Post on 26-Jan-2023
Regulatory Mode and the Joys of Doing: Effects of‘Locomotion’ and ‘Assessment’ on Intrinsic and Extrinsic
Task-Motivation
ANTONIO PIERRO1*, ARIE W. KRUGLANSKI2 and E. TORY HIGGINS3
1Universita di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, Italy2University of Maryland, USA
3Columbia University, USA
Abstract
This research investigates the relation between regulatory-mode (Higgins, Kruglanski, &
Pierro, 2003; Kruglanski et al., 2000) and task motivation. Four studies conducted in
diverse field and laboratory settings support the notions that ‘locomotion’, i.e. a self-
regulatory emphasis on movement from state to state, is positively related to intrinsic task
motivation, whereas ‘assessment’, i.e. a self-regulatory tendency to emphasize compara-
tive appraisal of entities and states (such as goals and means) is positively related to
extrinsic motivation. It is further found that ‘locomotion’, but not ‘assessment’, is
positively related to effort investment, which, in turn, is positively related to goal
attainment. Attainment is, additionally, predicted by an interaction of locomotion and
assessment, such that individuals are most likely to reach their goals if they are high on
both these dimensions. Taken as a body, these findings highlight the relevance of
regulatory-mode concepts to the study of task motivation and activity experience.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Key words: regulatory mode; task motivation; effort investment; goal attainment
INTRODUCTION
In self-regulating toward their objectives, people generally focus on two types of activities.
They (1) evaluate what it is that they actually wish to do and how best it can be
accomplished; (2) they actually go ahead and, (as a Nike commercial felicitously puts it),
‘just do it’, that is, invest efforts in realizing their intentions and channeling them into
concrete undertakings.
European Journal of Personality
Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
Published online 19 June 2006 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/per.600
*Correspondence to: A. Pierro, Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di Sviluppo e Socializzazione, Universitadi Roma ‘La Sapienza’, Via dei Marsi, 78, 00185 Roma, Italy. E-mail: antonio.pierro@uniroma1.it
Contract/grant sponsor: NSF; contract/grant number: SBR-9417422.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 18 January 2005
Accepted 15 June 2005
Psychologists have paid considerable attention to the determinants and consequences of
self-regulation, especially to the control aspects of attaining goals or meeting standards
(see Carver & Scheier, 1990; Gollwitzer, 1990; Higgins, 1989; Kuhl, 1985, 1986; Mischel,
1974, 1981). In classic control theory terms, the purpose of regulation is to move a current
state in the direction of a desired end-state in order to minimize any discrepancy between
them, and as a means of doing so, the current state is compared to the desired end-state to
assess whether any discrepancy between them remains (e.g. Miller, Galanter, & Pribram,
1960; Wiener, 1948; for recent descriptions see Carver & Scheier, 1990; Kuhl, 1985). Thus,
in classic terms, regulation involves an assessment function that serves as a means for
fulfilling a locomotion function.
In recent papers (Higgins, Kruglanski, & Pierro, 2003; Kruglanski et al., 2000), we
introduced a theory of regulatory modes that considers the locomotion and assessment
functions to be both more general and more independent than described in classic control
theories. Though locomotion and assessment may be thought of as interdependent
components of the larger self-regulatory system, each may receive an independent
emphasis in various circumstances. As a consequence, some situations may induce
individuals to pay particular attention to, and invest particular resources in locomotion
whereas other situations may do so in regard to assessment. Moreover, some individuals
more than others may stably emphasize locomotion: they may be characterized as ‘doers’,
‘go-getters’, or persons ‘of action’. Similarly, some individuals more than others may
generally emphasize assessment; they may be characterized as ‘vigilant’, ‘careful’,
‘critical’ or ‘calculated’. Such stable individual differences in locomotion and assessment
are of particular concern in the present work. Before discussing our specific hypotheses in
this regard, however, we describe the locomotion and assessment functions in greater
detail.
Locomotion
‘Locomotion’ refers to ‘moving from place to place’ (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate
dictionary, 1989, p. 701). According to field theory (see Deutsch, 1968; Lewin, 1951) a
locomotion concerns any change of position occurring in any region whatever within the
life space. Thus, the main concern of persons high on the locomotion dimension is simply
to ‘move’ in an experiential or psychological sense.
Kruglanski et al. (2000) measured locomotion by means of a 12-item questionnaire with
statements such as ‘I don’t mind doing things even if they involve extra effort’, and ‘I enjoy
actively doing things, more than just watching and observing’. Answers are recorded on a
6-point Likert-type scale anchored at the ends with ‘strongly agree’ and ‘strongly
disagree’. This measure was found to exhibit good reliability (Cronbach as ranging from
0.79 to 0.84) as well as considerable convergent and discriminant validity (Kruglanski
et al., 2000). Importantly, the relation of locomotion to any of the many variables included
in our validation studies (Kruglanski et al., 2000) remained unchanged while controlling
for the Big Five personality factors (Costa & McCrae, 1985).
According to regulatory-mode theory, individuals with a high locomotion tendency treat
goals as ‘excuses’ to engage in psychological movement. In other words, activities of high
(vs. low) locomotors may be prompted intrinsically rather than constituting extrinsic
means of minimizing the discrepancy between current and desired end states. High (vs.
low) locomotors may exhibit higher levels of intrinsic and autonomous motivation because
their propensity to remain ‘in motion’ promotes an increased level of experiential
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
356 A. Pierro, A. W. Kruglanski and E. T. Higgins
involvement in various tasks. It fosters a sense of ‘flow’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975) wherein
the individual is thoroughly absorbed in the activity and is pursuing it vitally and with a
focused attention. Deci and Ryan (2000, p. 233), in their self determination theory (SDT)
posit that ‘..intrinsic motivation begins with a proactive organism.. intrinsic motivation
concerns active engagement with tasks that people find interesting’. This conceptual
linkage between the propensity toward active engagement and intrinsic motivation is
immanent also in the present hypothesis whereby individuals who tend to be actively
engaged in things (that is, persons high on the locomotion dimension) will also tend to be
intrinsically motivated toward tasks they find interesting, and perhaps, moreover, they will
find a particularly broad variety of tasks interesting, and hence warranting an active
engagement.
The notion that the locomotion tendency is positively related to intrinsic motivation
constitutes a major hypothesis of the present series of studies. The emphasis on ‘doing’,
should affect the locomotors’ tendency to commit physical effort to the execution of work-
related tasks. Doing, after all, consists in the investment of energies in activities, including
the expenditure of physical efforts on various types of ‘leg work’ that carrying out projects
typically entails. Such effort investment should be directly proportionate to, and in fact be
partially mediated by, one’s degree of task enjoyment or intrinsic motivation toward the
task: The greater the enjoyment, the greater should one’s readiness be to invest effort in the
activity. The mediation ought to be only partial, however, because high locomotors’
primary motivational ‘agenda’ is to move the task along independently of how enjoyable or
intrinsically motivated it happens to be. In other words, we expect a direct link between
locomotion and effort in addition to the mediated link ‘flowing through’ intrinsic
motivation.
