Self‐Regulation Processes and Their Signatures

Morf, Carolyn C.; Horvath, Stephan

doi:10.1002/9781444318111.ch6

Cited by 21 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A conceptual explanation could be that affective contingencies might indicate a lower threshold for motive-relevant behaviors to emerge, yet that threshold might not be easily reached in contexts without pronounced motive salience (e.g., in the absence of competition; cf. Morf & Horvath, 2010). A methodological explanation could be that this finding is explained by the reduced sample size pertaining to the behavioral data, as well as by the relatively low temporal stability of fEMG-indexed affective contingencies (Hess et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Affective contingencies of narcissism.

Grapsas¹,

Brummelman²,

Dufner³

et al. 2022

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several theories propose that narcissism is rooted in affective contingencies. Given narcissists’ focus on power, these contingencies should be strong in the power domain but not in the affiliation domain. We systematically investigated narcissists’ contingencies and explored whether these contingencies might link narcissism to social behavior. In a multimethod longitudinal study, we assessed unidimensional narcissism levels as well as two main narcissistic strategies: Admiration and rivalry. We measured 209 participants’ affective contingencies (i.e., affective responses to satisfying and frustrating experiences of power and affiliation) via self-reports (n = 207) and facial electromyography (fEMG, n = 201). In a 1-year follow-up, we observed participants’ power- and affiliation-related behaviors in the laboratory (valid n = 123). Results indicated that narcissism was linked to increased affective reactivity to power, and this pattern was present for both admiration and rivalry. Narcissism was unrelated to affective reactivity to affiliation, with an important exception: Individuals with higher levels of narcissistic rivalry exhibited decreased reactivity toward satisfactions and increased reactivity toward frustrations of affiliation. Results were more robust for self-reported than for fEMG-indexed reactivity. Although overall narcissism and narcissistic admiration were related to power-related behaviors 1 year later, affective contingencies did not generally account for these links. These findings inform why narcissists have a relatively strong power motive and why some narcissists high in rivalry have a relatively weak affiliation motive. More broadly, these findings provide insight into the affective contingencies underlying personality traits and call for research on the contexts in which these contingencies guide behavior.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Affective contingencies of narcissism.

Grapsas¹,

Brummelman²,

Dufner³

et al. 2022

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results also shed light on self-regulation models of narcissism (Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001 ; Campbell and Campbell, 2009 ). Error monitoring and action updating are essential in the self-regulation process (Luu et al, 2003 ; Morf & Horvath, 2010 ; Heatherton, 2011 ). Effective self-regulation requires the capabilities of monitoring conflicts and further updating thoughts, feelings and actions to resolve conflicts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, narcissists self-regulate in a riskier manner when perceived threat rises (Jordan and Audia, 2012 ). Narcissistic self-regulation has been described as ‘better risky than sorry’ (Morf and Horvath, 2010 , p. 129), a strategy that could end in suboptimal decision-making. Evidence does indicate that high (compared to low) narcissists make suboptimal decisions (Sedikides and Campbell, 2017 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Narcissism and risky decisions: a neurophysiological approach

Yang

Sedikides

et al. 2018

Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Narcissists are prone to risky decision-making, but why? This study tested—via behavioral and event-related potential (ERP) measures—two accounts: deficiencies in error monitoring and deficiencies in action updating. High and low narcissists were engaged in a monetary gambling task by choosing between a high-risk and a low-risk option while the electroencephalogram (EEG) was being recorded. Two ERP components relevant to outcome evaluation—feedback-related negativity (FRN) and P3—were analyzed, with the FRN serving as an index of error monitoring and the P3 as an index of action updating. Generally, high and low narcissists differed in the high-risk condition but not in the low-risk condition. At the behavioral level, high (vs low) narcissists made riskier decisions following high-risk decision outcomes, which was in line with past findings; at the neurophysiological level, while no FRN difference emerged between high and low narcissists, the outcome valence effect (positive vs negative) on the P3 was stronger among low narcissists than high narcissists following high-risk decision outcomes. One possible interpretation of the results is that narcissism is associated with reduced action updating. The findings contribute to the understanding of narcissistic decision-making and self-regulation.

show abstract

“…Although the literature does not consistently organize theory into psychological systems, it seems likely that psychological factors can be understood as systems. The self has been discussed as a self-system (Morf & Horvath, 2010), and topics of behavioral activation and inhibition (Carver & White, 1994), as well as attachment (e.g., Robles & Kane, 2014) are sometimes framed as systems. Multiple interdependent psychological factors act within these domains.…”

Section: Psychological Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking the biopsychosocial model of health: Understanding health as a dynamic system

Lehman

David

Gruber

2017

Social & Personality Psych

238

181

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The biopsychosocial model has dominated research and theory in health psychology. This article expands the biopsychosocial model by applying systems theories proposed by developmental scholars, including Bronfenbrenner's ecological models and Sameroff's transactional model, as well as contemporary philosophical work on dynamic systems. The proposed dynamic biopsychosocial model construes human health as a product of the reciprocal influences of biological, psychological, interpersonal, and macrosystem contextual dynamics that unfold over personal and historical time. The importance, or centrality, of these influences varies within a person over time. The model is explicated using two hypothetical case studies derived from existing interdisciplinary health research. Implications for health, theory, research, and policy are discussed. | RETHINKING THE BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL MODEL OF HEALTH: UNDERSTANDING HEALTH AS A DYNAMIC SYSTEMDynamic interpersonal, biological, and psychological systems interact with contextual factors to shape health over the life span. This manuscript integrates theoretical perspectives that promote health understanding and considers the implications of these perspectives for research and policy related to health psychology. We first outline the dynamic biopsychosocial model of health, highlighting its conceptual roots and then present two hypothetical research-based examples that clarify the model's utility for understanding health.The model shown in Figure 1 and discussed below is an expanded version of the biopsychosocial model. The model integrates existing conceptualizations of the biopsychosocial model (Engel, 1980) with other systems models, especially those proposed by Urie Bronfenbrenner, Arnold Sameroff, and Evan Thompson. The major goals of this paper are to (a) explain the interactive elements of the dynamic biopsychosocial model and (b) use Bronfenbrenner's work to elaborate interpersonal dynamics in social environments and introduce centrality as a factor that modulates influences on health. | COMPONENTS OF A DYNAMIC BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL MODEL OF HEALTHThis model conceptualizes biological, psychological, interpersonal, and contextual effects on health as dynamics. Each dynamic captures a set of interactive forces or systems that affect health. The term dynamics is used to emphasize that

show abstract

Self‐Regulation Processes and Their Signatures

Cited by 21 publications

References 80 publications

Affective contingencies of narcissism.

Affective contingencies of narcissism.

Narcissism and risky decisions: a neurophysiological approach

Rethinking the biopsychosocial model of health: Understanding health as a dynamic system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About