PSP312 - Self Regulation

Definiton: Self Regulation

The ability to voltitionally control or later impulses and responses and work towards long and short term hoals by monitering ones thoughts, feelings and behaviours leading to the achievement of future benefits

Definiton: Motivation

The psychological forces that drive behaviour

Three predominant theories in motivation research?

• Achievement theory (Duda & Nicholls, 1992)

• Self determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985)

• Theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991)

Acheivement theory (Duda & Nicholls, 1992)

Theory proposes that beleifs about the causes of success relate to personal goals and motivation, suggesting that individuals are either task goal orientated or ego orientated. Theory expanded to include a social goal orientaion.

Self determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 1985)

emprically based organismic meta theory of human behaviour and personality development that uses motivational perspectives to undertsand a broad range of phenomena

6 Mini theories of SDT?

Cog evaluation theory, organismic integration theory, causal orientation theory, basic psychological needs theory, goal content theory, relational motivation theory

cognitive evaluation theory

Concerns how external and internal events impact intrinsic motivation, proposing that intrinsic motivation occurs when there is fulfillment of the 3 basic psychological needs which can be supported or frustrated by internal and external events. Involves the functional significance of the event, and the percieved locus of causality (informational or controlling).

CET: seminal research

Deci, 1971 - comapred to controls, when an extrinsic reward for completing a puzzle was taken away, IM (duration of play) decreased, EM is good but not effect does not perisist in its absense

CET: undermining effect

Moller & Sheldon (2019) LTD research found that having college atheltes who had a scholarship had sig less IM 15 years later comapred to those without the scholarship - EM from school reduced IM

SDT: competition

Reeve & Deci (1996) IM (duration of behaviour) for puzzle following a comp was dependant on the knowledge of whether you had won or lost the competition (highest IM when you had the knowledge that you won, same IM if no comp or no feedback on results)

SDT: competition and enjoyment

Cooket et al (2013) - enjoyment and performance increased depending on the type of competition (individual, 1v1, 2v2 etc), but so did anxiety

IM: Structural perspective (Kruglanski et al., 2018)

Proposes that IM occurs when the means and the ends of a goal and activity are percieved as inseperable through the means end fusion theory. Fusing an activity to goal involves the pairing having uniqueness, similarity, repeated pairings and remporal immediacy. Thsi leads to goal activation and activity engagement.

SP: Immediacy

Woodley & Fishback (2018) found people reported focusing on delayed rewards comapred to immediate, but in the acc moment, number of reps was predicted by immediate outcomes

SP: Repeated association

Zhang et al (2007) found repeated subliminal priming that forges activity-goal means-end fusion increased quality of means end fusion

Compare SDT (CET) and SP

• immediacy of reward: SP suggests immediacy of reward induces IM but the undermining effect of SDT differs (IM decreases with time despite the immediate EM)

• Defining IM: SP proposes that SDT’s IM acc refer to internal motives for the basic psych needs, where others (internalised and introjected) were considered seperately, whereas SP suggests the latter have little to do with IM when defined structurall

• Focus of motivation: SP focuses on cog association, SDT focuses on need fulfillmet

• Drivers of motivation: SP - perceptual fusion, repeated pairing, uniqueness and SDT - autonomy, competency and relatedness

• Application: SP - specifc activites and goals, SDT: broad

Definition: Identity

(McAdams, 2013) Relatively stabe mental representation of the self that includes core values, beleifs, social identity, long term goals and important past experiences

McAdamds (2013) and identity development

Identitiy development occurs through life, with early experiences forming broad semantic traits that you assimilate with that see the self as an actor, agent or author

Goal hierachy (Carver & Scheier, 2000)

Framework for organising goals: have, do and be golas, with be goals possessing the most long -term motivation (linking in with theories re identity and motivation)

Organismic integreation theory

Theory regarding EM proposing that EM can be internalised, with this laying along a continum (especially useful within the sport context since IM does not always make sense), distinguishing between IM and different types of EM and AM

Internalisation

Key component of OIT describing the neutral process of internalising EM into ones sense of self/character (not negative or positive). The best enironments for this process is ones that foster the basic psych needs

6 types of regulation: OIT

• non-regulation: behaviour lacking in intention or purpose, lack of motivation

• external regulation: EM that is least internalised, behaviour is enagaged with purely for reasons external to self

• introjected regulation: EM that is not compltely external but regulated through internal pressures

• identified regulation: EM where someone sees it as valuble/personally significant but not fully endorsing it

• Integreated regulation: most autonomous/internalised EM, person fully endorsed behaviours, alligns with needs and values

• Intrinsic regulation: IM - activities pursued out of pure enjoyment

Behaviour regulation and different outcomes

Internalisation of EM has been linked with positive outcomes such as goal attainment, pro-environmental behaviour, learning, mastery, jon satisfaction

external/introjected regulations are associated with negative outcomes such as drop out, non-retention of material, lack of enjoyment

Behaviour regulation and well-being and support

Percieved teacher/parent autonomy support was associated with more autonomous forms of motivation as well as greater well-being

OIT critiques

• External regulation: groups rewards and punsihments

• Introjected regulation is not always maladaptive and can be a good quality motivator

• identified and integreated regulation are blindly seen as something good, but what about negative behaviours, or having conflicting identities?