The foregoing relations may have significant consequences for goal attainment. First, the
investment of physical effort, determined by locomotion, should improve the performance
of many work related tasks, increasing attainment. Nonetheless, ‘blind’ locomotion may
often result in various mistakes, potentially avoidable if a modicum of assessment was in
place. Thus, locomotion and assessment could exert interactive effects on goal attainment,
with individuals high on both exhibiting superior attainment than persons high on only one,
or on neither of these dimensions.
Assessment
Assessment refers to a determination of the rate, amount, size, value or importance of
something, it concerns critical appraisal for the purpose of understanding or interpreting, or
as a guide in taking action (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1989, p. 109, 426).
Thus, the value or importance of both the current state and the end state can be
independently assessed, and so can the value or utility of the means used to move toward or
away from that end-state.
Kruglanski et al. (2000) measured assessment via a 12-item scale with statements such
as ‘I spend a great deal of time taking inventory of my positive and negative
characteristics’, and ‘I often critique work done by myself and others’, etc. Again, answers
were recorded on a 6-point Likert-type scale with the ends anchored at ‘strongly agree’ and
‘strongly disagree’. Like the locomotion scale described earlier, the assessment scale too
had convincing reliability, its Cronbach as across different samples ranging between 0.76
and 0.79. It also exhibited compelling convergent and discriminant validity, and its
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
Regulatory mode and the joys of doing 357
relations to all the other variables studied held up while controlling for the Big Five
personality factors (Kruglanski et al., 2000).
Because of their pervasive concern with appraisal and evaluation, individuals high (vs.
low) on the assessment tendency are likely to be extrinsically motivated toward tasks. They
are less likely to be ‘immersed’ in the activity per se, in light of their perennial pre-
occupation with calculating discrepancies, comparing alternatives, etc. Therefore, our
second major hypothesis was that the assessment dimension will be positively related to
extrinsic task-motivation. However, unlike the locomotion tendency, that of assessment is
unlikely to be related (positively or negatively) to physical effort, for assessment, first and
foremost, concerns a contemplative function unlikely to demand a significant output of
material energies.1 In other words, the relation between assessment and extrinsic
motivation is postulated to express itself particularly in the evaluative, appraisal-type,
activities that extrinsic motivation typically entails rather than in differences along the
physical effort dimension.
As already noted, assessment should significantly contribute to goal attainment by
exerting a guiding constraint on locomotion. Indeed, Kruglanski et al. (2000) reported that
both college students and members of US elite combat units did best on their respective
tasks if they were high on both the assessment and the locomotion dimension. We, thus,
expected to observe the same conjunctive locomotion-assessment effect on goal attainment
in organizational contexts examined in the present research.
The Place of locomotion and assessment in general personality architecture
How do the locomotion and assessment tendencies fit within a general personality
architecture (Cervone, 2004)? They best belong in the category of ‘self-regulatory systems’
identified by Mischel (1973). More specifically, they pertain to generalized modes of self-
regulation, representing broad emphases regarding the ‘how’ of goal pursuit. High (vs.
low) locomotors preferred mode of self-regulation consists of doing, that is, carrying out
acts believed to promote rapid advancement toward goal attainment. By contrast, high (vs.
low) assessors’ preferred mode of self-regulation consists of appraising, that is, carefully
evaluating potential moves against standards and alternatives. In other words, the
locomotion and assessment constructs pertain to self-regulatory functions that may receive
different degrees of emphasis in the course of goal pursuit. As such, they occupy a middle
ground between general personality patterns tapped by the Big Five personality factors
(McCrae & Costa, 1987), and specific values, goals and standards differentiating among
individuals.
The Present research
The present work extends the initial findings of Kruglanski et al. (2000) in a number of
ways. First, we report research conducted with Italian rather than US samples using Italian
versions of the locomotion and assessment scales. Second, in addition to using student
samples (in Study 2) our present research (Studies 1, 3 and 4) was conducted in
1Our assumption here is that the concept of ‘effort’ is typically meant to denote the expenditure of physicalenergies rather than the engagement in mental activities, however, difficult. In other words, we are attempting totap here perceived effort, whose definition relates to the concept of effort in ordinary language, rather than ‘true’ oractual effort that may well include intellectual effort, likely to be expended by individuals high in the assessmenttendency.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
358 A. Pierro, A. W. Kruglanski and E. T. Higgins
occupational settings. The topic of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is of particular
relevance to the psychology of work hence the organizational contexts of the present
research add an important dimension to our investigation. Third, in addition to measures of
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation used by Kruglanski et al. (2000) we employed different
such measures to afford a convergent validation of our hypotheses. Fourth, we separated
the effects of locomotion and assessment from those of other personality constructs of
potential relevance to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Fifth, and most importantly, we
extend our investigation to track the relations between regulatory mode, intrinsic (vs.
extrinsic) motivation, effort investment and (reported) goal attainment.
We hypothesized that locomotion will be positively related to intrinsic and assessment to
extrinsic motivation as tapped by the relevant individual difference measures. Our
regulatory mode theory suggests, in addition, that the locomotion dimension should be
relatively insensitive to extrinsic rewards. By contrast, the assessment dimension should be
strongly responsive to extrinsic rewards with high (vs. low) assessors evincing greater task
interest in the presence versus absence of such inducements. Consistent with our previous
analysis, we also expected that the locomotion dimension will be positively related to the
commitment of physical effort to work activities, that such relation will be partially
mediated by intrinsic motivation, and that effort investment will promote goal attainment
(cf. Sheldon & Elliot, 1998, 1999). We didn’t expect assessment to be related to physical
effort, but we expected it , nonetheless, to make a significant contribution to goal attainment
by appropriately moderating the effects of ‘unmitigated’ locomotion. Specifically, we
hypothesized that individuals high on both the locomotion and the assessment tendencies
would report better attainment success than their counterparts embodying different value-
combinations of the two regulatory modes (cf. Kruglanski et al., 2000).
We conducted four separate studies to investigate these notions. Our first study,
conducted on three separate samples, investigated the basic relation between regulatory
mode and intrinsic motivation as measured by Amabile, Hill, Hennessy and Tighe’s (1994)
Work, Preference Inventory (WPI). The second study investigated how locomotors and
assessors task interest and involvement is affected by the presence or absence of extrinsic
rewards. The third study assessed intrinsic motivation via Sheldon and Elliot’s (1999) self-
concordance measure, it examined additionally participants’ stated intention to invest
effort in their job, and investigated the mediating role of goal self-concordance in the
relation between regulatory modes and the intended investment of effort. Finally, our
fourth, longitudinal, study used Sheldon and Elliot’s (1999) self-concordance measure,
perceived effort investment, and perceived goal-attainment to investigate the entire model
linking regulatory mode to intrinsic motivation, effort investments and goal-attainment.
STUDY 1
As noted above, our first study examined the relation between the Italian version of the
Locomotion and Assessment scales, and intrinsic versus extrinsic work motivation, also
controlling for others pertinent personality constructs.
