Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Personality and self-regulation study
Lab of self regulation, PI RAE
Psychological institute Russian Academy of
Education, Moscow, Russia
Self regulation theories in Russia
• Theory of functional systems (P.K. Anokhin);
• Theory of movement behavior – (N.A. Bernstein);
• A systemic-structural theory of activity and Concept of operative image – (D.A.Oshanin);
• Theory of functional self-regulation of activity – (V.D.Shadrikov);
• Theory of conscious self-regulation of behavior (O.A. Konopkin, V.I. Morosanova)
Self-regulation: ability to initiate,
organize, support, and manage individual
activity, which is goal oriented.
(Conscious self-regulation theory of O.A.Konopkin, 1970)
Self-regulation processes:
- Goal planning
- Modeling of significant conditions
- Programming of actions
- Results evaluation
THEORY OF CONSIOUSS SELF - REGULATION
• O.A. Konopkin proposed a conceptual model OF SELF-REGULATION representing the most general structural- functional aspects of conscious self-regulation (Konopkin, 1980).
• The main functional components of conscious self-regulation process ARE :
• Goal of the activity (as it is understood and accepted by subject);
• Subjective model of activity conditions significant for the achievement of the goal;
• Program of the activity;
• System of criteria of success of goal achievement;
• Evaluation of information regarding the results of the activity.
Goal
Modeling
Memory
Criteria
system
Programm
ing
Result
information
Program
realization
Correction
Result
achievement
estimation
Contemporary study of conscious
self-regulation:
Differential approach to self-regulation study
(V.I. Morosanova) • Over the past years, PI RAE laboratory of self-
regulation has been studying individual differences in conscious self-regulation across various types of activity – operator’s, athlete’s and scholar’s.
• We have defined, described, and systematically analyzed the phenomenon of individual differences in self-regulation, which manifests itself in the way that people differ in the developmental level of conscious self-regulation, plan their activity goals and model the conditions of their achievement differently, apply different methods and algorithms to complete their actions, have different success criteria to evaluate the results (Morosanova, 1998).
Individual differences in self-
regulation
We have found evidence suggesting the existence of persistent individual differences in the way a person plans, programs, and estimates the results of his/her activity. Essentially, it implies individual styles of self-regulation. Self-regulation styles are individual features of organization and management of external and internal activity that are typical and most important to a person. These features constantly manifest themselves in various kinds of activities. Firstly, stylistic features of self-regulation are determined as individual differences in processes implementing the main components of self-regulation system. Secondly, stylistic features that characterize the function of all components of self-regulation system are at the same time personal traits (e.g. independence, flexibility, and reliability). (V.I.Morosanova & self-regulation lab. PI RAE)
Individual differences in conscious self-
regulation:
1) Operative-processual differences
• Goal planning;
• Modeling of significant conditions
• Programming of actions
• Control and result evaluation
2) Regulative-personality differences
(subjectness) – autonomy, responsibility,
persistence, assertiveness
Self-regulation diagnostic and
evaluation methods
To study and diagnose the described features the following questionnaire methods have been developed and standardized:
• Style Features of Behavioral Self-Regulation (SSB),
• Sportsman’s Self-Regulation in Preparing to a Contest (SPS),
• Self-Regulation in Election Campaign of a Deputy (SIK),
• Individual Self-Regulation of Students and Schoolars (ISSH) (Morossanova, 1998).
Individual profiles of self-
regulation
• The typical profiles can change at various levels of
conscious self-regulation development.
• For a highly developed self-regulation system, the
profiles are characterized by highly developed and
closely interconnected main components of self-
regulation structure, i.e. harmonious self-regulation style,
which allows one to compensate the influence of
personality characteristics and traits hindering successful
goal achievement.
Мethods - SSPM
SPQ (Self-regulation Profile Questionnaire, V.I. Morosanova, 2000).
• The statements of the questionnaire SPQ (Self-regulation Profile Questionnaire, V.I. Morosanova, 2000) were grouped into six scales, which diagnose individual typical peculiarities of regulatory processes
• training planning scale -Pl ;
• modeling of conditons – M;
• programming of actions scale - Pr ;
• results evaluation scale ER;
• regulatory tactical flexibility scale - Fl;
• independence of planning, programming and result evaluation scale (In).
• A l e v e l (degree) of development of the conscious self-regulation - the general questionnaire-based indicator.
