The Problem of Human Agency in Contemporary International Science

Analysis of the current state of the problem of human agency (proactivity) in the international discourse reveals its high relevance and acuity. The issue is widely discussed both in the field of theory and in applied research, f.ex., on education and management. The problem of agency has become so important due to the radical changes in human life in the recent years. In the international discourse we observe not only a great variety of approaches, but also the lack of consensus on the conceptual apparatus and methods used to measure proactivity. Such concepts are used as: internal locus of control, proactive coping with problems, personality potential, entrepreneurial personality type, self-determination, self-regulation, and a number of others. The central place in this emerging discourse is occupied by the concept of “agency”. A promising area of research on human proactivity deals with the sphere of volition. When the concept of “agency” is used, they are mainly discussing holistic behavioral manifestations related to specific socio-cultural contexts, while studies addressing the problem of volition (will) focus on psychological mechanisms. However, in fact, both discourses address similar phenomenological concerns. The movement towards integration between the discourse of volition with the discourse of agency seems to be a prospective direction in the development of studies on human proactivity. Studies of volition draws heavily on neuropsychology. On the one hand, this provides colossal advantages, on the other hand, it may have limitations associated with a fundamental underestimation of the real “external” activity of a person as a whole, and an excessive focus on “intra-brain” processes (with all the obvious importance the latter). The central point for understanding the nature of a person’s proactivity is that personality life is happening not in the coordinates of the “inner world”, not in the space of nerve networks, but in an integral dynamic system including a human being at the world around.

Keywords

proactivity, agency, self-actualization, self-regulation, locus of control, volition, free will, destructuring

Acknowledgment

The study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project No. 20-113-50076

Publication date

15.09.2022

Number of characters

25429

Cite

GOST	Mironenko I., Sorokin P. The Problem of Human Agency in Contemporary International Science // Psikhologicheskii zhurnal – 2022. – V. 43. – Issue 4 C. 79-89 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://psy.jes.su/S020595920021483-7-1 (circulation date: 04.05.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S020595920021483-7
MLA	Mironenko, Irina, Sorokin, Pavel S. "The Problem of Human Agency in Contemporary International Science." Psikhologicheskii zhurnal 43.4 (2022):79-89. DOI: 10.31857/S020595920021483-7
APA	Mironenko I., Sorokin P. (2022). The Problem of Human Agency in Contemporary International Science. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal 43(4), pp.79-89 DOI: 10.31857/S020595920021483-7

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 344

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Il'enkov Je. Chto zhe takoe lichnost'?. S chego nachinaetsja lichnost'. Moscow: Nauka, 1984. (In Russian)

2. Afsar B., Umrani W.A. Transformational Leadership and Innovative Work Behavior: The Role of Motivation to Learn, Task Complexity and Innovation Climate. European Journal of Innovation Management. 2019. V. 23. № 3. P. 402–428.

3. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory: An Agentic Perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001. V. 52. P. 1–26.

4. Badura K., Grijalva E., Galvin B., Owens B., Joseph D. Motivation to lead: A meta-analysis and distal-proximal model of motivation and leadership. Journ. of Applied Psychology. 2020. V.105. № 4. P. 331–354.

5. Barandiaran X.E., Paolo E, Di Rohde M. Defining agency: individuality, normativity, asymmetry, and spatio-temporality in action. Adapt. Behav. 2009. V.17. № 5. P. 367–386.

6. Bartell T., Cho C., Drake C., Petchauer E., Richmond G. Teacher Agency and Resilience in the Age of Neoliberalism. Journ. of Teacher Education. 2019. V. 70. № 4. P. 302–305.

7. Baumeister RF. Free Will in Scientific Psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2008. V. 3. №1. P. 14–19.

8. Baumeister R.F., Tice D.M., Vohs K.D. The strength model of self-regulation: conclusions from the second decade of willpower research. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2018. V.13. № 2. P. 141–45.

9. Beck B., Di Costa S., Haggard P. Having control over the external world increases the implicit sense of agency. Cognition. 2017. V. 162. P. 54–60.

10. Berhane Y., Worku A., Tewahido D., Fasil N., Gulema H., Tadesse, A. W., & Abdelmenan S. Adolescent girls’ agency significantly correlates with favorable social norms in ethiopia—implications for improving sexual and reproductive health of young adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2019. V. 64. № 4. P. 52–59.

11. Beyers W., Goossens L., Vansant I., & Moors E. A structural model of autonomy in middle and late adolescence: Connectedness, separation, detachment, and agency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2003. V. 32. № 5. P. 351–365.

12. Berkman E.T., Hutcherson C.A., Livingston J.L., Kahn L.E., Inzlicht M. Self-control as value-based choice. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2017. V. 26. № 5. P. 422–428.

13. Bryan C. J., Andreski S. R., McNaughton-Cassill M., & Osman A. Agency is associated with decreased emotional distress and suicidal ideation in military personnel. Archives of Suicide Research. 2014. V. 18. № 3. P. 241–250.

14. Carver C.S., Scheier M.F. On the Self-Regulation of Behavior. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998.

15. Cavazzoni F., Fiorini A. & Veronese G. How Do We Assess How Agentic We Are? A Literature Review of Existing Instruments to Evaluate and Measure Individuals' Agency. Soc.Indic.Res. 2022. V.159. P. 1125–1153.

16. Charles L., Haggard P. Feeling free: External influences on endogenous behaviour. Quartely Journ. of Exp.Ps. 2020. V. 73. № 4, P. 568-577.

17. Cohen J.D. Cognitive control: core constructs and current considerations. Wiley Handbook of Cognitive Control. Ed. T. Egner, pp. 3–28. Malden, MA: Wiley, 2017.

18. Converse B.A., Juarez L, Hennecke M. Self-control and the reasons behind our goals. Journ. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2019. V.116. № 5.