Participants
Three hundred and thirty four workers (264 men, 69 women and one person who did not
report her/his gender), representing samples drawn from three Italian Organizations (Postal
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
Regulatory mode and the joys of doing 359
Service, Italian Army and Multinational Electric-Energy Company) participated in the
study on a voluntary basis. Their mean age was 40.10 (SD¼ 11.79). Forty participants had
elementary education (of 8 years), 250, high school education (of 13 years) and 40, college
education (of 17 to 19 years), and three failed to report their educational level.
Participants from Postal Service (sample A) included 108 employees (53 men and
55 women), with mean age of 46.40 (SD¼ 7.68). Participants from Italian Army (sample
B) included 123 military personnel (all men), with mean age of 28.90 years (SD¼ 6.11).
Participants from the multinational electric-energy company (Sample C) included
103 employees (88 men, 14 women and 1 person who did not report her/his gender) with
mean age of 45.82 years (SD¼ 7.41). Neither gender nor age and educational level entered
into significant relations with any of our dependent variables and will be omitted, therefore,
from further consideration.
Procedure
All participants filled out the Locomotion and Assessment scales followed by a number of
filler questionnaires. They then completed a measure of intrinsic and extrinsic work
motivation. Only participants from Italian Army (Sample B) completed also two additional
individual difference measures used as control variables: The Action Decision Scale and
the personal Fear of Invalidity Scale. Finally, only participants from multinational electric-
energy company (Sample C) completed also a measure of the Big Five personality factors,
used as control variables.
Assessing locomotion and assessment
The present study used the Italian translations (using the back-translation method) of
Kruglanski et al. (2000) locomotion and assessment measures described earlier. Two
composite scores (one for Locomotion and one for Assessment) were computed by
summing across responses to the appropriate items. In the present sample Cronbach
a¼ 0.77 for the Locomotion and¼ 0.72 for the Assessment Scales.
Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic work motivation
To assess work motivation we used 24 items of the Work Preference Inventory developed
by Amabile et al. (1994). 12-items of this instrument are designed to tap intrinsic
motivation (e.g. ‘I enjoy doing work that is so absorbing that I forget about everything
else’) and 12, extrinsic motivation (e.g. ‘I have to feel that I’m earning something for what I
do’). Ratings are made on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (never or almost never true for me)
to 4 (always or almost always true for me). In this sample, Cronbach a for the Intrinsic
Motivation subscale was 0.75 and for the Extrinsic Motivation subscale 0.72.
The action-decision scale
The action-decision scale (Kuhl, 1985), completed only by participants of Sample B,
consists of 20 forced-choice items, one response alternative in each case reflecting decision
related State Orientation (SO) and the second, Action Orientation (AO). The action
decision score reflects avoidance in persevering on negative events and a tendency to stick
to positive events. At least the former, though not the latter, tendency should be related to
the locomotion tendency. Indeed, Kruglanski et al. (2000) report significant positive
correlation between decision oriented action orientation and locomotion. The State
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
360 A. Pierro, A. W. Kruglanski and E. T. Higgins
Orientation represents a focus on some present, past or future state and is generally
unrelated to either locomotion or assessment.
A representative item of the Action Decision scale is ‘When I want to see someone
again. (a) I plan to do it someday (SO), or (b) I try to set for the visit right away (AO)’. The
responses to the 20 items were averaged to form an index. Cronbach a for the Action-
Decision Scale in this sample¼ 0.75).
The Fear of Invalidity Scale
The Fear of Invalidity Scale was developed by Thompson, Naccarato and Parker (1989) on
the basis of Kruglanski’s (1989) theory of lay epistemics. It is a 14-item instrument
designed to measure individual differences in one’s fear of making a mistake, and hence,
once disposition toward vigilance and preoccupation with accuracy. A sample item of this
scale is ‘Even after making an important decision, I continue to think about the pros and
cons to make sure I am not wrong’. Ratings are made on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). In the present sample the Cronbach a for the
Fear of Invalidity Scale was 0.78). As the fear of invalidity is significantly related to the
assessment tendency (Kruglanski et al., 2000) it is important to verify whether it does not
offer an alternative explanation for the positive relation between assessment orientation
and extrinsic motivation.
Assessing the Big Five
We used a set of Big Five markers developed by Goldberg (1992). It is an easily
administrable measure that consists of 100 unipolar rating scales (trait adjectives). The
factor scores based on participants’ responses to these scales provide univocal markers of
each of the Big Five domains. This instrument is often considered a major alternative to
scales in the NEO-PI, the average correlation between the two being 0.60 (Goldberg, 1992).
In the present research we used an Italian version of Goldberg’s (1992) instrument
assessing: Extraversion (Surgency) (Cronbach a¼ 0.89), Agreeableness (Cronbach
a¼ 0.82), Conscientiousness (Cronbach a¼ 0.92), Neuroticism (Cronbach a¼ 0.87),
and Openness (Cronbach a¼ 0.85).
RESULTS
Relations between regulatory mode orientations and intrinsic
versus extrinsic work motivation
Because the three samples drawn from different organizations did not affect our intrinsic
(F2,331¼ 0.08; p¼ 0.092) and extrinsic (F2,331¼ 0.45; p¼ 0.64) work motivation
dependent variables, the test of the ‘double-dissociation hypothesis’ concerning the
differential associations among Locomotion and Assessment, and these two work-related
motivations (i.e. relations between Locomotion and intrinsic motivation and assessment
and extrinsic motivation) was accomplished via the pooled sample. We tested this
dissociation hypothesis using structural equation approach (via LISREL 8, Joreskog &
Sorbom, 1993). Specifically, we tested a multivariate multiple regression model with two
explanatory latent variables (i.e. locomotion and assessment orientations) and two criteria
latent variables (i.e. intrinsic and extrinsic motivations). The model tested was specified as
partial disaggregation model (Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994) that use aggregates of items to
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
Regulatory mode and the joys of doing 361
form two or more indicators per construct. For each latent construct we computed two
manifest indicators using the split-half procedure. In the model tested we estimated the all
four regression parameters and this to examine besides the hypothesized associations also
the possible cross associations between Locomotion and Extrinsic motivation, and
Assessment and Intrinsic motivation. Finally, because we found a significantly relation
between the two work-related motivations (r¼ 0.33, p< 0.001) we specified in the model
the correlation between these latent variables.
We used several indices to assess the overall fit of the model to the data matrix: (1) the Chi2;
(2) Bentler’s (1990) Comparative Fit Index (CFI); this index varies between 0 and 1, with
higher values, superior to 0.90, indicative of better fit; (3) The Root Mean Square Residual
(RMSR), with values inferior to 0.08 indicative of an acceptable model and (4) The Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA, Steiger and Lind, 1980), with values inferior
to 0.08 indicative of an acceptable model (Brown, 1990; Brown & Cudeck, 1993).
The model tested fit the data rather well: The Chi Square value is adequate and non
significant (Chi Square (df¼ 14)¼ 18.15, p¼ 0.20; CFI¼ 1.00, RMSR¼ 0.02, and
RMSEA¼ 0.03). All the parameters estimated were presented in Figure 1. As can be seen,
locomotion was positively and significantly related to intrinsic motivation (0.54), whereas
assessment was positively and significantly related to extrinsic motivation (0.45). No
significant relations obtained between locomotion and extrinsic motivation (0.10) or
between assessment and intrinsic motivation (0.03).
