User:Jenny O/The Self in Action: Behavioural Control

The Self in Action: Behavioural Control
Human behaviour is differentiated from the behaviour of other animals by the meaning we assign to our actions. While this meaning can arise from our affective and cognitive ‘inner processes’, it is ultimately shaped by culture. For example, cultural norms form the basis of rules and laws in a society and thus determine acceptable behaviour. Higher levels of meaning are abstract and emotional, and lower levels more concrete. Thus, it follows that we would move toward lower levels of meaning for problem solving and effective coping.

Our goals, percieved freedom and choice influence our behaviour:

Goals
Goals provide humans with direction or purpose; meeting goals can fulfill our physical or psychological needs, and the extent to which we achieve our goals may serve some self-evaluative function (Deckers, 2005). For example, self-esteem might be measured by the extent to which we fulfill an academic goal or compare ourselves to the achievement of others. Ultimately our goals will be defined by what we value in our society. One would expect that a personal goal set in an individualist culture would differ from a personal goal set in a collectivist culture. Similarly, differences in goal setting, attainment and value would be found in a Western versus Eastern society, or a hunting/gathering versus an agricultural community.

Freedom to act
Free will can be considered as the capacity of “rational agents to exercise control over their actions and decisions” (Wikipedia). It is a contentious issue in psychology. I do not profess to understand the philosophical basis of free will. However, I originally believed humans did exercise free will, but I am unable to even identify an adequate example to support it! So, the concept presented in the textbook, that we are more-or-less free, has some appeal. Human freedom is a relative concept to the extent that it must depend on the context in which it is experienced. However, the degree to which we perceive ourselves to be free, specifically influences behaviours such as decision-making and self-regulation. For example, both the Self-determination Theory (perceived level of autonomy & intrinsic motivation) and the Panic Button Effect (a perceived escape), presented in the textbook, relate to one’s perceived control over his or her behaviour. Whether or not we institute control, we are generally happier, healthier and less stressed when we believe we have it.

Choice
Choice is also a very interesting subject. The textbook reports that people want more choices, but it seems that is not always beneficial. This is clearly articulated in this online presentation based on the book: The paradox of choice: Why more is less (2004) by an American psychologist Barry Schwartz. Schwartz argues that the vast array of choice available in consumer-driven affluent western societies is psychologically damaging. Paradoxically we are paralysed, rather than liberated, by too many options and less satisfied as more options lead to inflated expectations that can’t be met.

When making choices humans use a number of strategies in an attempt to minimise regret and maximise certainty. These include:


 * Risk aversion (Emphasis on avoiding a loss)
 * Temporal discounting (Perfer an immediate small reward to a larger delayed reward)
 * The certainty effect (Emphasis on definite outcomes rather than probabilities)
 * Keeping options open or postponing a decision
 * Choose to doing nothing (the omission bias or the default option)
 * Maintain the status quo (status quo bias)

However, as Schwartz suggests, there must be point at which these processes fail. That seems to be the case in highly affluent consumer-driven Western societies where an overwhelming number of options is creating psychological unease. While these societies probably need less choice, I expect there are many others that need more.

Reactance
I found the concept of reactance particularly interesting and wondered if it is a common occurrence. Reactance describes the negative feeling experienced when one’s behavioural freedom is restricted or removed (e.g., limiting someone's choice). Reactance Theory (Brehn, 1966) attempts to explain reactance and its consequenses: increasing the attractiveness of the restricted option, initiating processes to reassert one’s freedom, and feeling or acting aggressively toward the perpetrator. I can imagine it could be common in children but it does not seem to be a particularly reasonable adult response. The following statement appeared when I searched Google for the term "reactance": “You want reactance? Shop on e-Bay! That would probably 'sum it up' for a lot of people in our consumer-driven culture.

Self-regulation
Self-regulation (or self-control) is the capacity for the self to regulate thoughts, emotions, impulses, desires and task performance (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). I believe that self-regulation is probably the most important human attribute allowing us to live as social and cultural beings. You would expect that a significant lack of self-regulation would be instrumental in anti-social behaviour and the disorders of impulsiveness such as kleptomania, pyromania and pathological gambling. Without the capacity to self-regulate, humans would live in anarchy. The textbook suggests that effective self-regulation depends on using standards (derived from culture), monitoring (through self-awareness) and willpower. I thought it was interesting that willpower is depleted by other self-regulation tasks rather than factors such as fatigue, emotion or attitude, but also that exercising willpower can result in its enhancement.

Irrationality and self-destruction
Inevitably, humans also have the capacity to behave irrationally and to engage in self-defeating behaviours (e.g., self-handicapping, procrastination, avoiding pleasurable experiences, engaging in risky health practices or damaging relationships). These behaviours are often associated with enduring the bad while seeking the good, using counterproductive strategies, or both. The textbook contends that this is contrary to the view that the self is mostly adaptive, rational and self-benefiting. However, an Australian social researcher, Hugh Mackay suggests that we should not expect to humans behave rationally, and indeed we may be pleasantly surprised with our renewed view of the world if we didn’t.