Motivational Model of Persistence (Taylor et al., 2021)

Model that undertsands how motivation and self regulation perisit during acts of endurance proposing that autonomous motivation leads to decreased desire value, increased goal value and enahnced emotional regulation, leading to increased perisistence

Definition: Endurance

Ability to continue doing something painful or difficult for a period of time without giving up

Endurance and ability to resist?

Milayavaskaya et al (2015) found it wasnt that autonomously motivated individuals were able to resist the unehalthy choices more, but rather they paid less attention/thought about it less than those with more controlled regulations

Desire-goal conflict

The incompatability between the desire and goal whcih should be lower

How does MMoP, desire-goal conflict and identity link in context of sport?

The MMoP adopts the idea that the self/identity is a robust motivator of behaviour, and that acts of endurance are often assimilated with sport identities, leading to predictive patterns of desire-goal conflict and performance. Proposes there is an identity relevant autonomously motivated state critical to endruance and perisitence

3 components of PPoM

When autonomously motivated, should have:

• decreased desire value

• increased goal value

• enhanced emotion regulation

PPoM and enhanced emotion regulation

• Hodgins & Knee (2002): autonomously motivated led to decreased error related negativity and better performance (better SR)

• Inzlicht & leagault (2013): making mistakes was not a threat to ego when autonomously motivated, acknowledged errors more

Testing PPoM

Taylor et al (2020) found autonomous functioning have less desire to reduce effort compared to low autonomoy, goal values more easily acitvated and performance was mediated by both desire and goal value

Taylor (unpub) found that the relationship between autonomous motivation and persistence was mediated by frustration (or lack thereof)

Multi-process action control model

Framework incorperating a hierachy of 3 layers used to explain PA behaviour from intention to maintence. Describes how successful PA results from a combo of relfective, regulatory and reflexive processes

Identitiy value model (berkman et al., 2017)

focuses on identitiy derived values as a prominant motivating factor in self control propsing that identity relevant values have greater subjective value and are therefore more likely to be enacted.

Definition: self control

Fishback & Woolley (2018): the capacity to resist temptation that is in conflict with a desired long term goal to protect this valued goal

• has lots of definitions, but all have components describing the capacity, temptation/desire and long term goal conflicting desire

Strength/limited resource model of self control (Baumiester et al., 1998)

Comapred SC to a muscle suggesting it has limited energy and becomes fatigued after exertion, which then builds back energy for the next time you need it. Includes 3 components: limited resource, ego depletion and recovery

How did baumeister et al define self control?

Capacity for altering ones responses to be in-line with standards, morals, values and expectations to support the pursuit of long term goals

Most common research on trait self control?

Marshmallow test/delayed gratification

Measures of trait self-control

Self report questionnaires have been designed (althought these are subjected to bias)

Trait self control and performance

• High levels of trait self control assoicated with better impulse control, attnetion, thoughts and emotions, psych well-being, academic success, neg related to procrastination, obesity and substance abuse

• in context of sport and exercise, trait self control assoicated with a smaller intention-behaviour gap, and associated with football practice, sleep and football performance in athletes

• higher trait self control in atheltes compared to general population

Two stages of self control (Fishbach & woolley, 2018)

Suggests that self control is comprised of two processes, goal conflict identification - recognising the conflict between long term goals and immediate desires - and response inhibition - taking action to manage and resolve conflict. Suggested these were distinct processes as they take part in different parts of the brain and described as a conscious process

Self control theory (Kotabe & Hoffman, 2015)

Alt to the two stage theory of SC proposing several components (nodes) influencing self control organised in distict clusters

• exertion cluser: control capacity, motivation and effort

• activation cluster: desire, higher order goal and D-G conflcit

• Desire or self control will then be the prevailing force which are imapcted by enactment constraints

  • also descibes a taxonomy of failiure (conflict or control based failiures

Self control over time (ego depletion)

• Baumiester et al (1998) when p had to exhibit SC in first task (resisiting cookies) led to less self control (duration) in second, unrelated task (termed this ego-depletion