Alternative explanations
After we proved in the total sample the tenability of our main double dissociation
hypothesis, we adopted a separate-sample strategy to emphasize the alternative or
‘sufficiency’ hypotheses, controlling the effects of regulatory mode for these of others
potentially pertinent personality constructs: action-decision and fear of invalidity in sample
B and Big Five in sample C.
Assess-A
Assess-B
Locom-A
Locom-B
Intr-A
Intr-B
Extr-A
Extr-B
Assessment
Locomotion
Extrinsic Motivation
IntrinsicMotivation
,68
,91
,88
,70 ,54
,45
,03 (n.s.)
,10 (n.s.)
,16 ,33
,78
,71
,77
,76
,80
,82
,54
,17
,23
,52
,41
,43
,36
,34
Figure 1. Structural Equation Model (Study 1).
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
362 A. Pierro, A. W. Kruglanski and E. T. Higgins
Zero-order correlations between predictors variables in sample B show that locomotion
was significantly related to action-decision scale (r¼ 0.29, p< 0.001), whereas assessment
was significantly related to fear of invalidity scale (r¼ 0.39, p< 0.001), this confirming
results of Kruglanski et al. (2000). No significant relations obtained between locomotion
and fear of invalidity (r¼�.08, p¼ 0.37) or between assessment and action-decision
(r¼�0.17, p¼ 0.07). Action-decision was marginally significantly related only to
intrinsic work motivation (r¼ 0.16, p¼ 0.08), whereas fear of invalidity is positively and
significantly related only to extrinsic motivation (r¼ 0.20, p< 0.05).
Zero-order correlations between regulatory mode and Big Five in sample C reveals that
locomotion was most strongly positively associated with conscientiousness (r¼ 0.51,
p< 0.001) and extroversion (r¼ 0.30, p< 0.01). Locomotion was also weakly positively
related to agreeableness (r¼ 0.21, p< 0.05) and openness (r¼ 0.25, p< 0.01), and
negatively related to neuroticism (r¼�0.23, p< 0.05). Assessment was moderately
positively related only to neuroticism (r¼ 0.18, p< 0.07). No significant relations were
obtained between assessment and others Big Five traits. This pattern of results was
essentially similar to those of Kruglanski et al. (2000). Across the different Big Five traits,
intrinsic motivation is positively and significantly related only to openness (r¼ 0.21,
p< 0.05), whereas extrinsic motivation is positively and significantly related only to
conscientiousness (r¼ 0.23, p< 0.05).
Our alternative or ‘sufficiency’ hypotheses were tested performing four multiple
regression analyses: two for each sample (B and C). Specifically, in sample B we
performed two separate multiple regressions on participants’ work motivation scores in
which we entered the main effects of locomotion and assessment controlling for individual
differences in action-decision orientation and personal fear of invalidity. In sample C we
performed others two separate multiple regressions on participants’ work-motivation
scores in which the regulatory mode effects were controlled for the Big Five. The results of
these analyses are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Replicating results of our structural
equation model, locomotion was significantly and positively related to intrinsic motivation
(b¼ 0.42, p< 0.000, in sample B, and b¼ 0.43, p< 0.000, in sample C), but not to
extrinsic motivation, whereas assessment was positively related to extrinsic motivation
(b¼ 0.27, p< 0.005, in sample B, and b¼ 0.39, p< 0.000, in sample C) but not to intrinsic
motivation. Action-Decision and Fear of Invalidity were not significantly related to either
intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. Of the Big Five personality dimensions, only
Conscientiousness was significantly and positively related to extrinsic motivation
(b¼ 0.27, p< 0.02).
Table 1. Summary of multiple regression analysis (Study 1, sample B)
Criteria predictors
Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation
Beta p Beta p
Locomotion 0.422 0.000 0.061 0.506Assessment 0.088 0.327 0.272 0.005Action-decision �0.020 0.832 0.04 0.657Fear of invalidity �0.176 0.069 0.112 0.271
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
Regulatory mode and the joys of doing 363
DISCUSSION
Results of our first study confirm our ‘double-dissociation hypothesis’ concerning the
differential associations among Locomotion and Assessment, and these two work-related
motivations: locomotion was related significantly and positively to intrinsic motivation,
whereas assessment was related significantly and positively to extrinsic motivation.
Importantly, also, these results held both when we controlled for specific variables that
might comprise rival alternative explanations for the observed relations between regulatory
mode and work motivation (Sample B), and when we controlled for a general variable
set, the Big Five, assumed to cover a particularly wide set of personality dimensions.
Though its results are encouraging, the present study is not without its limitations. Note
that throughout its various samples it used the very same instrument to assess work
motivation, namely the WPI, used also by Kruglanski et al. (2000) in their investigation.
A question arises, therefore, whether the present results are method-specific, or whether
they generalize also to other modes of assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The next
study investigated this issue via the use of extrinsic rewards. If the locomotion dimension is
related to intrinsic but not extrinsic motivation, then high versus low locomotors should
evince a higher degree of task interest and involvement, and be relatively insensitive to the
presence (vs. absence) of extrinsic rewards for task performance. Similarly, if the
assessment dimension is related to extrinsic but not intrinsic motivation then high (vs. low)
assessors should prove sensitive to extrinsic rewards and evince greater task interest and
involvement in their presence (vs. absence).
STUDY 2
Participants
Fifty eight psychology majors at the University of Rome, ‘La Sapienza’ (17 males and 41
females) participated in the study. Their mean age was 22.84 (SD¼ 2.79). Gender of
participants did not have any significant effects and will be omitted from further
consideration. Half the participants were randomly assigned to the reward condition and
were promised 5 euros for taking part in the experiment. No similar promise was made to
the remaining half of the participants randomly assigned to the no reward condition.
Table 2. Summary of multiple regression analyses (Study 1, sample C)
Criteria predictors
Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation
Beta p Beta p
Locomotion 0.430 0.000 0.168 0.115Assessment 0.162 0.082 0.388 0.000Extraversion 0.060 0.574 �0.032 0.759Agreeableness �0.144 0.175 �0.100 0.336Conscientiousness �0.078 0.506 0.268 0.021Openness 0.137 0.167 �0.030 0.755Neuroticism 0.074 0.534 0.134 0.252
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
364 A. Pierro, A. W. Kruglanski and E. T. Higgins
Procedure
Upon their arrival at the site of the experiment, participants in groups of 4 to 6 persons
responded to the locomotion and assessment scales (in Italian translation) described earlier.
Subsequently, they were either promised or not promised monetary remuneration for their
participation and were asked to perform a task including a series of verbal, mathematical
and figure completion exercises described by Eysenck (1994). Specifically, participants
were instructed ‘Anyone should be capable of solving correctly some, but not necessarily
all of the following exercises. In each case, your answer should be a single number, letter,
or word. You should choose one alternative among those presented that corresponds to the
correct response’. For instance, one exercise stated ‘Please add the missing number that
completes the series: 18, 10, 6, 4, ..’. ‘Insert the missing letter and number 1A, C3, 5E,
(. . .)’, etc.
