Perceptions, Interpretations, Motivation and Self-Control

How you perceive and interpret experience is critical for your self-control.  And self-control, of course, is critical for your physical and mental health.   Often you know what to do, but you feel that you are incapable of acting on your knowledge.  That is, you believe that you have insufficient self-control.

Karen E. MacGregor and her colleagues (2017) sought to determine how an individual’s perceptions and interpretations—called “construals” in psychology— affect their self-control regarding dieting and academic success.  Emphasis was placed upon evaluating high- versus low-level construal, with the former being thoughts involving essential, unchanging features, and the latter involving non-essential, situation-specific features.  For instance, a high level diet-oriented construal would be understanding that the amount of calories contained in a food will affect one’s weight, even if the food is a nutritious, calorie-dense “non-junk” food.  And a low-level diet-oriented construal would be that you believe you can eat a large quantity of calorie-dense avocados because “they are good for you.”

The study showed that high-level construals are more facilitative of both dieting and acadamic success than are low-level-construals.  And that, in general, those who embraced the high-level did better than the low-level did.  However, persons with stronger motivation also were those for whom construals made the biggest difference. Thus, the best combination for diet and academic goals was high-construal plus high-motivation.  One would loosely conclude, then, that the MacGregor research reaffirmed the common sense and scientifically validated belief that healthful goals are best attained when thoughts (construals) and motivation (feelings/passions) align.   That said, it is important to underscore that some persons are either unaware or do not fully appreciate the importance of high-level construals, and those persons suffer the consequences.  Moreover, as the study revealed,when unhealthful temptations arise, individuals unaware or unappreciative of the role of high-level construals are at particular risk.

What is true about dieting and academic achievement tends to be generally true for all goals to enhance physical and mental lifestyle.  We need beneficial construals, beneficial motivations, and the strong self-control that they can promote.  On the other hand, let’s not fall into the simplistic notion that health is determined by one or two factors.  Construal and motivation are never enough.  One again I will reiterate what I have said many, many times.  A healthful lifestyle is best facilitated when we understand and use the understandings of our own idiosyncratic history, temperament, personality, and environments.  Each of the four dimensions influence us continually, although one or more might be primary when we attempt to achieve any particular healthful lifestyle goal.  So, when you plan for health, always include constural, motivation, and the four dimensions.   

Reference:

MacGregor, Karen E.; Carnevale, Jessica J.; Dusthimer, Nicole E.; and Fujita, Kentaro (2017).  Knowledge of the Self-Control Benefits of High-Level Versus Low-Level Construal.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, January. No Pagination Specified. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000130.

Control and Lifestyle

"When I go to a buffet, I can't control myself.  I always eat too much and feel bloated and guilty after I leave."

Such self control regrets are frequent consequences of unhealthful lifestyle decisions.  So, while healthful behavior is much more complex than simple self control, understanding your self control strengths and weaknesses does help empower you to make choices that facilitate physical and mental health.

Locus of control arguably is the self control concept that has been studied longest and that is best understood.  In short, locus of control primarily is divided into two types - internal and external.  As the terms suggest, an internal locus of control (ILOC) describes an orientation in which an individual believes that she/he determines her/his own fate.  Conversely, those with an external locus of control (ELOC) regard their fate as residing somewhere outside the self.  Accordingly, ILOC persons are more likely to look within for lifestyle guidance and ELOC persons, to look anywhere but within.  Returning to the buffet example, an ILOC individual grapples with overeating by considering how to immunize herself from going overboard during the next buffet, such as by planning to drink a large quantity of water just before entering the dining room.  An ELOC individual, by contrast, would try to find someone or something else to do the job, such as by asking a friend to make a plate for her.

Obviously, LOC is a relative thing.  Clearly, there are some issues more easily addressed via an ILOC, such as overeating, and some that are more suitable for an ELOC, such as being tutored to learn organic chemistry.  However, sometimes desirable outcomes are best achieved via a combined ILOC and ELOC approach.  You might both drink a large quantity of water just before entering the dining room, and stay seated during the meal while your friend makes a plate for you.  Similarly, you might master organic chemistry both by changing your private work habits and by being tutored.

