Regulatory Mode Profiles and the Organization of the Flow of TimeDanilo Garcia1,2,3,4,5* and Erik Lindskär1,3
- *Corresponding Author:
- Danilo Garcia
Blekinge Center of Competence
Blekinge County Council
E-mail: [email protected]
Received date: July 28, 2016; Accepted date: August 09, 2016; Published date: August 12, 2016
Citation: Garcia D, Lindskär E (2016) Regulatory Mode Profiles and the Organization of the Flow of Time. Int J Sch Cog Psychol 3: 184. doi: 10.4172/2469-9837.1000184
Copyright: © 2016 Garcia, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Background: Individuals strive after goals through regulatory modes of assessment and locomotion. The independent inter-relationship between these two modes implies four profiles: assessor (i.e. high in assessment/low in locomotion), low regulator (i.e. low assessment/low locomotion), high regulator (i.e. high assessment/high locomotion), and locomotor (i.e. low assessment/high locomotion). We investigated the way individuals with different profiles organize the flow of time (i.e. past, present, and future) in order to explore how the outlook on time might be associated to changes in regulatory mode.
Method: High school pupils and university Students (N=522) answered to the Self-regulatory Mode Questionnaire and Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory.
Results: The regulatory mode profiles had a significant effect on the five time perspective dimensions (F(15, 1548)=14.66, p<0.001, Pillias´Trace=0.37). Comparisons between individuals who differed in one regulatory mode but where similar in the other suggested that high levels of past positive and low levels of past negative were associated to low assessment when locomotion was high and to high locomotion when assessment was low. High levels in the future time perspective dimension were related to high levels of locomotion when assessment was high, while low levels of past negative were related to low assessment when locomotion was low.
Conclusion: The results illustrate the complexity of a dynamic system of regulation in which the same antecedents can lead to different outcomes (i.e. multi-finality) and different antecedents can lead to the same outcome (i.e. equifinality). Although only theoretical, this gives an idea of how some leaps might be abrupt as a quantum leap (i.e. extremely different profiles), while others might be serial (i.e. from one profile to another profile that shares the same level in one regulatory mode but that differs in the other).