These items were pre-selected on the basis of pilot data attesting that participants find
them of moderate difficulty and interest value. Finally, participants responded to two items
intended to tap their degree of interest and involvement in the task. Specifically,
participants indicated (1) to what extent they had found the task they had just performed
interesting and (2) to what they found this experience worthy of repeating in the future.
Answers to these items were recorded on 7-point bipolar scales anchored at the ends with
the appropriate labels (i.e. ‘boring’ and ‘interesting’ in the former case, and ‘worthy of
repetition’ and ‘unworthy of repetition’ in the latter case). The answers to the two items
were highly correlated and were therefore averaged to form a singular index of interest/
involvement (Cronbach a¼ 0.67). At that point participants in the reward condition but not
those in the no-reward condition were paid as promised. All participants were thoroughly
debriefed and thanked. This concluded the experimental session.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
We performed a multiple regression analysis in which we regressed our measure of interest/
involvement on a (1) main effect of the experimental condition (dummy coded), main
effects of (2) locomotion and (3) assessment and each of the two-way interactions, namely
those between (4) locomotion and experimental condition and (5) assessment and
experimental condition. In our regression model we standardized the predictor variables
before calculating the interaction term. This analysis yielded a significantly positive effect
of locomotion (b¼ 0.32, p< 0.03) on interest/involvement such that high locomotors
reported greater interest/involvement than low locomotors. The only other significant
effect was that of an interaction between assessment and condition (b¼ 0.31, p< 0.03)
indicating that high assessors more so than low assessors are more interested/involved in
the reward versus non-reward condition. To further analyse the interaction, we conducted a
simple slope analysis (Aiken & West, 1991). Whereas in the reward condition assessment
was positively and marginally significantly related to interest/involvement (b¼ 0.36,
p< 0.07), in the non reward condition assessment was negatively, even if not significantly,
related to interest/involvement (b¼�0.28, p< 0.12).
These results corroborate our hypotheses. Specifically, we found that the high (vs. low)
locomotors were more interested/involved in the task and that they were so irrespective of
the presence versus absence of external rewards. This pattern is consistent with the notion
that locomotion is positively related to intrinsic motivation, supporting the findings of
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
Regulatory mode and the joys of doing 365
Study 1 in this regard. Also supportive of these findings is the fact that the assessment
variable interacted in the predicted manner with the experimental condition. Specifically,
the high but not the low assessors evinced greater task interest/involvement when an
extrinsic reward was attached to the task than when it was not. These findings too are
consistent with the notion that the assessment tendency is positively related to extrinsic
motivation.
Finally, whereas prior findings concerning the relation between regulatory modes and
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were correlational and hence unclear as to the causal
relation between the mode and motivation, the present results suggest that mode does play
a determinative role in affecting individuals’ sensitivity to task intrinsic and extrinsic
rewards. That because previously measured locomotion and assessment tendencies jointly
with current task intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics predicted our participants’
subsequent task interest. In other words, it would be implausible to argue that task
characteristics in this case determined individuals’ locomotion and assessment tendencies
for the simple reason that these tendencies were measured before those characteristics (the
announced presence or absence of extrinsic rewards) were even revealed to our participants.
While establishing the basic relation between regulatory mode and work motivation, our
research thus far stops short of investigating important known consequences of intrinsic
and extrinsic motivations, namely effort investment in the task and goal attainment (cf.
Sheldon & Elliot, 1998, 1999). Our next two studies return to organizational contexts to
address these matters. In these next studies, we employed a yet different measure of work
motivation, namely, Sheldon and Elliot’s (1999) self-concordance measure, and investigate
the relevance of our regulatory mode constructs to previously demonstrated linkages
between motivational factors, effort investment and goal attainment.
STUDY 3
Participants
Fifty three employees of an insurance agency in Rome, Italy (34 men and 19 women)
participated in the study on a voluntary basis. Their mean age was 44.58 (SD¼ 10.26).
Forty had high school education and 13, college education. Neither gender nor educational
level entered into any significant relations with the present dependent variables hence they
will not be discussed further.
Procedure
Participants responded to the Locomotion (Cronbach a¼ 0.74) and Assessment (Cronbach
a¼ 0.71) scales followed by a number of filler questionnaires. At that point they responded
to a goal self-concordance questionnaire and to a measure of their intention to exert effort
in their subsequent work.
Assessing work motivation via the goal self-concordance measure
To assess intrinsic and extrinsic work motivation via the goal self-concordance measure
(Sheldon & Elliot, 1999) participants first generated three of their work-related goals. To
that end, we used Emmons’ (1986) method of tapping participants’ personal strivings.
Specifically, participants were asked to list three things/objectives they would be ‘trying to
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
366 A. Pierro, A. W. Kruglanski and E. T. Higgins
do/to realize in the work context during the next 3 months’. Examples of the kind of goals
participants listed were (‘redesign an archive’; ‘better organize my work’, ‘sharpen my
computer skills’; ‘improve my relations with colleagues and superiors’).
We subsequently assessed the self-concordance of this goal-set by asking participants to
rate each of the following four reasons for pursuing each of the three strivings mentioned,
namely external, introjected, identified and intrinsic reasons. According to Ryan and
Connell (1989), these four reasons lie on a continuum of perceived locus of causality
ranging from completely non-internalized to completely internalized. The external reason
was ‘you pursue this striving because somebody else wants you to or because the situation
demands it’, the introjected reason was ‘you pursue this striving because you would feel
ashamed, guilty, or anxious if you didn’t’, the identified reason was ‘you pursue this
striving because you really believe it’s an important goal to have’, and the intrinsic reason
was ‘you pursue this striving because of the fun and enjoyment that it provides you’. The
rating scale provided with these questions had response options ranging from 1 (not at all
for this reason) to 9 (completely for this reason). For each participant a self-concordance
measure was calculated averaging the weighted scores to produce a continuum variable
ranging from external to internal motivation (see Grolnick & Ryan, 1987). Specifically, in
this weighting procedure, following suggestions of Grolnick and Ryan (1987), external
reason is weighted �2, introjected reason� 1, identified reason 1, and intrinsic reason 2.
Cronbach’s a of self-concordance measure was 0.83.
Intentions to commit effort
Participants filled out a measure assessing their intentions to commit efforts to the pursuit
of their objectives. This measure consisted of 4 items: (1) ‘I intend to devote all my
energies to pursuing these goals’, (2) ‘I intend to work intensely in pursuing these goals’,
(3) ‘I intend to work at full capacity in pursuing these goals’, and (4) ’I intend to commit as
little as possible to the pursuit of these goals’ (reverse scored). Ratings are made on a 6-
point scale with response alternatives ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly
agree). Cronbach a for this 4-item measure was 0.71.
