nucleation

QUESTION-066: Does the way a course of action is held, under felt external control or for the agent's own reasons, set how long it persists once outside support is removed, with the agent's valuation of the activity held fixed?

2 min read

Properties5
StatusOpen
Tagsmotivation, social-science, agency
Linewill-organization
RefinesQUESTION-015 — Given an independently warranted agent with several available action-generating regimes, what maintained relations govern which of them becomes practically effective?
BearingTHEORY-077 — Goals pursued for identified or intrinsic reasons receive more sustained effort, which carries their better attainment, and attaining them raises well-being more than attaining goals pursued under pressure, THEORY-154 — Whether an expected tangible reward lowers or raises later intrinsic motivation depends on how tightly its stated contingency ties it to performance and success, THEORY-049 — Whether an external event lowers or raises intrinsic motivation depends on whether it is experienced as controlling or as information about competence, THEORY-046 — Expected tangible rewards for merely engaging in an interesting task lower later free-choice engagement with it

Graph View

The question

CLAIM-027 names persistence as one of the maintained relations that decide which regime becomes effective. This question asks whether persistence depends on how a course of action is held, and not only on what it aims at or how much the agent values it. The cases are an activity done for a reward and then done again when the reward stops, and a goal pursued for one’s own reasons as against one pursued under pressure.

Why the record needs it

CLAIM-122 says that changing the conditions of efficacy changes behaviour while preferences stay fixed. CLAIM-089 replies that the governing relations are only revealed preferences. Here the line can be tested in a well-studied place. If a contingency changes later engagement more than it changes reported interest, it changes a condition of efficacy and not only a valuation. If it changes interest just as much, CLAIM-089 gains ground.

What the record holds

  • THEORY-046: expected rewards for doing an interesting task lower later free-choice engagement (d = −0.40) more than they lower self-reported interest (−0.15). Limit: no delayed measures in adults.
  • THEORY-049: the effect depends on whether the event is “experienced as controlling or as information about competence”. That is a candidate relation. Limit: “Mediation by felt control is untested for rewards.”
  • THEORY-154: the rival account. What matters is “how tightly its stated contingency ties it to performance”. That is competence information, a route through belief and valuation. Limit: it measures no mediator.
  • THEORY-077: self-concordant goals “receive more sustained effort”, and effort carries their attainment. Limit: all of it is self-report.

What would answer it

The mediation tests the THEORYs name in their own promote_when fields. One gives the same reward under controlling and informational framing, measures both later engagement and reported interest, and finds that felt control carries the gap. The other compares a reward tied to a standard against a control group given the same feedback. More meta-analytic re-coding would not answer it.

Backlinks