Secondary control critiqued: is it secondary? is it control? Comment on Morling and Evered (2006).
Secondary control critiqued: is it secondary? is it control? Comment on Morling and Evered (2006).
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/0033-2909.133.6.911
复制
发表时间：
2007-11
影响因子：
22.4
通讯作者：
E. Skinner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Skinner
在一篇关于二次控制的精辟评论中，B.Morling和S.Evered认为，催生这一概念的开创性文章(F.Rothbaum，J.R.Weisz和S.S.Snyder)包含了两个不同的概念的根源，专注于“适合”和“控制”，区分它们澄清了不一致的研究结果。他们的结论是，二级控制的最佳定义侧重于适合度。本评论的作者同意莫林和埃弗雷德的前提，但得出了相反的结论。在此，认为(A)当前以控制为重点的定义对二次控制一词有更有效的主张，以及(B)目前侧重于“适合”的化身是重要的，但它们不是次要的，也不是控制。因此，关注匹配的结构应该从控制领域中解放出来，以它们自己的权利进行研究，并以它们自己更合适的标签来研究，例如调节过程。此外，通过考察这些过程与其他潜在动机的关系，如归属感或自主性，可以获得关于以匹配为重点的过程的功能的理论上的清晰度和深度，因为它们与这些动机更紧密地联系在一起。
In an insightful review on secondary control, B. Morling and S. Evered argued that the seminal article spawning the construct (F. Rothbaum, J. R. Weisz, & S. S. Snyder) contained the roots of two distinct conceptualizations focusing on "fit" and "control" and that distinguishing between them clarifies inconsistent research findings. They concluded that the best definition of secondary control focuses on fit. The author of the current commentary agrees with Morling and Evered's premises but draws the opposite conclusion. Herein, it is argued that (a) current control-focused definitions have more valid claims to the term secondary control, and (b) current incarnations that focus on "fit" are important, but they are not secondary and they are not control. Hence, fit-focused constructs should be liberated from the domain of control and studied in their own right, under their own more appropriate label, such as accommodative processes. Moreover, theoretical clarity and depth regarding the functions of fit-focused processes can be gained by examining these processes in relation to other underlying motives, such as belongingness or autonomy, to which they are more closely allied.