Whether one is more inclinded toward an ILOC or ELOC is believed to be rooted in core self-evaluations, meaning that self-appraisals predispose how we perceive our experiences and our environments.  The concept is important for today's blog post because core self evaluation correlates with tendencies toward ILOC, feelings of esteem and capability, and general emotional stability.  However, it requires discussion, since psychologists have been uncertain how core self evaluation and ILOC relate to each other.  For instance, is ILOC separable from core self evaluation, and, if so, what are the implications for how one determines environmental influences? 

Russell E. Johnson and his colleagues (2015) considered all the above issues in four experimental samples.  They teased apart when ILOC was most salient for our well-being, when ELOC was most salient, and when neither were significant.  Results indicated several noteworthy conclusions.  Johnson et al. found that LOC, in general, correlated with job satisfaction, supervisor ratings given to workers, and life satisfaction.  However, all such positive correlations were stronger for ILOC than for ELOC persons.  That is, an individual who believed that she controls her own fate was more likely to do well in all three areas than were those who looked toward external control.

The lesson is clear: Know when to look internally and when to look externally for your primary health focus.  As mentioned, the two foci need not necessarily conflict.  Although an ILOC is a good default, there are times when any reasonable person would look outside himself.  That said, ELOC guidance must always be filtered through an ILOC.  For instance, if you need guidance to learn organic chemistry, you cannot passively receive that guidance. You must embrace the guidance proactively.  Take what you have been taught and work it through in your own unique manner.  That ILOC approach to ELOC guidance is effective whether you are endeavoring to learn chemistry, to stop smoking, or to develop a more consistent exercise habit.      

Reference

Johnson, R. et al. (2015).  Getting to the core of locus of control: Is it an evaluation of the self or the environment?  Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 5, September, 1568-1578. 

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000011.

The Power of Projects

My Don’t Rest in Peace  book is subtitled “Activity-Oriented, Integrated Physical and Mental Health” for a good reason:  activities structure and channel our behavior.  Projects, a subtype of activity, provide similar benefits.  Therefore, I strongly agree with Dr. Brian Little’s views on projects and personality which I now will review.

Little believes that projects provide an arena where personality traits and contextual factors combine to produce a positive or negative outcome. Imagine William, a stereotypically introverted certified public accountant of a large corporation, whose boss assigns to organize and emcee a staff development project.  To be reasonably successful, Will must act out of character.  That is, he needs to overcome his characteristically shy, withdrawing demeanor and to engage in a relatively outgoing, active fashion.  Brian Little perceives three levels of challenge:  biogenic, sociogenic, and idiogenic.

The biogenic challenge concerns introverted William’s sensitivity to emotional overstimulation.  His heart rate always accelerates when he is center stage and he feels on the verge of panic.  The sociogenic pertains to his feeling uncertain and insecure about how one conducts himself when addressing a group.  And the idiogenic refers to features of his personality rooted in his unique past experiences, such as when he failed miserably at class presentations during his schooldays. 

Clearly, bookish William is not the ideal candidate to organize and emcee the staff development project.  One might expect an extravert to do a far better job and to be immensely more comfortable when so involved.  That, at least, is the traditional trait-oriented interpretation of who is best suited to do what.  Brian Little does not necessarily dispute that contention; however, his is a “free trait” theory that offers the possibility that projects can enable an individual to overcome trait limitations, at least in a short term, circumscribed situation.

Let’s assume that William’s staff development project is a day-long affair and that he has been given two weeks to implement it.  Features of the project can be manipulated to his advantage.  William can deal with the biogenic in any number of ways.  For instance, he can create a PowerPoint presentation that is sufficiently detailed that he virtually can read everything that needs to be communicated in the group setting.  The more he rehearses that and other features of his “performance” the calmer he will become.  Moreover, William can learn relaxation techniques and/ or get an anti-anxiety medication, such as Propranolol.

To deal with sociogenic features concerning not knowing how one conducts himself when addressing a group, William can confer with colleagues or friends more adept at public speaking.  If time permits, he could be an assistant for one of their speeches.  Alternatively, Will might refer to the Internet or to other tutorials in order to receive formal training.

Finally, William could deal with his idiogenic challenges by self-talk of the type advocated by cognitive behavioral therapies.  In that case, for instance, he could tell himself that he no longer is either immature or a student.  William would work through the fact that he need only be the emcee for one day, and rehearse how he would deal with the probable, ideal, and unsettling emcee situations that might arise during his presentation.

