Putting Self‐Regulation Theory into Practice: A User's Manual

Abstract

Cervone, Shadel, Smith, and Fiori (2006) propose that theories of personality architecture may provide an integrative theoretical framework for self-regulation research. Building further on this argument, the present paper considers one comprehensive modern approach to personality architecture, personality systems interactions (PSI) theory. The authors provide a brief overview of PSI theory and discuss a simple, three-step "user's manual" that has guided applications of the theory to real-life behavior. Work on PSI theory highlights some of the integrative potential of personality science in the field of self-regulation. The authors conclude that theories of personality architecture may improve the quality and precision of the counselling, coaching, and training that psychologists in many diverse areas provide. INTRODUCTIONSelf-regulation is an immensely adaptive capacity. Indeed, effective selfregulation fosters health-promoting behaviors (Fuhrman & Kuhl, 1998), positive psychological well-being (Baumann, Kaschel, & Kuhl, 2005), and high job performance (Diefendorff, Hall, Lord, & Strean, 2000). It thus stands to reason that scientific insights into self-regulation processes are directly relevant to all disciplines that seek to promote people's physical health, psychological well-being, and job performance. Unfortunately, putting self-regulation theory into practice is not that easy. As Cervone, Shadel, Smith, and Fiori (2006) point out, the modern self-regulation literature is a bewildering jungle of theoretical constructs. This lack of theoretical coherence makes it difficult for other fields to take advantage of the real progress that has been made in understanding self-regulation processes. In a bold attempt to bring theoretical order to the study of self-regulation, Cervone et al. (2006) have turned to personality science. This move will undoubtedly be surprising to some readers. After all, mainstream personality research has long focused on personality structure . Theories of personality structure focus on between-person taxonomic models and virtually ignore psychological processes within the person. Because self-regulation is by definition an intra-personal process, theories of personality structure have little relevance for understanding self-regulation. However, personality can be approached from a different angle. As Cervone et al. point out, there exists a new breed of theories of personality architecture , which analyse the mental systems that shape the individual's enduring, distinctive patterns of experience and action (Cervone, 2004(Cervone, , 2005Cloninger, 2004;Kuhl & Koole, 2004;Magnusson, 2003;Mischel & Shoda, 1998). Unlike theories of personality structure, theories of personality architecture pay close attention to cognitive and affective dynamics within the person. Consequently, theories of personality architecture are of central relevance to the study of self-regulation. Indeed, as Cervone et al. suggest, theories of personality architecture may very well provide the integrative theoretic...

A high implicit affiliation motive does not always make you happy: A corresponding explicit motive and corresponding behavior are further needed

“…According to this integrative theory of personality, affects and affect regulation play an important role for the congruence of implicit and explicit motives and the behavioral output (Baumann et al 2005;Kuhl et al 2006). Inhibited negative affect facilitates access to the socalled ''extension memory''.…”

Giving or taking: the role of dispositional power motivation and positive affect in profit maximization

“…To assess the implicit and explicit power motive we used a recently developed TAT-like operant motive test and a self-report measure of motives (Kuhl, 2005; see also Kuhl, Kazén, & Koole, 2006), respectively. Affective states were assessed at the beginning of the experiment using the Positive And Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; .…”

“…To assess the explicit power motive, we used the Power Dominance scale of the Motive Enactment Test (Kuhl, 1999; see also Kuhl, Kazén, & Koole, 2006). This scale expresses the degree to which individuals describe their behaviour as being guided by strivings for dominance, status, and control over others.…”

Translation and adaptation of the action control scale aimed at nursing care

“…In addition, it permits the individual or collective study of the relation between the students' expectations and the course of their actions. [11][12] Based on the above, the objective is to describe the translation and adaptation of the HAKEMP 90 questionnaire to Portuguese. Therefore, the semantic equivalence and cross-cultural adaptation of the tool should be appropriate for application to nursing students in Brazil.…”