Pierro, A., Kruglanski, A W. & Higgins, E T. (2006). Regulatory mode and the joys of doing- Effects...

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: [email protected]

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


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.



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



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



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



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).



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



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



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



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



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



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



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.



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.



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



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-



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.



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.



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.



Pierro, A., Kruglanski, A W. & Higgins, E T. (2006). Regulatory mode and the joys of doing- Effects...

Documents

Transcript of Pierro, A., Kruglanski, A W. & Higgins, E T. (2006). Regulatory mode and the joys of doing- Effects...