New version of “Self-regulation Profile
Questionnaire, SPQ”
• New version of “Self-regulation Profile Questionnaire, SPQ” (Morosanova, 2004). In this new questionnaire version (SPQ-2008) basic scales are improved and a new Reliability scale is added. The Regulative Reliability scale diagnoses individual ability to regulate behavior in stressful situations.
• New questionnaire version includes 50 statements, grouped into 8 scales: Planning, Modeling, Programming, Result evaluation, Correction of regulation, Programming of actions, Autonomy and General level of conscious self-regulation scale.
• The data on the scales' factor structure, internal consistency, convergent and discriminate validity was confirmed on a sample of 820 subjects (students, teachers, rescuers, managers) in age from 16 to 32.
• Questionnaire can be used to diagnose individual differences of self-regulation as predictors of reliability and effectiveness in learning and professional activity.
Self-regulation styles typology
Typical profiles of Self-regulation for Extraverts and Introverts
1.Morossanova V.I. (2003) Extraversion and Neiroticism:
2.The typical profiles of Self-regulation, European Psychologist 4, 279-288
E
I
N
S
MPl Pr ER
Introverts No. 1
MPl Pr ER
Introverts No. 2
MPl Pr ER
Unstable
MPl Pr ER
Extraverts No. 1
MPl Pr ER
Extraverts No. 2
MPl Pr ER
Stable No. 2
MPl Pr ER
Stable No. 1
Personality traits and self-regulation differences study
(Morosanova, Plakhotnikova, 2006)
•
High Reflexivity group
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Plan
ning
Mod
ellin
g
Prog
ram
min
g
Res
ult e
valu
atio
n
Flex
ibili
ty
Self-
suff
icie
ncy
Gen
eral
leve
l of s
elf-
regu
latio
n
53,30%
34,90%
5,40%
High Reliability group
0123456789
Plan
ning
Mod
ellin
g
Prog
ram
min
g
Res
ult e
stim
atio
n
Flex
ibil
ity
Self
-suf
fici
ency
Gen
eral
Sel
f-re
gula
tion
leve
l
32.30%
27%
24%
12.50%
High Responsibility group
0
12
34
56
78
9
Plann
ing
Mod
ellin
g
Progr
amm
ing
Res
ult e
valu
atio
n
Flexi
bility
Self-su
fficie
ncy
Gen
eral
sel
f-re
gula
tion
leve
l
45,50%
24%
High Anxiety group
012345678
Pla
nnin
g
Model
ling
Pro
gra
mm
ing
Res
ult
eval
uat
ion
Fle
xib
ilit
y
Sel
f-S
uff
icie
ncy
Gen
eral S
elf-
regula
tion lev
el
67,82%
13,80%
10,30%
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND SELF-REGULATION
DIFFERENCES STUDY (MOROSANOVA,
PLAKHOTNIKOVA, 2006)
Individuals with high Reflexivity, Reliability, Responsibility
Confidence, Anxiety are characterized with different self-
regulation profiles
High Confidence group
0123456789
Pla
nn
ing
Mo
dell
ing
Pro
gra
mm
ing
Resu
lt
ev
alu
ati
on
Fle
xib
ilit
y
Self
-
suff
icie
ncy
Gen
era
l S
elf
-
reg
ula
tio
n
lev
el
68.50%
23.40%
5.40%
Implementation of self-regulation theory
The results of Self regulation study were applied to
increase effectiveness
• Of Professional activity (politics, managers, athlets’,
lifesavers)
• Learning activity (high school and College students)
Personality and self-regulation of decision making
in political voting (Indina, Morosanova, 2007)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Gen
eral
Sel
f-re
gula
tion
Pla
nnin
gM
odel
ling
Pro
gram
min
g
Res
ult e
stim
atio
nFle
xibi
lity
Ext
rave
rsio
nIn
trove
rsio
nThi
nkin
gFee
ling
Judg
ing
Per
ceiv
ing
Gen
eral
em
otio
nalit
y
Em
otio
nal e
xcite
men
t
Inte
nsiv
ity o
f em
otio
n
Influ
ence
of e
mot
ions
Ris
k re
adin
ess IQ
Rat
iona
lity
(per
sona
lity)
Rationals Emotionals
Regulation profiles of rational voters
(Indina, Morosanova 2007)
