people believe in themselves (Koestner et al., 2002).
After completing activities aimed at a goal, the attained goal is compared and evaluated against the intention—the original wishes and desires. The individual thus receives feedback based on which they modify future behavior (Brandstätter et al., 2003).
Self-regulation
In interaction with the environment, the source of external stimulation and cues of varying quality, we respond adaptively and also based on an exceptional capacity to control one’s responses, to change emotions, thoughts, behavior, and overcome impulsive tendencies. On the basis of one’s own inner strength, changing and influencing one’s behavior is highly diverse. Baumeister (2002) calls this capacity self-regulation and self-control.
From the perspective of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1991), goal self-regulation includes two control processes:
- discrepancy production
– refers to the proactive cognitive control system, which operates by people setting goals that create discrepancy and then mobilizing effort based on anticipatory estimation of what will be needed to achieve the goal;
- discrepancy reduction – refers to the reactive feedback control system, which provides feedback about the effect of the effort invested and specifies how much additional effort is still needed to reach the goal.
This emphasizes, in addition to the regulatory function of goals (adapting effort to the demands of the goal), their motivational function (mobilization of effort) (Bandura, 1991).
Carver and Scheier (2011) define self-regulation as a feedback control process that is an adaptive-corrective process maintaining behavior in a certain direction. In the framework of Control Theory (Carver & Scheier, 1982, 1990), negative and positive feedback are distinguished. Negative feedback reduces discrepancies between current state and reference values (goals) by approaching them, whereas, conversely, positive feedback increases discrepancies between current state and reference values (anti-goals), thereby moving away (Carver & Scheier, 2011). At the same time, progress is monitored. If we are making progress, we experience positive affect; and when we are not making the intended progress, we experience negative affect (Carver, 2015; Carver & Scheier, 2017).
For some people, reaching goal progress comes easily, while for others, there are more subjectively salient obstacles in the way of the goal (Leduc-Cummings, Milyavskaya, & Peetz, 2017). In addition, for goals that do not reflect the current values and interests of our self, we do not have enough motivational “energy” to overcome potential obstacles (Chirkov, Kim, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2003), vitality (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Hope, Milyavskaya, Holding, & Koestner, 2016).
Problems with goal attainment
In life, it happens that we set goals and cannot achieve them. In such situations, a crucial role is played by the ability of adaptive self-regulation—self-regulation of difficult-to-achieve or unattainable goals (Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz, & Carver, 2003).
According to Carver and Scheier (2017), a goal that is not being achieved is associated— as noted above—with negative affect. Such a goal receives higher priority in the context of monitoring multiple goals. Affect essentially functions as a signal for behavior, indicating whether to increase effort (negative affect) or decrease effort (positive affect) (Carver & Scheier, 2017).
From a life-span perspective, however, our resources—time and energy—are limited by gradual growth and later decline in older age, genetic potential, and normatively defined developmental tasks, and therefore we should be able to decide how to invest these resources correctly (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver, & Schulz, 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003). As Carver (2015) writes, unnecessary expenditure of effort is maladaptive when people are pursuing multiple goals simultaneously. Reducing effort—what is called coasting in control theory—makes it possible to conserve and distribute energy across a wide range of goals. Also, an extreme deviation below the intended criterion that causes negative affect leads to a reduction in effort or to goal disengagement, because the alternative would be futile effort, to put it simply (Carver, 2015).
Although persistence is important for goal attainment, in some cases it is not possible to achieve the desired goal, and continued persistent effort becomes maladaptive. In such a case, for effective self-regulation it is useful when goal disengagement occurs, which is characterized by reduced effort and the removal of goal commitment. Lesser effort to achieve a goal, or complete cessation of goal-directed activities, conserves energy. This means we have the capacity to refrain from trying where it makes no sense (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003). The term “commitment” denotes the degree of devotion or attachment to a goal, determination to achieve it (Latham & Locke, 1991), psychological attachment to a goal (Hollenbeck, Williams, & Klien, 1989).
