Michael F. Scheier

Self-Regulation and the Self

We have spent most of our research careers looking at some of the processes by which people’s behavior takes place. The term self-regulation usually appears in our discussions of these processes, because the view we take on human behavior reflects the general theme that people continuously work to maintain a sense of coherence and continuity, via behaviors that occur with reference to desired ends.

A Control-Systems Approach to the Self-Regulation of Action

Over the last several years we have been working on the development of a theoretical account of the self-regulation of behavior. Our approach derives from many sources, including Duval and Wicklund’s (1972) self-awareness theory and the broader set of ideas known as control theory or cybernetics (e.g., MacKay, 1963, 1966; Powers, 1973a, 1973b; Wiener, 1948). Ours is a theory of the control of behavior, but not a theory of motor control per se. It is a theory of intentions and actions, but not a theory of cognition or comprehension. We believe, however, that the ideas that we have been using are eminently compatible with currently popular theories concerning motor control (see, e.g., Adams, 1976; Kelso, Holt, Rubin, & Kugler, 1981; Schmidt, 1976) and theories concerning cognition and comprehension (see, e.g., Anderson, 1980; Schank & Abelson, 1977). We also believe that the point of view we have adopted allows us to usefully address certain issues that traditionally have been approached from rather discrete and restricted theoretical perspectives. Thus, we suggest that the theory serves to pull together divergent ideas and research literatures in a way that is internally consistent, providing an integration that we view as highly desirable.

On the Self-Regulation of Behavior: Introduction and Plan

Throughout our careers weve been interested in the structure of behavioral self-regulation. Sometimes when relatives or acquaintances ask us what we do for a living, we use that phrase. Often enough, what we get in return is a blank look. In truth, its a pretty abstract phrase. Its hard to know what it means unless you already know what it means. The term self-regulation in itself says more than we intend. After all, control of such qualities as body temperature, blood pressure, and blood chemistry all represent self-regulation. But these arent what were interested in. Even adding the qualifier behavioral to self-regulation doesnt entirely solve the problem. This leaves a door open to a large body of work on the regulation of physical action – motor control. There are links between the processes of motor control and the processes we focus on (to carry out any kind of behavior, you somehow have to translate the intent to act into actual movement). Yet the topics are different enough to draw a line between them. For the most part, movement control is outside our focus. Behavioral self-regulation in this book concerns mostly behavior at the level of interest to personality–social (and health, organizational, clinical, and counseling) psychologists. The question were interested in is how behavior – at that level of abstraction – happens. This restricts the topic a little. In another sense, though, were using the word behavior broadly. Were interested both in action and in emotion.

On the Self-Regulation of Behavior: Discrepancy-Reducing Feedback Processes in Behavior

Our waking lives are filled with behavior. We haul ourselves out of bed each morning and set off for the day. We do much thats mundane and even trivial. Sometimes we do things we think are important at the moment but will later decide didnt matter much after all. Sometimes we do things that seem trivial at the time but will later seem more momentous. Occasionally our actions involve our core sense of self, though this is probably rare for most people. A lot of human behavior, after all, is an extended process of maintenance activity – buying groceries, washing dishes, driving from place to place to get things. Some behavior involves a lot of physical movement, but some of our most important behavior involves moving little more than our mouths and eyes. FEEDBACK CONTROL IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR In this chapter we argue that all these behaviors embody the processes of feedback control. We didnt invent this idea. Explicit statements about it go back at least to Miller, Galanter, and Pribrams (1960) book Plans and the Structure of Behavior (see also Hunt, 1965; MacKay, 1963, 1966; Powers, 1973a, 1973b), and ideas underlying it go back much further (chap. 3 of Miller et al., 1960, reviews the history of related thought). Were part of a second generation of psychologists who regard it as plausible. Early Applications of Feedback Principles The first theorists to argue for the idea that feedback processes are important in macro-level human behavior were Miller, Galanter, and Pribram (1960).

On the Self-Regulation of Behavior: Principles of Feedback Control

This chapter describes a set of basic principles underlying the conceptual analysis presented in the remainder of the book. We describe the principles here abstractly, with examples and illustrations taken mostly from domains other than personality–social psychology. Our goal is to create a clear sense of the nature of particular processes (for a more detailed account see Clark, 1996) without pressing the argument that human behavior embodies them. We move on to that argument in due course. CYBERNETICS, FEEDBACK, AND CONTROL Wiener (1948) defined cybernetics as the science of communication and control. Cybernetics is one of several terms intertwined with one another – terms such as control processes, feedback processes , and servomechanisms (or servos ). These terms have varying origins, theyre used preferentially by different people in different lines of work, and they differ in shades of meaning. For our purposes, though, they refer to roughly the same things. Cybernetics is the science of feedback processes; feedback processes involve the control or regulation of certain values within a system (see also Ashby, 1961; Clark, 1996). Negative Feedback A negative feedback loop, the basic unit of cybernetic control, is a system of four elements in a particular kind of organization. The elements are an input function, a reference value, a comparator, and an output function (Figure 2.1). An input function is a sensor. It brings information into the loop. In later discussions well treat this input function as equivalent to perception.

On the Self-Regulation of Behavior: Is Behavior Controlled or Does It Emerge ?