0123456789
Pla
nnin
g
Model
ling
Pro
gra
mm
ing
Resu
lt e
valu
atio
n
Fle
xibili
tyS
elf-su
ffic
iency
Rationally -esteeming Rationally-modelling
Rationally-programming Rationally-planning
Regulation profiles of emotional voters
(Indina, Morosanova 2007)
0
12
3
4
56
7
8
Planning
Modelling
Programm
ing
Resulr estim
ationFlexibility
Self-sufficiency
Emotionally-neurotic type Emotionally extraverted type
Personality types in high and low rationality group
Personality types in high emotionality group
Champion
13%
Healer
11%
Teacher
15%Councelor
8%
Performer
10%
Composer
8%
Promoter
5%
Crafter
6%
other types
24%
NF Idealist (Intuitively -feeling) 29% SP -Artists (Sensory-percepting) 47%
Keirsy personality types in high rationality group
other types
26%
Protector
12%
FieldMarshall
4%
Architector
11%
Mastermind
7%
Provider
5%Supervisor
16%
Inspector
11%
Inventor
9%
NT- Rationals (Intuitively thinking) 31% SJ -Guardian (Sensory-judging) 44%
Regulation & Personality factors
of Decision making in emergency situations
(Indina, Morosanova, 2009)
Relation btw decision making domains, self-
regulation processes and personality traits
(Indina, 2009)
Effectiveness
of decision making
General level
of self regulation Openness
Modeling of significant
conditions Agreeableness
Result estimation Conscientiousness
Regulation Personality
(r=0,48; p<0,001)
(r=0,67;p<0,001)
(r=0,52; p<0,001)
(r=0,33; p<0,01)
(r=0,35; p<0,01)
(r=0,27; p<0,05)
Regulation profiles in effective and not effective
decision making in emergency situations (Indina,
Morosanova 2010)
6,525,26
5,81
7,266,29
5,274,9
2,65
3,85
2,67
4,33,6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Plann
ing
Progr
amm
ing
Mod
elin
g
Res
ult e
valu
atio
n
Flexibi
lity
Auton
omy
Effective DM
Not effective DM
Personality profiles for effective and not effective
decision making (Indina, Morosanova 2010)
7,2 6,78
2,89
7,81
2,91
5,676,45
6,45
4,453,09
4,733,11
4,55
6,2
0123456789
Extra
version
Neu
rotis
cism
Agr
eeab
lene
ss
Con
scientious
ness
Ope
nnes
s
Rationa
lity
Risk read
ines
s
Effective DM
Not effective DM
Reliability of self-regulation in stress manifestations
study (Kondratuyk, Morosanova 2011)
Reliability of self-regulation study
(Kondratuyk, Morosanova 2011)
• Predictors of
reliability of
professional
activity of
extreme
profession
specialists
• It was confirmed that Conscious Self-regulation can be a resource of
coping with acute stress manifestations, meanwhile chronic stress
is more determined by personality dispositions
• Reliability of actions is determined by reliability of conscious self-
regulation system, determination of personality indicators on
reliability of actions is mediated by stylistic differences of self-
regulation.
• Self- consciousness and self-regulation study
(Aronova, Morosanova, 2005)
• Methods
• EPPS (Edwards Personal Preference Schedule - Russian version).
• POI (Personal Orientation Inventory - Russian version).
• SPQ (Self-regulation Profile Questionnaire, V.I. Morosanova, 2000).
• Findings
• The voluntary self-regulation is interrelated with the personal
preferences and orientations:
• People with high level of the voluntary self-regulation are primarily
orientated to the present rather than to the past and/or future, they
affirm primarily values of self-actualizing people and are aimed at
self-actualization and self-realization. Also they have a tendency to
leadership.
• People with low level of the voluntary self-regulation are
characterized by abasement.