RESULTS
The present study had a number of objectives. One objective was to examine the relation
between regulatory mode and goal self-concordance conceived of as an alternative
measure of intrinsic and extrinsic work motivation. Second, we expected to replicate
Sheldon and Elliot’s (1998, 1999) finding that individuals commit more effort to their goals
in proportion to the degree to which these are self-concordant. Third, as discussed earlier
we expected locomotion, though not assessment, to be positively related to the
commitment of effort, and we expected the relation between locomotion and effort to be
partially mediated by goal self-concordance.
Our hypotheses were tested via separate multiple regression analyses using the
mediational approach suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986; see also Kenny, Kashy &
Bolger, 1998). According to Baron and Kenny (1986), for mediation to occur, four
conditions need to be met. First, variation in the independent variable should significantly
account for variation in the mediator. Second, variation in the mediator should significantly
account for variation in the dependent variable. Third, variation in the independent variable
should significantly account for variation in the dependent variable. Fourth, the effect of the
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
Regulatory mode and the joys of doing 367
independent on the dependent variable should be substantially reduced once the mediator
effect on the dependent variable is controlled for.
Accordingly, we performed three multiple regression analyses. In the first analysis we
regressed participants’ goal self-concordance on locomotion and assessment. As expected,
goal self-concordance was significantly and positively related to locomotion (b¼ 0.48,
p< 0.001) and significantly and negatively related to assessment (b¼�0.32, p< 0.014).
In the second analysis, we regressed participants’ intentions to commit effort on
locomotion and assessment. As expected, only locomotion was significantly and positively
related to the intention to commit effort (b¼ 0.42, p< 0.002). Finally, in the third analysis
we regressed participants’ intentions to commit effort on all of goal self-concordance,
locomotion and assessment. Results show that intentions to commit effort were positively
and marginally significantly related to goal self-concordance (b¼ 0.27, p< 0.07), thus
replicating the results of Sheldon and Elliot (1998, 1999) in a new context. Moreover,
locomotion continues to be significantly and positively related to the intention to commit
effort, albeit to an appreciably lower degree than in the second analysis above (b¼ 0.30,
p< 0.05). Using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) modification of the Sobel test (see Kenny,
Kashy & Bolger, 1998) the reduction in effect size attributable to goal self-concordance is
marginally significant (Z¼ 1.78, p< 0.07) consistent with our hypothesis that goal self-
concordance mediates the relation between locomotion and intention to commit effort only
in part.
DISCUSSION
Results of Study 3 provide consistent support for our theoretical analysis concerning the
relation between regulatory mode and work motivation. First, we replicate the positive
relation between locomotion and intrinsic motivation on one hand and assessment and
extrinsic motivation on the other hand using a very different measure of work-motivation
from that employed in our prior research. The goal self-concordance measure and the Work
Preference Inventory are about as different as two self-report personality measures can get,
yet they exhibit identical relations with our regulatory mode constructs. Furthermore, the
previously found relation between goal self-concordance and the commitment of effort
(Sheldon & Elliot, 1998, 1999) is replicated and it is furthermore found that (1)
locomotion, but not assessment, is indeed related to the intention to commit effort
(replicating Pierro, Kruglanski, & Higgins, in press). Most importantly (2) goal self-
concordance partially mediates the relation between locomotion and intended effort. Thus,
a systematic, if somewhat complex, pattern of relations is revealed between regulatory
modes and a variety of motivational phenomena in work-contexts.
A limitation of our studies thus far resides in the close temporal relation between
participants’ responding to our locomotion and assessment measures and the various
dependent variables of present interest, particularly the putative consequences of
regulatory mode such as the commitment of effort to one’s work related pursuits. It is, thus,
possible that mere responding to the locomotion and assessment scales simply primed
those particular constructs in participants’ minds and that this in turn determined how they
responded to the subsequently measured variables. For instance, participants responding in
a way that may have primed their high standing on the locomotion or assessment
dimensions might respond to subsequent measures in a way they believe high locomotors
(or assessors) should (e.g. by reporting a high commitment of effort), rather than by
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
368 A. Pierro, A. W. Kruglanski and E. T. Higgins
revealing their authentic tendencies. One objective of our fourth and final study was to
overcome this difficulty by temporally separating the measurement of regulatory mode
from effort commitment. Finally, and of greatest importance perhaps, we included in our
study a measure of perceived goal attainment, to examine whether it is impacted in the
hypothesized manner by our regulatory mode constructs.
STUDY 4
We used a two-wave longitudinal design to investigate the relation of locomotion and
assessment to intrinsic and extrinsic work motivation, effort investment and goal
attainment.
Participants
Seventy employees of a computer firm in Rome, Italy (46 men and 24 women) participated
in the study on a voluntary basis. Their mean age was 30.51 (SD¼ 6.56). Fifty-one
participants had high school education, and 19 college education. As in our previous
studies, neither gender nor educational level entered into significant relations with any of
our independent variables, hence it will not be considered further.
Procedure
The data were collected in two phases, 3 months apart. In the first phase, participants filled
out the Locomotion (a¼ 0.78) and Assessment (a¼ 0.72) scales followed by some filler
questionnaires, in turn followed by a questionnaire measuring goal self concordance,
identical to that of Study 2 (a¼ 74). In the second phase, 3 months later, participants
responded to measures of effort-commitment and goal attainment described below.
Assessing effort-commitment
Whereas in Study 3, we inquired about participants’ intention to expend effort, in the
present study we investigated their perceptions of ongoing effort investment in each of the
three goals listed. Specifically, in the second wave of data collection participants were
asked the following questions with respect to each goal listed in the first session: ‘how hard
are you trying to pursue that goal?’, ‘how much time have you dedicated to its pursuit?’,
and ’how much effort have you committed to its pursuit?’ In each case, ratings were made
on a 9-point scale anchored appropriately at the ends with 1(e.g. ’not at all hard’) and 9 (e.g.
‘very hard’). Cronbach a for this particular measure was 0.87.
Assessing perceived goal attainment
In the second wave of data collection, we also asked participants to rate each of the goals
listed in the first session on the following dimensions: (1) Advancement (’I have made a
great deal of progress in my attempts to advance this goal’), (2) Success (‘I have quite a lot
of success in my pursuit of this goal’) and (3) Failure (‘Many of my efforts to realize this
goal have failed’) (reverse scored). These particular items were derived from the work of
Brunstein and his colleagues (Brunstein, Schultheiss, & Grassmann, 1998; Brunstein,
1993). Ratings were made on a 9-point scale anchored at the ends with 1 (strongly agree) to
9 (strongly disagree). Cronbach a for this scale was 0.83.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
Regulatory mode and the joys of doing 369
RESULTS
In the present study we aimed to accomplish the following objectives: (1) to replicate the
relationships between locomotion and assessment and goal self-concordance obtained in
Study 3; (2) to replicate the asymmetrical relations between locomotion versus assessment
and effort commitment (see study 3), namely a positive relation between locomotion and
effort and an absence of a relation between assessment and effort; (3) to replicate Sheldon
and Elliot’s (1998, 1999) and our study 3 results that goals’ self concordance positively
affects effort and that self concordance mediates (partially) the direct relationship between
locomotion and effort; (4) to investigate whether goals’ self concordance positively affects
goal attainment (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998, 1999); (5) to replicate Sheldon and Elliot’s
finding that effort commitment (determined by goals’ self concordance, in turn determined
by regulatory mode) positively influences goal attainment and that effort mediates the
direct relationship between self-concordance and attainment, and, finally (6) to investigate
whether goal attainment is directly and positively influenced by a conjunction of
locomotion and assessment tendencies, as implied by our prior findings (Kruglanski et al.,
2000) whereby best performance is turned out by individuals high on both the locomotion
and the assessment tendencies.