Although goal disengagement has benefits, it is considered, according to some theories, an undesirable response and a failure. Further complexity in the issue of goal disengagement is added by distinguishing between two responses to perceived unattainability of a goal based on commitment: giving up a goal while still retaining commitment to it, and giving up a goal with the release of commitment toward it. In the second case, distress is absent. Positive consequences also come from partially reducing demands and limiting the goal in a certain domain, selecting an alternative way to achieve the goal, or formulating a new one. A sense of emptiness, aimlessness, and loneliness arises when someone detaches from an unattainable goal without engaging in a new one (goal reengagement) (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003).
To explain how we adapt our responses when there are problems with goal attainment, Carver and Scheier (2000) use the term response shift. It refers to a change in the criteria used to evaluate objective reality—recalibration. We know three types of change: changes in internal standards (alpha change), changes in values (beta change), and reconceptualization (gamma change). If someone becomes ill, we expect objectively that their quality of life has worsened. Subjective deterioration, however, may not be felt if evaluation is conducted using different criteria than before. The result is adaptive regulation of affect and behavior (Carver & Scheier, 2000).
There are, however, interindividual differences in responses to unattainable goals. These are the result of personality traits, the ability to be aware of one’s own behavior, values and feelings, orientation toward success and failure motivation, expectations of future self-development, availability of alternative goals, causal attributions, and whether one is goal-oriented toward mastery or performance. Other factors may be the amount of time and energy invested in goal attainment or social norms as a form of pressure to try for selected goals (Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003).
Webb, Chang, and Bennová (2013) in their study addressed the phenomenon they call the “ostrich problem.” The information a person receives while monitoring progress can be highly unpleasant when real progress is smaller and does not meet expectations. In such cases, a situation may arise where one “puts one’s head in the sand.” By this behavior, besides avoiding unpleasant feelings and a disrupted mood, one also protects one’s self-image, convictions, or attitudes (Webb et al., 2013).
Author: Mgr. Marcela Bobková
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, Univerzita Pavla Jozefa Šafárika v Košiciach
Conclusion
We do not know a definitive answer to the question of when to continue effort and when to give up and stop. Sometimes it is good to persist, and sometimes it is beneficial to leave the goal (Wrosch, Scheier, & Miller, 2013).
In problematic life situations, maintaining hope is desirable, and if a goal is potentially achievable, releasing effort could negatively affect confidence in the ability to achieve similar goals in the future. Maintaining effort is desirable mainly for internally motivated goals that are linked to personal integrity, since we invest significant psychological resources in such goals—here one may mention the ostrich effect, which functions as a sort of ego defense mechanism. However, if one cannot approach the goal and it is unattainable, goal disengagement should occur. In addition to helping the individual avoid negative emotions and harmful consequences, personal resources of limited energy that would otherwise be used inefficiently can then be used for other substitute—and what is important—potentially achievable—goals (Stuchlíková & Mazehóová, 2014; Wrosch, Scheier, Carver et al., 2003).
With difficult-to-achieve goals, our attainment of them can be eased by more detailed planning (Bagozzi & Edwards, 2000). Plans—implementation intentions—detailing when, where, and how we will achieve the goal allow automatic responding to goal-related cues (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). What can help us detach from an unattainable goal is goal reengagement. Working on a new goal brings meaning into our lives and acts preventively against feelings of inadequacy and emptiness (Wrosch, Scheier, Miller et al., 2003).
List of References
Achtziger, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2018). Motivation and Volition in the Course of Action. In Heckhausen, J., & Heckhausen, H. (Eds.), Motivation and Action (pp. 485-527). Springer, Cham. ISBN 978-3-319-65094-4.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, E. A. (2000). Goal-Striving and the Implementation of Goal Intentions in the Regulation of Body Weight. Psychology and Health, 15, 255-270.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social Cognitive Theory of Self-Regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.
Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Ego Depletion and Self-Control Failure: An Energy Model of the Self’s Executive Function. Self and Identity, 1, 129-136.
Brandstätter, V., Heimbeck, D., Malzacher, J. T., & Frese, M. (2003). Goals need implementation intentions: The model of action phases tested in the applied setting of continuing education. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12(1), 37-59.
Carver, Ch. S. (2015). Control Processes, Priority Management, and Affective Dynamics. Emotion Review, 7(4), 301-307.
Carver, Ch. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control Theory: A Useful Conceptual Framework for Personality-Social, Clinical and Health Psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92(1), 111-135.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19-35.
Carver, Ch. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). Scaling back goals and recalibration of the affect system are processes in normal adaptive self-regulation: understanding ʻresponse schiftʼ phenomena. Social Science & Medicine, 50, 1715-1722.
Carver, Ch. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2011). Self-Regulation of Action and Affect. In Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: research, theory, and application (2nd Ed.) (pp. 3-21). New York, United States of America: The Guilford Press. ISBN 978-1-60623-948-3.
Carver, Ch. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2017). Chapter One – Self-Regulaotry Functions Supporting Motivated Action. In Elliot, A. J. (Ed.), Advances in Motivation Science, 4, 1-37. ISBN: 978-0-12-812123-8.
Chirkov, V., Kim, Y., Ryan, R. M., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating Autonomy From Individualism and Independence: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Internalization of Cultural Orientations and Well-Being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 97-110.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-Determination Theory: A Macrotheory of Human Motivation, Development, and Health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182-185.
Gollwitzer, A., Schwӧrer, B., Stern, Ch., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Bargh, J. A. (2017). Up and down regulation of highly automatic process: Implementation intentions can both increase and decrease social projecton. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 19-26.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation Intentions and Goal Achievement of Effects and Processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119.
Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents and cognitive functioning in motivational versus volitional states of mind. Motivation and Emotion, 11(2), 101-120.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Williams, Ch. R., & Klein, H. J. (1989). An Empirical Examination of the Antecedents of Commitment to Difficult Goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 18-23.
Hope, N. H., Milyavskaya, M., Holding, A. C., & Koestner, R. (2016). The humble path to progress: Goal-specific aspirational content predicts goal progress and goal vitality. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 99-107.
Koestner, R., Lekes, N., Chicoine, E., & Powers, T. A. (2002). Attaining Personal Goals: Self-Concordance Plus Implementation Intentions Equals Success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 231-244.
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-Regulation through Goal Setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 212-247.
Leduc-Cummings, I., Milyavskaya, M., & Peetz, J. (2017). Goal motivation and the subjective perception of past and future obstacles. Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 160-165.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not All Personal Goals Are Personal: Comparing Autonomous and Controlled Reasons for Goals as Predictors of Effort and Attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(5), 546-557.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal Striving, Need Satisfaction, and Longitudinal Well-Being: The Self-Concordance Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482-497.
Stuchlíková, I., & Mazehóová, Y. (2014). Osobní cíle jako motivační fenomén. Československá psychologie, 58(5), 471-484.
Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P. I., & Benn, Y. (2013). „The Ostrich Problem“: Motivated Avoidance or Rejection of Information About Goal Progress. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(11), 794-807.
Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Carver, Ch. S., & Schulz, R. (2003). The Importance of Goal Disengagement in Adaptive Self-Regulation: When Giving Upi s Beneficial. Self and Identity, 2, 1-20.
Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., & Miller, G. E. (2013). Goal Adjustment Capacities, Subjective Well-being, and Physical Health. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(12), 847-860.
Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Miller, G. E., Schulz, R., & Carver, Ch. S. (2003). Adaptive Self-Regulation of Unattainable Goals: Goal Disengagement, Goal Reengagement, and Subjective Well-Being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2003, 29(12), 1494-1508.