Self- consciousness and self-regulation study (Aronova,
Morosanova, 2005)
Self- consciousness and self-regulation study (Aronova,
Morosanova, 2005)
Self-regulation of career choice study
(O.G. Vlasova 2011) Teleological type Reflective type
Situational type Operative type
• Teleological type (goal oriented) is characterized by orientation on
future perspective and programming of professional plans, but their
plans are not quite flexible
• Reflective type (self-oriented) is well aware about individual
personality resources and how they can be implemented in
profession, but are not enough aware about objective profession
demands
• Situational type (flexible in changing professional plans
according to situation) students are weak in long term goal
planning and more oriented at present, high modeling
• Operative type (programming, present oriented) students are
well informed about labor market options and demands, have high
programming, but weak in their own goal setting,
• Students with Controlling (result oriented) self-regulation type
have high reflexivity and good knowledge about profession but are
not able to correspond their personality resources with labor market
demands
Professional attitudes and self-regulation
domains in career choice (Vlasova, Vanin, 2010)
SR cluster Hesitation Rationality Optimism Self esteem Dependence
1
Impulsive type
Mean 2,08 5,10 4,70 5,77 3,82
St.Dev 1,977 1,298 1,598 1,489 1,652
2
Harmonic type
Mean ,95 4,93 4,73 6,25 3,31
St.Dev 1,395 1,518 1,628 1,027 1,578
3
Sticking
Mean 3,13 5,33 4,58 5,51 3,93
St.Dev 2,370 1,314 1,764 1,456 1,684
4
Operative type
Mean 2,99 5,65 5,28 5,80 4,20
St.Dev 2,509 1,548 1,351 1,486 1,557
General Mean 2,31 5,29 4,88 5,85 3,85
St.Dev 2,291 1,464 1,576 1,400 1,634
Cluster
Total
1
Impulsive
2
Harmonic
3
Sticking
4
Operative
Выбор Choice is clear Fr 35 36 22 60 153
% 77,8% 87,8% 73,3% 82,2% 81,0%
Choice is not
clear
Fr 10 5 8 13 36
% 22,2% 12,2% 26,7% 17,8% 19,0%
Relation between self-regulation components and time perspective
(Zimbardo)
• Students with high level of self-regulation are future oriented, active
life managers, effective in goal setting, modeling of significant
conditions, good at programming and result estimation
• Students with low self-regulation level are oriented on past and
negative future, are not able to change situation, are afraid of
failure.
• Students with Harmonic self-regulation profile are more effective in
career choice rather then students with Rigid style.
• Most effective in career choice are students with high self-regulation
level, effective in goal setting, future oriented, able to change the
negative past , improving their career choice in present
Self-regulation study of prosocial and antisocial
behavior (Garaleva, Morosanova,2006)
Planned aggression Spontaneous aggression Psychopathy aggression
General self-
regulation level
• Self-regulation of Aggressive behavior typology was built, it shows
interrelation between styles of self-regulation and personality
dimensions.
• Aggressive behavior manifestations are connected with self-
regulation differences.
• Self regulation differences define the type of aggressive behavior
(pro social, antisocial)
• Different types of aggressive behavior (spontaneous aggression,
planned aggression, psychopathic aggression are characterized by
different self-regulation and personality domains.
• Type of aggressive behavior is determined not only by personality
domains but mostly by different level of conscious self-regulation.
Role of Individual self-regulation
• Conscious self-regulation system has its projections on various levels of individuality
• Personality-temperamental dispositions can be described by individually-specific profiles of self-regulation
• The higher level of individual self-regulation gives better
opportunities for subjective voluntary behavior regulation and control. The lower level of individual self-regulation is – the more spontaneous and impulsive individual activity is.
• Conscious self-regulation is realized through the complex multilevel system of cognitive and personality recourses of individuality.
• System of conscious self-regulation integrates dynamic and substanial aspects of individuality, conscious and unconscious structures for individual goal planning and goal achievement in human life span.
Self-regulation and learning (Morosanova, Fomina, Borgoedova, Tsyganov, Vanin
2009-2011)
• Self-regulation in teacher- student interaction;
• Self-regulation and academic performance;
• Self-regulation questionnaire -preschoolers
version;
• Self‐regulation Profile of learning activity
Questionnaire;
• Individual personality and regulation differences
in learning ;
• Development of conscious self-regulation;
• Diagnostic and raining programs
,
Future study directions:
Functions of psychic self-regulation
Self regulation structure and components
Dynamics of self-regulation
Individual differences
Situational manifestations
S
E
L
F
-
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
The laboratory of self-regulation
PI RAE
The laboratory of self-regulation psychology was established in 1970 by O.A. Konopkin, a member of the Russian Academy of Education, who built the foundations of psychology of self-regulation as a scientific field in Russia based on the ideas of famous Russian psychologists P.K. Anokhin, N.A. Bernstein, D.A. Oshanin and V.D. Nebylitsyn (1980, 1995, 2005).