As shown in Table 3, the zero-order correlation matrix relevant to these predictions
reveals that, as expected, locomotion is positively related and assessment is negatively
related to goal self-concordance (r¼ 0.24, p< 0.05, and r¼�0.25, p< 0.05, respectively).
Furthermore, locomotion but not assessment, is positively related to effort (r¼ 0.30,
p< 0.01, and r¼ 0.01, ns, respectively). Finally, self concordance is positively related to
effort (r¼ 0.30, p< 0.01) and goal attainment (r¼ 0.32, p< 0.01), and effort is positively
related to goal attainment (r¼ 0.57, p< 0.001).
Regulatory mode, goal self-concordance and effort investment
We next investigated the pattern of interrelations between regulatory mode, goal self-
concordance and effort investment. To that end and in accordance with the conceptual
criteria for mediation established by Baron and Kenny (1986), we conducted separate
multiple regression analyses. In the first analysis, we regressed participants’ goal self-
concordance on locomotion and assessment. As expected, goal self-concordance was
significantly and positively related to locomotion (b¼ 0.24, p< 0.041) and significantly
Table 3. Correlations between major study variable (Study 4)
1 2 3 4 5
1. Locomotion —2. Assessment 0.00 —3. Self-concordance 0.24� �0.25� —4. Effort 0.30�� 0.01 0.30�� —5. Goal attainment 0.10 �0.07 0.32�� 0.57��� —
Note:�p< 0.05;��p< 0.01;���p< 0.001.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
370 A. Pierro, A. W. Kruglanski and E. T. Higgins
and negatively related to assessment (b¼�0.25, p< 0.03). In the second analysis, we
regressed participants’ effort on locomotion and assessment. As expected, only locomotion
was significantly and positively related to effort (b¼ 0.30, p< 0.012). Finally, in the third
analysis we regressed participants’ effort on all of goal self-concordance, locomotion and
assessment. As expected, effort was significantly and positively related to goal self-
concordance (b¼ 0.26, p< 0.038), and locomotion continued to be significantly and
positively related to effort, albeit to an appreciably lower degree than in the second analysis
above (b¼ 0.24, p< 0.046). Using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) modification of the Sobel
test (see Kenny et al., 1998) the reduction in effect size attributable to goal self-
concordance is not significant (I¼ 1.49, p< 0.13) consistent with our hypothesis that goal
self-concordance mediates the relation between locomotion and effort only in part.
The role of goal self-concordance in the goal-attainment process
As shown in Table 4 above, self concordance is positively related to both effort (r¼ 0.30,
p< 0.01) and goal attainment (r¼ 0.32, p< 0.01), whereas effort too is positively related to
attainment (r¼ 0.57, p< 0.000). It is of interest, therefore, to ask whether the relation
between self-concordance and goal attainment may not be mediated by effort investment.
Using the mediational approach of Baron and Kenny (1986), the association between self-
concordance and goal attainment became non-significant (b¼ 0.16, p< 0.123), once effort
was controlled for, whereas that between effort and attainment remained highly significant
(b¼ 0.52, p< 0.000). Using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) modification of the Sobel test (see
Kenny et al., 1998) the reduction in effect size attributable to effort was significant (Z¼ 2.19,
p< 0.03). Thus, replicating the results of Sheldon and Elliot (1998, 1999), we find that the
relation between self-concordance and goal attainment is mediated by effort.
Locomotion, assessment and goal attainment
We hypothesized that the locomotion and assessment modes should work in concert as far
as goal attainment is concerned: Locomotion should fuel task performance and move it
forward whereas assessment should prevent the ‘locomotive’ energies from being spilled in
vain, and wasted on unproductive pursuits. We tested this hypothesis by regressing our goal
attainment measure on locomotion and assessment scores as well as on the interaction
between them. As it turned out, only the interaction effect of the two modes was
significant(b¼ 0.26, p< 0.032), indicating that perceived goal attainment is maximized
for individuals high on both the locomotion and the assessment tendencies (this interaction
effect remained significant, b¼ 0.21, p< 0.04, even after the self concordance and effort
measures were controlled for). To further analyse this interaction effect, we conducted a
simple slope analysis (Aiken & West, 1991). Whereas the relation between locomotion
tendency and goal attainment was positive and significant when assessment was high (1 SD
above the mean), b¼ 0.31, p< 0.04, this relation become non-significant when assessment
was low (1 SD below the mean), b¼�0.20, p¼ 0.27.
DISCUSSION
The data of our fourth experiment replicate and extend our previous findings. Again, the
positive relation between locomotion and intrinsic (vs. extrinsic) motivation (as indexed by
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
Regulatory mode and the joys of doing 371
the goal self-concordance measure) and the negative relation between assessment and
intrinsic (vs. extrinsic) motivation found in our previous studies are upheld despite the
differences between the present sample and its predecessors (e.g. in terms of age and
occupation). More importantly, the predicted relation between intrinsic motivation and
effort commitment is replicated in the present methodological paradigm, wherein the latter
was measured months following the former, and wherein the latter pertained to actual
rather than intended (perceived) effort. That the relation between goal self concordance and
effort commitment held in these circumstances suggests that this relation is authentic rather
than representing an artifactual consequence of priming one’s standing on the locomotion
and assessment dimensions and inferring what one’s effort investment must have been like.
Finally, the present research extends the chain of hypothesized relations between
constructs one step further carrying it all the way from regulatory mode to perceived goal
attainment through the mediational variables of intrinsic motivation (goal self-
concordance) and effort. The entire mediational model, supported by the present data,
not only validates prior findings concerning the role of intrinsic motivation in goal-directed
strivings (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998, 1999) but also, and primarily from the present
perspective, illustrates the significant role that individuals’ regulatory modes may play in
work-related contexts.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The present set of studies examined a rather unobvious hypothesis relating individuals’
preferred regulatory mode to the nature of their work motivation. The image of a
prototypical ‘locomotor’ hardly brings to mind the picture of an engrossed, highly
stimulated, individual, captivated to abandon by what he or she happens to be doing at the
moment. Rather the concept of a ‘locomotor’ conjures up a ‘can do’, ’bull in a china shop’
action-type who simply can not hold still, and who recklessly runs along, often ‘leaping’
ahead of ‘looking’. Life is complex, however, and it turns out that these two, seemingly
disparate sets of attributes, may occasionally occupy the same underlying construct, and
that the same psychological dynamic that drives individuals to psychological motility also
prompts them to pursue activities for intrinsic reasons. Intriguingly, both motivation
intrinsicality and a sense of movement are captured by Csikszentmihalyi’s (1975) seminal
concept of ‘flow’. Indeed, the present findings amply attest that individuals particularly
inclined toward ‘flow’, in its dynamic, motion-oriented sense, are also the ones who pursue
activities for their own sake, paying little heed to possible ulterior reasons for activity
engagement.
