Three Views of the Agentic Self: Three Views of the Agentic Self: A Developmental SynthesisA Developmental Synthesis

Todd D. Little

Key Collaborators:

Patricia H. HawleySouthern Connecticut State University

Christopher C. Henrich and Katherine MarslandYale University

Goals & OrganizationGoals & Organization

• Integrate Three Seemingly Disparate Theories– Self-Determination Theory (i.e., Deci & Ryan, 1980 to date)

– Action-Control Theory (e.g., Little, 1998; Brandtstaedter, 1998)

– Resource-Control Theory (Hawley, 1999)

SDT ACT RCT

Organismic Model of Human Nature

•Highlight Some Developmental Aspects of the Agentic Self

The Little Engine that CouldThe Little Engine that Could

Puff, Puff, Chug, Chug, went the Little Blue Engine. “I think I can-- I think I can--

I think I can…”-Watty Piper (1930)

Organismic MetatheoryOrganismic Metatheory

• Behavior is seen as volitional and goal-directed action– Individuals are inherently active and self-regulating

– Actions are purposive, planful, and self-initiated

• Development is predominantly self-guided– One gives form and meaning to actions along the way

– Actions result from selective choices that emanate primarily from the individual

• Research focuses on – Inter-individual differences

– Intra-individual differences

– sub-types or sub-groups of individuals

– contextual influences

(see e.g., Gariepy, 1996; Little, in press; Overton, 1984, Reese, 1991)(see e.g., Gariepy, 1996; Little, in press; Overton, 1984, Reese, 1991)

Mechanistic MetatheoryMechanistic MetatheoryStimulus-Response, Stimulus-Response.

Don't you ever think?

Organismic MetatheoryOrganismic Metatheory

• Mechanisms of change include– Assimilation

– Accommodation

– Equilibration

– Schema formation

– Hierarchical integration

– And so on…

• Guiding Developmental principles include– Homotypic vs heterotypic expressions

– Surface-structure vs deep-structure roots of behavior

– Different paths can lead to same outcome

– Same path can lead to different outcomes

– And so on…

Organismic Goal Attainment:Organismic Goal Attainment:Achieving an Intimate RelationshipAchieving an Intimate Relationship

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2

2.1

Y M O

Age-Cohort

Dep

ress

ion

Males - No

Male -Yes

Female-No

Female-Yes

Young 18-39

Mid-age40-59

Older-age60 and up

Control Judgments across the Life SpanControl Judgments across the Life Span

-2

-1

0

1

2

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Pre

dic

ted

Mea

n R

atin

g an

d S

tan

dar

d E

rror

s

-2

-1

0

1

2

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

-2

-1

0

1

2

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Age-Cohort

Control Expectancy

Goal Importance

Comparative Control

Control Striving

-2

-1

0

1

2

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Age-Cohort

PersonalSocial

Societal

Societal

Personal

Social

Personal

PersonalSocial

Social

& Societal

Societal

From Grob, Little, & Wanner, 1999From Grob, Little, & Wanner, 1999

Needs and Their OriginsNeeds and Their Origins• The Need for Competence

– Negotiating and effecting one’s environment

– Has a direct evolutionary basis

• The Need for Relatedness– Close emotional bond with another individual

– Has a direct evolutionary basis

• The Need for Autonomy– Being the origin of one’s own behavior

– Byproduct of higher cortical activity

• Resource Control Theory– Acquiring and utilizing material and social resources

– Necessary for survival and reproduction of individual

What is Agency?What is Agency?

• Agents act, we are agents– We have needs and goals

– We also have motives, wants, & desires

– We have intentions and are volitional in our actions

– We interpret & evaluate our actions and their consequences

• From our actions (actual & symbolic), we learn:– Contingencies (personal, general, environmental)

– Personal beliefs about own capabilities

• Agency is a sense of personal empowerment– Knowing what it takes and whether one's got it

Intrinsic & Extrinsic MotivationIntrinsic & Extrinsic Motivation

ASSOCIATED PROCESSES:

PERCEIVED LOCUS OF CAUSALITY:

