当前位置: X-MOL 学术Psychol. Inq. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Avoiding Regulatory Rigidity and Approaching Regulatory Flexibility
Psychological Inquiry ( IF 5.581 ) Pub Date : 2019-07-03 , DOI: 10.1080/1047840x.2019.1646056
Katharine H. Greenaway 1 , Kathleen D. Vohs 2
Affiliation  

In their target article, Scholer, Cornwell, and Higgins (in press) suggest that current conceptualizations of approach and avoidance motivation should be reconsidered. Amid and beyond psychology, in fields as diverse as education, organizational science, and clinical therapy (Covington, 1992; Elliot, 1999; Fowles, 1994; Kanfer, Frese, & Johnson, 2017; McFarland, Shankman, Tenke, Bruder, & Klein, 2006), approach motivation is lauded as an adaptive self-regulation orientation and avoidance branded a maladaptive reaction. Scholer and colleagues (in press) argue that a rigid categorization of approach as good and avoidance as bad has prevented the behavioral sciences from identifying situations in which approach can be problematic and avoidance beneficial, an analysis with which we agree. The target article outlines potential trade-offs between the costs and benefits of approach and avoidance. For example, avoidance can have hedonic costs as well as performance benefits, whereas approach generally feels good but does not necessarily produce effective results. In highlighting these trade-offs, Scholer et al. (in press) moved beyond what Bonanno and Burton (2013) referred to as the fallacy of uniform efficacy—the assumption that one particular strategy or state will be universally beneficial or costly in every situation. Seeing researchers advocate for this contextually sensitive approach to be broadly adopted is an exciting development in the self-regulation literature. Whereas Scholer et al. (in press) highlighted the benefits of moving beyond classifying approach and avoidance as good and bad, respectively, there is another refinement that deserves just as much attention. Rather than positioning approach and avoidance (whether for approaching or avoiding gains or losses) as static entities that operate separately in a given context, we argue for greater recognition of the dynamic interplay between approach and avoidance. Conceptualizing approach and avoidance as separate states that are either effective or ineffective depending on context does not capture the full picture of how and why these states can be psychologically beneficial or costly. Here, it can be useful to incorporate lessons from literatures that have investigated the interplay between regulatory states, such as the emotion regulation and threat defense literatures. The interplay between regulatory states can be seen in the emotion regulation literature’s emphasis on regulatory flexibility, a hallmark of an optimally functioning system. Regulatory flexibility is the ability to switch between different states and strategies to obtain optimal outcomes (Bonanno & Burton, 2013). This concept holds that people must choose the right regulation strategy for the right situation, or indeed must choose the right combination of strategies for the right situation (Blanke, Brose, Kalokerinos, Erbas, Riediger, & Kuppens, 2019). Applying this perspective to the self-regulation literature suggests that a fruitful avenue of inquiry may lie in understanding how people switch flexibly between approach and avoidance states in pursuit of optimal functioning. The many and various literatures on threat defense have embraced this notion by incorporating motivational shifts into theories of self-regulation. A wealth of evidence shows that anticipating or experiencing threat activates avoidance processes (e.g., Corr, DeYoung, & McNaughton, 2013; Gray, 1982; Klackl, Jonas, & Fritsche, 2018). Moving beyond this observation, literatures from terror management theory to the meaning maintenance model and reactive approach motivation (Fritsche et al., 2013; Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1997; Kay, Gaucher, Napier, Callan, & Laurin, 2008; McGregor, Nash, Mann, & Phills, 2010; Proulx, Heine, & Vohs, 2010) have demonstrated and cataloged the shift from avoidance to approach that occurs following threat detection. Our own work suggests that approach and avoidance work in close coordination. We hypothesized that people would exhibit greater approach as a way of counteracting the natural motivational shift toward anxiety and avoidance following a threat. We found that people deprived of control (who then experienced a brief delay between tasks to allow for a switch in motivation systems), exhibited greater approach orientation than people not deprived of control. Yet when control deprivation was paired with a misattribution procedure (ingesting a pill) that provided an explanation for the arousal they were feeling, people did not show an uptick in approach orientation (Greenaway, Storrs, Philipp, Louis, Hornsey, & Vohs, 2015; for a review, see Greenaway, Philipp, & Storrs, 2017). Other work suggests that vigilance in the service of avoiding mistakes is cut short when people are given the opportunity to restore control through other means (Bukowski, Asanowicz, Marzecov a, & Lupi a~ nez, 2015; Pittman & D’Agostino, 1989). Together, these findings

