Abstract

PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY 2019, VOL. 30, NO. 3, 155–157 https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2019.1646056 a b Katharine H. Greenaway and Kathleen D. Vohs a b Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia; Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota In their target article, Scholer, Cornwell, and Higgins (in Regulatory flexibility is the ability to switch between differ- press) suggest that current conceptualizations of approach ent states and strategies to obtain optimal outcomes and avoidance motivation should be reconsidered. Amid (Bonanno & Burton, 2013). This concept holds that people and beyond psychology, in fields as diverse as education, must choose the right regulation strategy for the right situ- organizational science, and clinical therapy (Covington, ation, or indeed must choose the right combination of strat- 1992; Elliot, 1999; Fowles, 1994; Kanfer, Frese, & Johnson, egies for the right situation (Blanke, Brose, Kalokerinos, 2017; McFarland, Shankman, Tenke, Bruder, & Klein, 2006), Erbas, Riediger, & Kuppens, 2019). Applying this perspective approach motivation is lauded as an adaptive self-regulation to the self-regulation literature suggests that a fruitful orientation and avoidance branded a maladaptive reaction. avenue of inquiry may lie in understanding how people Scholer and colleagues (in press) argue that a rigid categor- switch