• Boat & Taylor (2018) within subjects design found that p endured wall sit for longer when the og stroop task was easy comapred to hard)

Ego depletion and self control - meta analyses (x4)

• Hagger et al (2010): meidum to large effects of ego depletion on self control

• Carter et al (2015): found little evidence that ego-depletion effects were real, concluding that SC does not decrease as a function of limited resource

• Hagger et al (2016): small effect for ego depletion but were non sig

• Brown et al (2020): small to medium effect when looking at differen types of physical performance (when physical ask was second)

Issues with ego-depletion/SC theories

• differences between ego-depletion and mental fatigue - mental fatigue may capture a broader range of complex phenomenon and is measured differently

• How can self control be improved? if operating on the Strength model, then surely it should ‘grow’ or develop as it is being used.

Two models that explain why self control reduces

• Strength/limited resoruce model (Baumiester et al)

• Shifting priorities model (Milyayskaya & Inzlicht, 2018)

Evidence: strength/limited resource model

Dorris et al (2012): individuals who exhibited more SC in first task performed less press-ups in follow up (although the first task was coutnign backwards - does this exhibite SC or just cognitively demanding?)

Strength/limited resource model: proposed resource?

Galliot et al (2007): some evidence to suggest that SC leads to consumption of glucose in brain

Critiques of glucose being the resource in the strength/limited resource theory

• effects have been inconsisitntly observed

• glucose homestasis - does not allign with this thoery

• glucose consumption does not show enough difference to basal rate

• no identified source

• ego-depletion effects cna be easily counteracted (watching tv etc)

Shifting priorities model (Milyayskava & Inzlicht, 2018)

Suggests that our brain automatically does a cost-benefit analysis of the desire and goal to evaluate whether it is worth exerting self control. Depeding on the calculation, your motivational and attentional mechansims will shoft towards the goal or desire, with SC becoming a value input.

• proposes that prior exertion of SC influences the valuation process by shifting borth value of exerting effort and value of indulging

Evidence: Shifting priorities model

Boat and Taylor (2018)

• When SC was used in previous task, led to decreased persisitence in wall sit task, mediated by the perception of pain (attentional mechanisms shifted towards the pain they felt

Englert et al (2015)

• When SC was used in a previous task, particpants were more liekly to recognise a voice change during a free throw task (attentional mechanisms on voice rather than task)

Hunte et al (2021)

• Found the exertion of SC reduced self efficacy towards subsequent self control task, not the same for motivational mechnaisms or percieved exertion - small effect for pain

Defintion: Effort

Eisenberger (1992): subjective intesnifcation of mental and/or phyiscla activity in the service of meeting a goal

Physicla effort

Intensity/duraction - can be measured by HR, watts, kcal, time metabolic equivalent

Mental effort

Decision making, planning, self control - harder than physical effort to measure and operationalise because it occurs in the the brain and methdology used to access is limited by subjectivity/bias

Opportunity cost model (Kuzban et al, 2013)

Suggests how effort can decrease over time on effortful tasks. The brain deploys EF when engaging in a task leading to the opportunity cost, which results in subjective feelings of effort. This calculation is comeplted because EF resources cannot be used by differrent tasks simultaneiosuly, leading to the brain deplying the EF to different tasks

Effort is costly

Inzlicht et al (2018) engaging in effort found to lead towards increased SAM activation, consumes energy in brain (activation), aversive affective responses

Opportunity cost model: research

• Emanual et al (2022): effort increases near a deadline due to the opportunity-cost model being re-appraised

• Cameron et al (2019): people have a preference for avoiding empathy which is associated with the perception that empathy is effortful and aversive

Mental effort is aversive

Vogel et al (2020): p were more likekly to chose to be subjected to a physically painful stimulus rather than exerting cogntive effort

Physical effort is aversive

Ekkakakis et al (2010) found that when unhealthy p pass the ventilatory threshold on a treadmil, valence shifts from pos to negative as opposed to a self paced walk

effort is valued

(effort paradox)

Norton et al (2012) IKEA effect: post hoc evaluations revealed that individuals would spend more money on an item when they built it themselves comapred to ready made

Effort paradox

• Olivola & Shafir (2013) - Martyrdom effect: pain and effor increased pro-social behaviour - donated more to a chairty run than a picnic

• Eisenberger (1991) - Leanred industriousness: rewarding a difficult task led to classical conditioning reducing its aversiveness

Theory of effort minimisation in physcial activity (Cheval & Boisgoniter, 2021)

Model specifc to movement behaviours integreating automatic reactions to PA cues and automatic attraction toward effrot minimisation (gap between intetions and physical activity)

• suggests that huamns are evolved to be good at endurance activity, but also to minimise effort

Behaviours minimising energetic cost (Cheval et al., 2018)

Describes actions/strategies individuals use to reduce amount of energy expended during PA to make it eaiser. Suggests that BMEC are rewarding and are automatically favoured.