中文翻译:

避免监管僵化并接近监管灵活性

在他们的目标文章中,Scholer、Cornwell 和 Higgins(正在出版)建议应该重新考虑当前的方法和回避动机的概念化。在心理学之外,在教育、组织科学和临床治疗等多个领域(Covington,1992;Elliot,1999;Fowles,1994;Kanfer、Frese 和 Johnson,2017;McFarland、Shankman、Tenke、Bruder 和 Klein , 2006),接近动机被称赞为一种适应性的自我调节取向,而回避则被认为是一种适应不良的反应。Scholer 及其同事(正在出版)争辩说,对方法的好坏的严格分类阻止了行为科学确定方法可能有问题而避免有益的情况,我们同意这一分析。目标文章概述了接近和避免的成本和收益之间的潜在权衡。例如,回避可以带来享乐成本和性能收益,而方法通常感觉良好,但不一定会产生有效的结果。在强调这些权衡时,Scholer 等人。(印刷中)超越了博南诺和伯顿(2013 年)所说的统一效力谬误——即一种特定的策略或状态在任何情况下都会普遍有益或代价高昂的假设。看到研究人员提倡广泛采用这种上下文敏感的方法,这是自律文献中令人兴奋的发展。而 Scholer 等人。(印刷中)强调了超越将方法和避免分别归类为好和坏的好处,还有另一个改进值得同样多的关注。与其将接近和回避(无论是为了接近还是避免收益或损失)定位为在给定上下文中单独运作的静态实体,我们主张更多地认识到接近和回避之间的动态相互作用。将方法和回避概念化为根据上下文有效或无效的单独状态,并不能全面了解这些状态如何以及为什么会在心理上有益或代价高昂。在这里,结合研究调节状态之间相互作用的文献中的经验是有用的,例如情绪调节和威胁防御文献。调节状态之间的相互作用可以从情绪调节文献对调节灵活性的强调中看出,这是最佳运作系统的标志。监管灵活性是在不同状态和策略之间切换以获得最佳结果的能力(Bonanno & Burton,2013 年)。这个概念认为人们必须为正确的情况选择正确的监管策略,或者实际上必须为正确的情况选择正确的策略组合(Blanke、Brose、Kalokerinos、Erbas、Riediger、&Kuppens,2019)。将这一观点应用于自我调节文献表明,一个富有成效的探究途径可能在于理解人们如何在接近和回避状态之间灵活切换以追求最佳功能。许多关于威胁防御的文献都通过将动机转变纳入自我调节理论来接受这一概念。大量证据表明,预期或经历威胁会激活回避过程(例如,Corr、DeYoung 和 McNaughton,2013 年;Gray,1982 年;Klackl、Jonas 和 Fritsche,2018 年)。除了这一观察之外,还有从恐怖管理理论到意义维持模型和反应性方法动机的文献(Fritsche 等,2013 年;Greenberg、Solomon 和 Pyszczynski,1997 年;Kay、Gaucher、Napier、Callan 和 Laurin,2008 年;McGregor , Nash, Mann, & Phills, 2010; Proulx, Heine, & Vohs, 2010) 展示并记录了威胁检测后发生的从回避到接近的转变。我们自己的工作表明,方法和避免密切协调工作。我们假设人们会表现出更多的方法来抵消受到威胁后向焦虑和回避的自然动机转变。我们发现被剥夺控制的人(他们在任务之间经历了短暂的延迟以允许动机系统的转换)比没有被剥夺控制的人表现出更大的接近取向。然而,当控制剥夺与错误归因程序(摄入药丸)相结合时,人们并没有表现出对他们所感受到的觉醒的解释(Greenaway、Storrs、Philipp、Louis、Hornsey 和 Vohs,2015 年) ;有关评论,请参阅 Greenaway、Philipp 和 Storrs,2017 年)。其他工作表明,当人们有机会通过其他方式恢复控制时,避免错误的警惕性会被缩短(Bukowski、Asanowicz、Marzecov a、& Lupi a~nez,2015 年;Pittman 和 D'Agostino,1989 年) . 这些发现一起
更新日期:2019-07-03
down
wechat
bug