Our results show also that individuals inclined to operate in the regulatory mode
presently referred to as ‘assessment’ tend to exhibit extrinsic motivational orientation
toward work activities. Again, the intuitive image one might have of prototypical assessors,
as ‘thoughtful’, ‘vigilant’ and ‘perfectionistic’ might not immediately call to mind the
tendency to be calculated and reward-oriented. Yet our theory suggests that high emphasis
on assessment indeed may divest activity-engagement of ‘careless’ spontaneity, lending
various tasks an air of ‘work’ that needs to be compensated for as opposed to ‘play’ whose
performance serves as its own reward. Apparently, assessors’ emphasis on ‘doing the right
thing’, undercuts for them the joy of ‘just doing‘ (Kruglanski et al., 2000).
Our results lend strong and consistent support to that idea. Study after study, we replicate
the same relations between our constructs, and this (1) controlling for both specific (action-
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
372 A. Pierro, A. W. Kruglanski and E. T. Higgins
decision orientation, fear of invalidity) and general (the Big Five) personality constructs,
and (2) obtaining converging results across different organizations, samples and measuring
instruments tapping intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
The present differences between locomotors and assessors turn out to have important
implications for effort investment and goal attainment, as these are perceived by our
participants. In this regard, it is encouraging that the relations we find (in Studies 3 and 4)
between intrinsic motivation (measured via the goal self-concordance instrument), effort
and attainment replicate those obtained by other investigators (cf. Sheldon & Elliot, 1998,
1999). This inspires confidence in the validity and robustness of our findings including the
new, and for us the crucial, positive relation between locomotion, effort and attainment.
Unlike the motivational involvement of ‘locomotors‘, that of ‘assessors’ may have little to
do with physical effort-expenditure and may be more closely related to continual
accompaniment of activity by appraisal and calculation.
It is also clear from our results that the latter activity is valuable in and of itself
supplementing as it does the ‘sheer energy’ aspect of performance contributed by
locomotion. Indeed, the interaction effect of locomotion and assessment on perceived goal
attainment found in study 4 suggests that both regulatory modes are needed for successful
carrying out of work activities. This finding is consistent with other data attesting that the
best actual performance is turned out by individuals high on both the locomotion and the
assessment tendencies (Kruglanski et al., 2000).
Whereas we presently operationalized regulatory mode concepts in terms of individual
difference, theoretically (cf. Higgins, Kruglanski & Pierro, 2003; Kruglanski et al., 2000)
these could represent situationally induced states as well. Recalling instances of past
locomotion or past assessment may put individuals in the respective states, as might
experiences of success, prompting locomotion, or failure, prompting assessment. These
possibilities and the relation of situationally induced regulatory modes to aspects of task
motivation and performance merit extensive probing in subsequent work.
Finally, a general limitation of the present research must be noted. Even though our
results are robust and consistent across a wide range of circumstances they are all based on
paper and pencil measures of various theoretically relevant constructs. It would be, thus,
important in future research to extend this work by examining the concrete behavioural
implications of regulatory mode, e.g. in terms of actual behavioural measures of effort
investment and, actual outcome measures of goal-attainment. Even before such additional
data are in, however, the present findings already are highly suggestive of the considerable
potential relevance of regulatory mode concepts to issues of work motivation and task
engagement.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessy, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The Work Preference Inventory:Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 66, 950–967.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing multifacetedpersonality constructs: Application to state self-esteem. Structural Equation Modeling, 1,35–67.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
Regulatory mode and the joys of doing 373
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107,238–246.
Brown, M. W. (1990). MUTMUM PC: User’s guide. Columbus: Ohio State University, Departmentof Psychology.
Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S.Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Brunstein, J. C. (1993). Personal goal and emotional well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 65, 1061–1070.
Brunstein, J. C., Schultheiss, O. C., & Grassmann, R. (1998). Personal goal and emotional well-being: The moderating role of motive dispositions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75, 494–508.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A controlprocess view. Psychological Review, 97, 19–35.
Cervone, D. (2004). The architecture of personality. Psychological Review, 111(1), 183–204.Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychologiacal Assessment Resources.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.Deutsch, M. (1968). Field theory. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of socialpsychology. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective well-being.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1058–1068.
Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Q.I. Nuovi test d’intelligenza. Edizione BUR.Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big Five factor structure. PsychologicalAssessment, 4, 26–42.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins, & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.),Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 53–92).New York: Guilford Press.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental andindividual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 890–898.
Higgins, E. T. (1989). Knowledge accessibility and activation: Subjectivity and suffering fromunconscious sources. In J. S. Uleman, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 75–115).New York: Guilford Press.
Higgins, E. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Pierro, A. (2003). Regulatory mode: Locomotion andassessment as distinct orientations. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology. (Vol. 35, pp. 294–345). New York: Academic Press.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8. Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIScommand language. Chicago: Scientific Software.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. A. Gilbert,S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.). New York:McGraw-Hill.
Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational bases.New York: Plenum.
Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., Higgins, E. T., Atash, M. N., Pierro, A., Shah, J. Y., & Spiegel, S.(2000). To ‘‘do the right thing’’ or to ‘‘Just do it’’: Locomotion and Assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 793–815.
Kuhl, J. (1985). Volitional mediation of cognition-behavior consistency: Self-regulatory processesand action versus state orientation. In J. Khul, & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: Fromcognition to behavior (pp. 101–128). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Kuhl, J. (1986). Motivation and information processing: A new look at decision making, dynamicchange, and action control. In R. M. Sorrentino, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivationand cognition: Fundations of social behavior (pp. 404–434). New York: Guilford Press.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
374 A. Pierro, A. W. Kruglanski and E. T. Higgins
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality acrossinstruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York:Holt.
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psycho-logical Review, 80, 252–283.
Mischel, W. (1974). Processes in delay of gratification. In X. X. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances inexperimental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 249–292). New York: Academic Press.
Mischel, W. (1981). Metacognition and the rules of delay. In J. H. Flavell, & L. Ross (Eds.), Socialcognitive development: Frontiers and possible futures (pp. 240–271). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Pierro, A., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (in press). Progress takes work: Effects of thelocomotion dimension on job involvement, effort investement and task performance in organiz-ation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examiningreasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749–761.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, J. (1998). Goal striving, Need Satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being:The Self-concordance model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 546–557.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, J. (1999). Goal striving, Need Satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being:The Self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482–497.
Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. (1980, May). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors.Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
Thompson, M. M., Naccarato, M. E., & Parker, K. E. ((1989, June). Assessing cognitive need: Thedevelopment of the Personal Need for Stucture and Personal Fear of Invalidity scales. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Halifax, Nova Scotia,Canada.
Webster Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. (1989). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 20: 355–375 (2006)
Regulatory mode and the joys of doing 375