• for example: intermittent activity can minimise effort expenditrue comapred to continuous activity

Psychobiological model of endurance

An effort based, decision making theory explaining self paced endurance performance, suggesting endurance performance is regulated by a combination of internal and external factors

• proposes a key role of perception of effort, potential motivation, previous experience, external factors

Psychobiological model of endurance: evidence

Salam et al (2018): when mentally fatigued, effort (rate of percieved exertion) increased faster and led to decreases in performance (reached their maximal level sooner)

• concluded that percieved effort is a key determinant of of endurance capacity and effort is based on afferent feedback and mental fatigue

Role of time in IM and internalisation

• CET: theory proposing how humans are inclined towards growth and development (time) - IM

• Internalisation: concept within OIT depicting the inclincation towards growth and our predisposition to intenrlaise EM to ones true self - time being a key component

Motivation and temporal dynamics

• Read & van Leeuwan (1998): found that motivational states change over time - people who originally predicted they would want the healthy snack at T1 more likely to change to unhealthy at T2 (poor at predicting motivational states)

Temporal discounting

cog tendancy where peopl prefer immediate rewards over future benefits, explaining why motivations differ with time. Brain weighs immediate costs more in comparison to future benefits.

• explains why it differs with time because asking whether peopel will exercise next week, there no immediate costs to saying you will

Ways to override cost benefit analysis?

• commitment binds

• make rewards more immediate

• remove cost/barriers

• making exercise fun

• increase benefits

• increase cost of not doing it

Commitment binds

promise agreement meaning an action/decision must be carried out

• Bhattacharya et al (2015) using a website that sets up an exercise contract found that the deafult duration of the contract predicted how duration of contract the p signed up for and the duration it was acc carried out for

Asmov Corollary

The notion that the more itme we have, the more time we have to not act on intentions or let life get in the way

Time and immediacy

Wooley & Fishback (2016): when told to focus on the immediate rewards rather than delayed outcome, they were more likley to complete more reps despite original self reported motivation for exercise being the delayed outcome

What are the issues with alot of choking definitions?

• phenomenon was oversimplified, conflates phenomenon with hypothesisied cause, making it unclear whether choking is a cause or result.

‘Accepted’ definitions of choking?

• Baumiester & Showers: occurence of inferior performance despite thriving and incentives for superior performance

• Hibbs: when a p in a comeptetive sport fails during a clutch situation

Is choking just random fluctuations in performance?

Gilovich et al (1985) found that despite the perspective of a hot hand in basket ball, chances of scoring decreased slightly after misses (hot hand is a misconception)

• so choking is not just random fluctuations in performance, and someones good performance is also not indicative of future performance

moderate or major underperformance?

• Davis & Harvey (1992): found decreased performance under conditions of heightended arousal - elite players can be subjected to underperformance

• Toma (2017): found when a game was tight, there was a decrease in successful throws between teams - a rate that was even lower when team was behind

Yips

Psych-muscular issues affecting fine motor skills causing atheltes to perform below usual standards

Is major underperformance always due to choking?

• Bawden & Maynard (2001): descibed some form of yip invovled in atheltes stories - felt like they couldnt let go of the ball. However, this could also be more characteristic of focal dystonia

• Smith et al (2003) found that out of the 70 instances they studied, 40/70 were dystonia and only 16/70 were choking

The choking process (Jackson et al, 2013)

Pressure factors (antecdents) - aren’t inherently bad but percieved so under high pressure - feeds into:

• individual differences

• task characteristics

• ability to regulate

Which then feeds into concequences

Factors within the choking process (Hill & Shaw, 2013)

Investigated the choking process in 8 players:

• Antecedents: improtant games, expectations, responsibility, audience, poor prep, opponents, physical/mental errors

• Mechanisms: deliberative cog and somatic anxiety, distraction, percieved control, motive to avoid failiure, self focus

• Moderators: team cohesion, motivational climate, coping style, mental skills and passion

• Concequences: drop out, performance, negative affect, withdrawal, reflection

Choking and Self regulation breakdown

(Baumiester, 1977) Under ego threat, people may engage in misguided regulation (under or mis reg) due to ego threat leading to emotional distress (with emotional distress and self reg having a reciprocal relationship). The emotional distress they feel is so big that the top priority is to end it

• when there is self regulation failiure, people likely to engage in: escape/avoidance, explict monitering and risk taking

In-event avoidance coping

• Hill & Shaw (2013): reports of choking when players think about avoiding mistakes and reports of wanting to get out of the situation after choking

• Masango et al (2024): of the 77% of performers who choked, there were reports of suicidal ideation, mental ill health, avoidance behaviour

Avoidance and emotional valence

Jordet & Hartman (2008): found that there was 3x more avoidance behaviour for neg vs pos valence kicks and 30% hgiher success rate for pos valence kicks. Avoidance looking (turning away) was also increased with neg valence.

