This research sought to test the hypothesis that regulatory fit enhances people’s feelings of autonomy. Regulatory fit can be created by prompting people to execute a task using means of task execution that fit (vs. do not fit) their preferred means of goal-pursuit. Assigning people to do a task using a particular means implies they do not exercise choice in applying their preferred means of goal-pursuit. Nevertheless, we reasoned that fitting task means would lead to higher feelings of autonomy while working on a task because, under conditions of regulatory fit, people are using the means that they would have chosen if they had been given choice. We conducted 10 experiments (total N = 3,124) to test the effect of regulatory fit versus regulatory non-fit on experienced autonomy and a meta-analysis of the effects supported our hypothesis for both promotion focus-based fit and prevention focus-based fit.
AmabileT. M.DeJongW.LepperM. R. (1976). Effects of externally imposed deadlines on subsequent intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 34, 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.1.92
2.
BaardP. P.DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2045–2068. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02690.x
3.
BartholomewK. J.NtoumanisN.RyanR. M.BoschJ. A.Thøgersen-NtoumaniC. (2011a). Self-determination theory and diminished functioning: The role of interpersonal control and psychological need thwarting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(11), 1459–1473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211413125
4.
BartholomewK. J.NtoumanisN.RyanR. M.Thøgersen-NtoumaniC. (2011b). Psychological need thwarting in the sport context: Assessing the darker side of athletic experience. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 75–102. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.33.1.75
5.
BottiS.IyengarS. S. (2004). The psychological pleasure and pain of choosing: When people prefer choosing at the cost of subsequent outcome satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 312–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.312
6.
BottiS.IyengarS. S. (2006). The dark side of choice: When choice impairs social welfare. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25, 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.25.1.24
7.
BurgessM.EnzleM. E.SchmaltzR. (2004). Defeating the potentially deleterious effects of externally imposed deadlines: Practitioners’ rules-of-thumb. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(7), 868–877. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264089
8.
CroweE.HigginsE. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2675
9.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
10.
Dan-CohenM. (1992). Conceptions of choice and conceptions of autonomy. Ethics, 102, 221–243.
11.
DeciE. L.OlafsenA. H.RyanR. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108
12.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
13.
DemeroutiE.BakkerA. B.NachreinerF.SchaufeliW. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.499
14.
DysvikA.KuvaasB. (2010). Exploring the relative and combined influence of mastery-approach goals and work intrinsic motivation on employee turnover intention. Personnel Review, 39, 622–638. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481011064172
15.
DysvikA.KuvaasB. (2013). Perceived job autonomy and turnover intention: The moderating role of perceived supervisor support. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22, 563–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.667215
16.
FaurC.MartinJ. C.ClavelC. (2017). Measuring chronic regulatory focus with proverbs: The developmental and psychometric properties of a French scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.037
17.
FörsterJ.HigginsE. T.BiancoA. T. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00509-5
18.
FreitasA. L.HigginsE. T. (2002). Enjoying goal-directed action: The role of regulatory fit. Psychological Science, 13(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00401
19.
GagnéM.DeciE. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
20.
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267
21.
GregurasG. J.DiefendorffJ. M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 465–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014068
22.
HackerW. (2003). Action regulation theory: A practical tool for the design of modern work processes?European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 105–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320344000075
23.
HackmanJ. R.OldhamG. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076546
24.
HamstraM. R. W.BolderdijkJ. W.VeldstraJ. L. (2011). Everyday risk taking as a function of regulatory focus. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 134–137. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.017
25.
HamstraM. R. W.SchreursB. (2018). Room for advancement: The regulatory fit of bottom-rank intermediate feedback. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 890–896. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2374
HigginsE. T.FriedmanR. S.HarlowR. E.IdsonL. C.AydukO. N.TaylorA. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.27
30.
HowardJ. L.GagnéM.BureauJ. S. (2017). Testing a continuum structure of self-determined motivation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 1346–1377. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000125
31.
HumphreyS. E.NahrgangJ. D.MorgesonF. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332–1356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332
32.
KarasekR. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392498
33.
KruglanskiA. W.ShahJ. Y.FishbachA.FriedmanR.ChunW. Y.Sleeth-KepplerD. (2002). A theory of goal systems. In OlsonJ. M.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 331–378). Academic Press.
34.
LePineJ. A.PodsakoffN. P.LePineM. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 764–775. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.18803921
35.
MorgesonF. P.HumphreyS. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321
ParkerS. K.Van den BroeckA.HolmanD. (2017). Work design influences: A synthesis of multilevel factors that affect the design of jobs. Academy of Management Annals, 11, 267–308. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0054
38.
PierroA.PresaghiF.HigginsT. E.KruglanskiA. W. (2009). Regulatory mode preferences for autonomy supporting versus controlling instructional styles. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 599–615. https://doi.org/10.1348/978185409X412444
39.
RadelR.PelletierL. G.SarrazinP.MilyavskayaM. (2011). Restoration process of the need for autonomy: The early alarm stage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 919–934. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025196
40.
RenkemaL. J.Van YperenN. W. (2008). On goals and strategies: How a fit between performance goals and regulatory strategies affects performance. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 21(1), 97–107.
41.
RudolphC. W.KatzI. M.LavigneK. N.ZacherH. (2017). Job crafting: A meta-analysis of relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 102, 112–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.05.008
42.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will?Journal of Personality, 74, 1557–1586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00420.x
43.
RyanR. M.SoenensB.VansteenkisteM. (2019). Reflections on self-determination theory as an organizing framework for personality psychology: Interfaces, integrations, issues, and unfinished business. Journal of Personality, 87, 115–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12440
44.
SassenbergK.SchollA. (2013). If I can do it my way… The influence of regulatory focus on job-related values and job attraction. Journal of Economic Psychology, 38, 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.09.003
45.
ShahJ.HigginsT.FriedmanR. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.285
46.
ShahJ. Y.KruglanskiA. W. (2000). Aspects of goal networks: Implications for self-regulation. In BoekaertsM.PintrichP. R.ZeidnerM. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 85–110). Academic Press.
47.
SheldonK. M. (2014). Becoming oneself: The central role of self-concordant goal selection. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314538549
48.
SpreitzerG. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504. https://doi.org/10.5465/256789
49.
Van den BroeckA.FerrisD. L.ChangC.-H.RosenC. C. (2016). A review of self-determination theory’s psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1195–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058
50.
Van den BroeckA.VansteenkisteM.De WitteH.SoenensB.LensW. (2010). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 981–1002. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X481382
51.
Van YperenN. W. (2003). Task interest and actual performance: The moderating effects of assigned and adopted purpose goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1006–1015. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1006
52.
WebsterJ. R.BeehrT. A.LoveK. (2011). Extending the challenge-hindrance model of occupational stress: The role of appraisal. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.02.001
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