Thus far in the book weve tried to build a conceptual edifice that portrays a self-regulating person, including problems. In this chapter we do something different. We raise the question of whether weve been leading you down a primrose path. In our earlier discussions we evaded some questions. In this chapter we confront one of them, from several different angles (evading others successfully for the rest of the book). In particular, weve assumed that self-regulation at the level of our interest tends to involve something resembling an executive process. People form intentions to do things, then they go and do them. But is this assumption necessary? Is it a mistake? Conceptual bases for raising this question occur in several literatures. The literatures are intriguing, and the points they make are very different from those made elsewhere in this book. We address three of them here: the literature of coordinations (which leads us back into the domain of dynamic systems), the literature of connectionism, and the literature of robotics (see Montefiore & Noble, 1989, for other views on these questions). COORDINATION AND COMPLEXITY EMERGENT FROM SIMPLE SOURCES The literature of coordinations focuses largely on coordination of physical movement. This literature is substantial, dealing with many interesting questions (e.g., Kugler & Turvey, 1987; Turvey, 1990), but our present interest is confined to a few of its themes.

On the Self-Regulation of Behavior: Hierarchicality and Problems in Living

The secret of juggling is inner harmony and knowing how to let go. (Robert Fulghum, From Beginning to End: The Rituals of Our Lives ) The last chapter described several potential contributors to peoples problems which seem to be implied by the self-regulatory model presented earlier in the book. The issues we addressed there were relatively straightforward. In this chapter we continue to consider problems, but we turn to issues that are more complex. In one fashion or another, these issues all relate to the notion of hierarchicality. LINKS BETWEEN CONCRETE GOALS AND THE CORE VALUES OF THE SELF Several potential problems stem directly from the idea that there are hierarchical links between action goals and the core principles and values that make up the self. Hierarchicality as an Impediment to Disengagement One of these problems concerns the expression of the disengagement impulse. In Chapter 12 we described difficulties in which doubt causes a person to experience an impulse to disengage from some goal but the person cant do so. We managed to avoid saying much there about why people are sometimes unable to give up. The test-anxious person remains committed to passing the exam, the socially anxious person remains committed to making a good impression, the mourning spouse remains committed to the lost relationship. Why can it be so hard to give up?

On the Self-Regulation of Behavior: Discrepancy-Enlarging Loops, and Three Further Issues

In Chapter 3 we talked about efforts to conform to behavioral reference points. Those processes cover a lot of behavior, but not all behavior. Sometimes people want to attain particular ends, but sometimes they want to escape or avoid particular ends. Sometimes people want to be specific ways, sometimes they want to not be specific ways. The experiences of trying to move toward and trying to move away obviously differ, and they involve different self-regulatory structures. In this chapter we consider moving-away processes, and a different kind of feedback loop: the discrepancy-enlarging loop. As we said in Chapter 2, some feedback processes act to create a divergence between an input (perception of present condition) and a comparison value. Rather than resembling a gravity field, it looks like antigravity. Rather than a goal, it seems to involve an anti-goal. These loops may be less prominent in behavior than are approach loops. They do, however, play an important role. In this chapter we address that role. Then we turn to some broader questions that transcend the two types of feedback processes. DISCREPANCY-ENLARGING FEEDBACK LOOPS IN BEHAVIOR In trying to identify cases of positive feedback in behavior, there are several things to look for. First, positive loops always involve attempts to deviate from a comparison point, efforts to push away from something. Second, its likely that the distancing from standard is constrained or overridden at some point by the action of a negative loop.

On the Self-Regulation of Behavior: Disengagement: Issues and Comparisons

If I cant win, I wont run. ( Chariots of Fire ) Chapter 10 described a division between two classes of responses to difficulty in moving toward goals. A sense of confidence leads to renewed effort, and a sense of doubt leads to giving up. These classes of response are both integral parts of the system of self-regulation that keeps people adapted to the world. Once again, the conceptualization raises questions and issues. Some of them concern disengagement as an event: what it is, alternative ways to view it, whether in fact disengagement per se actually occurs. Other issues arise in considering how this theory relates to other models of the phenomena under discussion. Another point concerns the fact that issues of engagement and disengagement arise in many literatures, some quite unexpectedly. SCALING BACK GOALS AS LIMITED DISENGAGEMENT By now weve described several variations on the theme of disengagement: diminishing effort, leaving the behavioral context, mental disengagement (daydreaming and off-task thinking), and the bind between having the impetus to disengage and being unable to express it. In this section we consider another potential reflection of disengagement. Sometimes progress toward a goal is going poorly, expectancies of success are dim, and you want to quit. Rather than quit altogether, you trade this goal for a less demanding one – a kind of limited disengagement. Youve given up on the first goal at the same time as youre adopting a lesser one (cf. Miller et al., 1960, p. 171).

On the Self-Regulation of Behavior: Goal Engagement, Life, and Death

Hope makes us live. (Haitian proverb) It is wonderful to have a plan. A plan can make the whole future rosy. … To have a plan is like having a little canoe and even the fiercest rapids can be negotiated. (Stephen Dobyns, The Wrestlers Cruel Study ) He is not busy being born is busy dying. (Bob Dylan, Its Alright Ma [Im Only Bleeding ]) This book has focused on a particular way of thinking about how people live their lives. Although a few complexities came up along the way, the underlying idea is pretty simple: People live life by identifying goals and moving toward them, and by identifying anti-goals and staying away from them. Some goals reflect biological programming; others stem from conscious weighing of alternatives; others arise from dreams and fantasies and even from a self-organizing process of bootstrapping. Whatever their origins, these values are the constellations people use to guide their journey through life. In this closing chapter we extend this way of thinking a step further, with the assertion that goal engagement is a necessity of life. There must be goals, striving toward one end or another, for life to continue. Without goal engagement, life ceases. As has been true more than once in this book, this assertion follows a path blazed by Miller, Galanter, and Pribram (1960).