Status, avoidance and performance

Jordet (2009): those with an already high status had the lowest success rate, no status next and then the highest success rate was those who were to have a high status in the future

Processing efficiency theory (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992) - cog perspective of choking

Proposes that state anxiety imapcts cognitive performance due to it reducing the efficiency of cognitive porcessing, rather than the effectiveness of performance. Has two main predictions:

• state anxiety typically impairs processing efficiency more than performance effectiveness

• adverse effects on task performance generally becomes stronger as task demands on WM capapcity increase

Attentional Control theory (Eysenck et al., 2007)

Builds on PET to explain how anxiety affects cognitive performance, proposing that it does so by disrupting attentional control mechanisms, specifically predicting that theres increased attention to/distraction by threat-related stimuli. The two attentional systems:

• goal directed: voluntary, predefined goal, influenced by expectations, top down

• stimulus dirven: involuntary process, attending something unexpected or salient, bottom up

Distraction by threat stimuli (attentional control theory), Wilson et al (2009)

Found that under high pressure, there was increased fixations in general and towards the goal keeper, earlier fixations and kicks were more central

• implied more bottom up processing takes over during high pressure (anxiety) due to having less control over what they attend

Distraction by threat stimuli (attentional control theory) Furley et al (2017)

Found that during shoot outs of the world cup/euro championships, there were more goals when the kicker looked away from the goal keepr rather than towards and more saves when goalkeeper used distraction

Ego depletion and distractability (attentional control theory) Englert et al, (2015)

Found that individuals who exerted self control (depletion group) performed worse in free throws and were more likely to detect the voice change during free throw task

• suggests those in depleted group were more distracted due to depletion of self-control resources

Self focus theories of choking

• Self consciosuness

• Explicit monitering

• homefield advantage

Self focus theory of choking: self consciousness (Baumeister 1984)

High pressure leads to the conscious awareness that one must execute behaviour correctly meaning the consciousness moniters the process. However, because the consciousness does not possess knowledge/skills of performance, there is a reduction in performance (more time spent on the process rather than skills themselves)

Self focus theory of choking: Explicit monitering (Beilock et al., 2004)

Proposed how repeated explicit montiering and control mechansism needed by novies should be exercised with caution by experts.

• drawing on the dichotomies of cog and attentional processes (singer, 2002) saying when a beginner, need to think consciosuly, controlled, voluntarily etc, but when an expert, should do it non-consciously, automatically etc

Explicit montiering (choking): Goldscmied et al (2010)

Increased thinking time decreased field goal accuracy from 80—66%

Explicit montiering (choking): Ravizza (1977), Jackson (1992)

reports of peak/optimal sport experiences involved not thinking of performance and effort

Explicit montiering (choking): Gucciardo et al (2010)

From experineces of golfers who choked, 16/22 lost attentional control, reporting they were thinking too much about the process and lsot the automacity of it

Gray (2004): attending to execution of complex sensorimotor skill

Found extraneious dual task (judging tone) was the most dertiment to novices comapred to experts, but when told to attend the movement of the swing, experts performed worse than novies

• the predicted that experts attend more movement exectuion when in slump, and found this to be true (high correlations)

Homefield advantage (choking): baumiester & steinhilber (1984)

The original expectation is that people did not do better in home turf due to making self presentation concerns more salient, but research following this suggested that the home turf could provide an advantage due to stronger identity ties

• research found that there was a homefield advantgae in first few games, but went downhill

Self conscious scale (choking): Fenigstein et al (1975)

Scale comprising of two proposed elements:

• reber (1985): embrassement or unease at being the object of others attention

• Fenigstein et al (1975): consistnet tendancy for perosn to direct attention inwards/outwards

Reinvestment theory (Master & Maxwell, 2008)

Conscious attention to movement disrupts well leanred motor skills, leading to a delcine in performance due to conscious control disrupting automatic process (based on conscious processing hypothesis)

Choking and ID: self-consciousness (Baumeister, 1984)

Those low in SC had a greater delcine in performance from low to high pressure trails due to those low in SC not being used to performing in a high pressure state