• Perceived non-contingency

• Low perceived competence

• Non-relevance• Non-

intentionality

• Salience of extrinsic rewards or punishments

• Compliance/ Reactance

• Ego involvement

• Focus on approval from self and others

•Conscious valuing of activity

•Self-endorsement of goals

•Hierarchical synthesis of goals

•Congruence

• Interest & Enjoyment

• Inherent satisfaction

Impersonal External SomewhatExternal

SomewhatInternal

Internal Internal

From: Ryan & Deci (in press)From: Ryan & Deci (in press)

Intrinsicmotivation

REGULATORY STYLES:

Introjection Identification Integration

Extrinsic motivation

Externalregulation

Amotivation

Differentiation of Resource Control StrategiesDifferentiation of Resource Control Strategies

CoercionCoercion

ProsocialityProsociality

ProsocialityProsociality

Years 1 to 3 Years 4 to 7 Years 8 to 11

(Hawley, 1999a, 1999b)(Hawley, 1999a, 1999b)

CoercionCoercion

CoercionCoercion

Prosocial strategies emerge over time.

Types of ChildrenTypes of Children

Prosocial Control

Coe

rciv

e C

ontr

ol

ProsocialProsocial

CoerciveCoercive BistrategiBistrategicc

TypicalTypical

SubordinateSubordinate

(Hawley, Little, & Pasupathi, 2000)(Hawley, Little, & Pasupathi, 2000)

““Social Dominants”Social Dominants”

Social Motivations by TypeSocial Motivations by Type

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Intrinsically Motivated toForm Friendships

Extrinsically Motivated toForm Friendships

BistrategicProsocialCoerciveTypicalSubordinate

(Hawley, Little, & Pasupathi, 2000)(Hawley, Little, & Pasupathi, 2000)

Social and Personal Consequences by TypeSocial and Personal Consequences by Type

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Negative Affect Positive Affect

BistrategicProsocialCoerciveTypicalSubordinate

(Hawley, Little, & Pasupathi, 2000)(Hawley, Little, & Pasupathi, 2000)

Action-Control BeliefsAction-Control Beliefs

Me Others

Agent Agent

Goal Goal

Means Means

Means can include, for example: effort, ability, luck, teachers, parents, peers, looks, etc.

Agency Beliefs

Control Expectancy

StrategyBeliefs

General Agency Beliefs

General Control Expectancy

CausalityBeliefs

(Little, 1998)(Little, 1998)

The Development of AgencyThe Development of Agency

Autonomy

Competence Relatedness

Volitional / Goal-directed Activity;

Material and Social Resources

Agency

Action-Control Beliefs; Intra-agent Means

Action-Control Beliefs; Extra-agent Means

(Little, Hawley, Henrich, & Marsland, in press)(Little, Hawley, Henrich, & Marsland, in press)

How They Come TogetherHow They Come Together

Action-Control

Resource-Control

Self-Determination

ConclusionsConclusions

• Integrating these and other organismic perspectives on behavior suggest novel foci for research

–Personality types (e.g., Bistrats)

• Understanding the Agentic self requires a contextual approach

–Interpersonal contexts (e.g., dominance)

–Life-course contexts (e.g., retirement)

Nonagentic vs. Agentic ProfilesNonagentic vs. Agentic Profiles

• Have low aspirations

• Feel helpless when challenged

• Hindered by problem solving blinders

• Perform poorly

• Accept failures

• Have greater ill-being

• Have little sense of personal empowerment

• Have high aspirations

• Persist in the face of obstacles

• See more and varied options

• Perform well

• Learn from failures

• Have greater well-being

• Have a greater sense of personal empowerment

Nonagentic Profile Agentic Profile

Acquiring a sense of Personal Agency Acquiring a sense of Personal Agency

• Direct Experiences– Successes and failures

• Performance Feedback– teachers, parents, peers, & self

• Direct Instruction– teachers, parents, peers, & self

• Vicarious Observations– TV, at school, work, local Seven-Eleven, family

• Social Comparisons– veridical opportunities, upwards, downwards

• Emotional Reactions– feelings or rejection/acceptance, reprimands

• Symbolic Actions– personal thoughts, interpretations, rehearsals of actions

Personality and Social Skills by Type

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Agreeableness Sensitivity to SocialCues

Conscientiousness Hostility

Bistrategic

Prosocial

Coercive

Typical

Subordinate

(Hawley, Pasupathi, & Little, 1999)(Hawley, Pasupathi, & Little, 1999)

Low Personal AgencyLow Personal Agency