19. Cooper C. L., Lu L. Excessive availability for work: Good or bad? Charting underlying motivations and searching for game-changers. Human Resource Management Review. 2019. V. 29. № 4. Article 100682. doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.01.003.

20. Di Costa S., The ́ro H., Chambon V., Haggard P. Try and try again: post-error boost of an implicit measure of agency. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 2017. V. 71. P. 1584–1595.

21. Di Domenico S. I., and Ryan R. M. The emerging neuroscience of intrinsic motivation: a new frontier in self-determination research. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2017. V. 11. Article145. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00145.

22. Duckworth A.L., Gendler T.S., Gross J.J. Situational strategies for self-control. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2016. V. 11. № 1. P. 35–55.

23. Emirbayer M., Mische A. What is agency?. American journal of sociology. 1998. V. 103. № 4. P. 962–1023.

24. Frith C.D., Haggard P. Volition and the brain: revisiting a classic experimental study. Trends Neurosci. 2018. V. 41. P. 405–407.

25. Galvin B.M. Changing the focus of locus (of control): A targeted review of the locus of control literature and agenda for future research. Journ. of Organizational Behavior. 2018. V. 39. № 7. P. 820–833.

26. Gillebaart M., de Ridder D.T.D. Effortless self-control: a novel perspective on response conflict strategies in trait self-control. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass. 2015. V. 9. № 2. P. 88–99.

27. Guinote A. How Power Affects People: Activating, Wanting, and Goal Seeking. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2017. V. 68. P. 353–381.

28. Haggard P. The Neurocognitive Bases of Human Volition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2019. V. 70. P. 9–28.

29. Heckhausen J. Integrating and instigating research on person and situation, motivation and volition, and their development. Motivation Science. 2020, V. 6. № 3. P. 185–188.

30. Heckhausen J., Wrosch C., Richard Schulz R. Agency and Motivation in Adulthood and Old Age. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2019. V. 70. P. 191–217.

31. Hofmann W., Friese M., Strack F. Impulse and self-control from a dual-systems perspective. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2009. V. 4. № 2. P. 162–76.

32. Inzlicht M., Werner K.M., Briskin J.L. and Roberts B.W. Integrating Models of Self-Regulation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2021. V. 72. P. 319–45.

33. Kehr H.M. Motivation and volition at work. Motivation Science 2020. V. 6, № 3, P. 201–202.

34. Koole S. L., Schlinkert C., Maldei T., and Baumann N. Becoming who you are: an integrative review of self-determination theory and personality systems interactions theory. Journ. Pers. 2019. V. 87, P. 15–36.

35. Kruglanski A.W., Shah J.Y., Fishbach A., Friedman R., Chun W.Y., Sleeth-Keppler D. A theory of goal systems. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2002. V. 34. P. 331–378.

36. Kwon K., Kim T. An integrative literature review of employee engagement and innovative behavior: Revisiting the JD-R model. Human Resource Management Review. 2020. V. 30. № 2. Article 100704.

37. Meyer J.W. World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual review of sociology. 2010. V. 36. P. 1–20.

38. Mironenko I. A., Sorokin P.S. Concerning Paradigmatic Status of Psychological Science: For a Flexible and Flowing Psychology in the Face of Practical and Theoretical Challenges. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2020. V. 54. P. 604–612.

39. Mironenko I.A., Sorokin P. S., Activity Theory for the De-Structuralized Modernity. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2020. https:/doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09587-4.

40. Murnieks C., Klotz A., Shepherd D. Entrepreneurial Motivation: A Review of the Literature and Agenda for Future Research. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2019. V. 41. № 2. http:/dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2374.

41. Poteat V. P., Calzo J. P., & Yoshikawa H. Gay-Straight Alliance involvement and youths’ participation in civic engagement, advocacy, and awareness-raising. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2018. V. 56. P. 13–20.

42. Quirin M., Jais M., Di Domenico S.I., Kuhl J., Ryan R.M. Effortless Willpower? The Integrative Self and Self-Determined Goal Pursuit.. Front. Psychol. 2021. V. 12. Article 653458. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.653458.

43. Ryan R.M., Deci E.L. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2018.

44. Rydzik A., Anitha S. Conceptualising the agency of migrant women workers: Resilience, reworking and resistance. Work, Employment and Society. 2019. V. 34. № 5. P. 883–899.

45. Smith K., Ulvik M. Leaving teaching: lack of resilience or sign of agency?. Teachers and Teaching. 2017. V. 23, № 8. P. 928–945.

46. Sorokin P.S. The Promise of John W. Meyer’s World Society Theory: “Otherhood” through the Prism of Pitirim A. Sorokin’s Integralism. The American Sociologist. 2020. V. 51. № 4. P. 506–525.

47. Sorokin P., Froumin I. ‘Utility’ of education and the role of transformative agency: Policy challenges and agendas. Policy Futures in Education. 2021. doi:10.1177/14782103211032080.

48. Steven D., Brown S.D., Lent R.W. Vocational Psychology: Agency, Equity, and Well-Being. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2016. V. 67. P. 541–565.

49. Sutterlüty F., Tisdall E.K.M. Agency, autonomy and self-determination: Questioning key concepts of childhood studies. Global Studies of Childhood. 2019. V. 9. № 3. P. 183–187.

50. Whiteside S.P., Lynam D.R. The five factor model and impulsivity: using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2001. V. 30 № 4. P. 669–689.

51. Zimmerman M. A., Eisman A. B., Reischl T. M., Morrel-Samuels S., Stoddard S., Miller A. L., et al. Youth empowerment solutions: Evaluation of an after-school program to engage middle school students incommunity change. Health Education & Behavior. 2018. V. 45. № 1. P. 20–31.