By coping with the short term biogenic, sociogenic, and idiogenic challenges, specific to his project, William becomes his own particular version of a “free trait” extravert-for-the-day.  That is, he manages to overcome his introversion trait to the extent necessary.  And in so doing, Will proves to himself that he can take control of his personality and situations adequately to successfully complete projects that need to be done.

Projects/activities, then, are opportunities for physical and mental growth.  Traits, such as the Big Five traits of openness-closedness, conscientiusness-non-conscientiousness, extraversion-introversion, agreeableness-disagreeableness, and neuroticism-stability, might describe some aspects of your personality, but you are not a prisoner of those traits.  You can adopt "free traits" at times - traits uncharacteristic of you. Projects and activities help you enact the free traits,and, therefore, to experience new thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.  Take maximal advantage of such opportunities for free trait forays by dealing with your particular biogenic, sociogenic, and idiogenic factors proactively as William did.

References
  
Little, Brian (2008).  Personal projects and free traits: Personality and motivation reconsidered.  Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 3

Lifestyle Paralysis

Change can be positive or negative, desired or feared.  However, most people most times resist major change. Their default is the status quo; it usually is less effortful for them to continue to feel, behave, and think the same way that they always have.  In the emotional realm, such people might be described as “fixated” at a given level of development.  In behavioral realm, they could be said to be “perseverating.”  There is a host of ways to characterize the default status quo.

In the realm of thought, resistance to change sometimes is called “belief perseverance” that occurs when a person refrains from rejecting a status quo belief even when he becomes aware of evidence inconsistent with that belief.

Alex Filipowicz, Derick Valadao, Anderson, Britt, and James Danckert (2016) wanted to understand whether surprising new information was more or less likely to cause individuals to “update” their status quo beliefs.  Their research participants included non-surprise controls and experimental subjects who were induced into one of three levels of surprise intensity—low surprise, medium surprise, and high surprise.  Overall, surprised persons updated faster than did non-surprised controls.  And in general, the more surprising the information, the quicker the updating tended to be.   However, some in the high surprise condition updated more poorly than others did.  The investigators suggested for some unknown reason those poorly-updating high surprise subjects placed more faith in information with a longer track record as opposed to one particular very new fact; they were inclined to disregard the most recently presented information in lieu of older information.  One might infer that the confidence of those subjects was so very threatened by the highly surprising information that they had to summarily dismiss it in order to maintain their self-esteem.

What else could determine whether or not one uses available information that contradicts his status quo ideas?  We can find some clarification by applying a few communication principles.  Herbert Paul Grice, a renown English language professor, proposed four relevant conversational guidelines:

Maxim of quantity – We seek just enough information, no more and no less.

Maxim of quality - We seek correct information.

Maxim of relation - We seek the most relevant information.

Maxim of manner - We seek information that is expressed as clearly and coherently as possible.

To concretize this application, imagine that you always have thought that the benefits of exercise were being over-hyped.   You felt so because you never exercised, and you considered yourself to be quite healthy.  Your blood pressures always have been solidly normal.  And your blood sugars had been virtually ideal.  Your skepticism had been fueled by contradictory information about exercise and health promulgated in the popular press.   So, you always ignored news factoids that advocate exercise as a biological cure-all.

You subsequently talk to your doctor who tells you about a new, comprehensive, state of the art National Institute of Health research project.  The study specifically was designed to determine the health areas that exercise does and does not help.  Your doctor addresses every one of your health-relevant study questions, presenting all this in a concise and crystal clear manner.

You now have received the new information in a fashion fully consistent with the best known maxims of communication.  Let’s suppose that you regard the new research as highly surprising.  The issue then turns on whether you place greater faith on your previous corpus of past information or on the new challenging information.  

To my mind, as I wrote in the previous blog, whether you change/update your exercise beliefs depends primarily on your specific personality, and your specific contexts rather than on how surprising or how well delivered new health information is.  If you are a victim of belief perseverance and your lifestyle is paralyzed, you need to address your personality and contexts.

References

Filipowicz, A. et al. (2016).  Rejecting Outliers: Surprising Changes Do Not Always Improve Updating.  Decision, December 19.  No Pagination Specified.  

Grice, H. P. (1975) 'Logic and conversation'.  In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds) Studies in Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press, pp. 183-98.