External control vs. Autonomy
Previously in this blog , I have written about the research of Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, and their work on Self-Determination Theory. Baumann and Kuhl draw on this theory, particularly the notion that autonomy is a fundamental human need. In short, autonomy-supportive conditions are assumed to help us satisfy this basic need, whereas conditions that involve external control undermine this need for autonomous independence and our well-being. In fact, a great deal of research has shown that externally controlled events decrease performance on complex and creative tasks, and, more generally, lead people to take on tasks or regulations without accepting them as their own (something called introjection). As such, external control may have two effects. On the one hand, it may help individuals suppress their own needs at the moment to get a task done, on the other, it may undermine the development of self-regulatory abilities as the individual relies too much on external pressure to effect self-regulation. The question is, are there individual differences that might affect this?

Personality Systems Interaction: State- vs. action-orientation
To address the potential for individual differences, the authors considered a personality trait known as state- vs. action orientation. Decision-related State Orientation (SOD) "describes the inability to self-generate positive affect that is needed to act quickly upon one's decisions, whereas Decision-related Action Orientation (AOD) is characterized by self-motivation and initiative" (p. 446). You can see why these two individual differences were chosen as possible moderators of the effect of external control.

Given these definitions, we might expect that people who score high on State Orientation (SOD) would rely on external control to make up for their lack of initiative. Indeed, research has shown that state-oriented students without external motivation carried out fewer leisure activities than they had planned - no get up and go, to get up and go! (Note: If you want to read more about state and action orientation, see my previous blog on some research we conducted relating this individual difference to procrastination. 

Their Study
This is a very interesting and complex experimental study that involved participants completing a computer-based task in which speed and accuracy earned them money as a reward. At the same time, there was a distracting task (an amusing on-screen event where two monkeys had a climbing competition, and if the "bad" monkey won it took money out of the participants' accumulated funds, whereas a "good" monkey win resulted in a net increase in money). As with many studies I summarize here on the blog, the details, although important in terms of the science, cannot be summarized here (I think you'd just stop reading!). Suffice it to say that the experimental design allowed these researchers to test the two "types" of personalities (i.e., action vs state oriented individuals) in two conditions (i.e., external control directions vs. autonomy-promoting directions for the task) while they dealt with the temptation of a distracting event.

I think it's important to summarize their hypotheses. In the authors' words:

"The degree to which external control helps one to stick to a boring task despite tempting distracters was expected to depend on a person's action control disposition. Action-oriented individuals use positive self-motivating strategies to realize their intentions (‘I am capable of finding the pleasant aspects of an initially unpleasant activity'). They prefer an autonomy-oriented mode of volition (self-regulation) defined as a ‘democratic' consideration of many different needs and preferences . . . these individuals do not depend on external sources of regulation (e.g., encouragement by an interaction partner or instructions exerting control) because they can self-regulate their feelings and actions. Conversely, state-oriented individuals have difficulty acting upon their decisions. Due to their inability to self-generate positive affect, they often use negative self-motivating strategies (‘In order to motivate myself, I imagine what would happen if I didn't finish the task on time') and self-suppressive modes of self-regulation . . . Presumably, self-suppression helps resist temptation because this mode shuts off any competing action tendencies emanating from the self" (pp. 447-448). One way to generate self-suppression is to have external demands for control. In this case, they predicted that state-oriented individuals would more effectively resist distractions if they were in an externally controlled condition.

What they found
Consistent with their hypothesis, state-oriented participants in the externally controlled condition did not demonstrate a decrease in their task performance due to the distracter, however these individuals did have a significant decrease in task speed when in the autonomy-supportive condition. In short, the state-oriented participants relied on and benefited from the external control conditions and were distracted (could not resist temptation) when this external control was absent. For action-oriented participants, resistance to the temptation to watch the monkey race was not affected by the instruction condition. Their self-regulatory abilities maintained their performance irrespective of the context, however state-oriented individuals showed deficits in self-regulation when external control was not provided to support their task focus.

What this means
There are two very important issues raised in these findings.

First, given that state-oriented participants were able to resist temptation under conditions of external control but had poor resistance in autonomy-supportive conditions, it is important to consider this individual difference when expecting someone to exercise self-control. State-orientation is an individual difference that is a liability to self-regulation.

When self-regulatory abilities are low, situational factors become more important. In this case, state-oriented individuals need external sources of regulation to overcome their deficits in self-motivation. Baumann and Kuhl argue that this finding may be explained by self-suppression. As long as the situation maintains the external control, no competing action tendency can emanate from the self (these are suppressed). Of course, when self-suppression is removed, competing tendencies within the individual may take the person off task again, because there is a lack of internal mechanisms to self-regulate.

• Print
• Send to friend
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

3 Reader comments join the discussion here!

Tags: action orientation, approaches in psychology, autonomy, baumann, creative tasks, edward deci, experimental study, fundamental human need, individual differences, journal of personality, julius kuhl, motivation, notion, personality, personality approaches, personality trait, richard ryan, self determination theory, self-control, state-orientation, supportive conditions