Abstract

PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY 2019, VOL. 30, NO. 3, 125–129 https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2019.1646040 COMMENTARIES a b Cecilia Cheng and Chor-lam Chau a b Department of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong; Department of Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom In the target article, Scholer, Cornwell, and Higgins (this appropriateness of their behavior with reference to their issue) put forward a dynamic, nuanced approach to the environmental circumstances (e.g., judging one’s own per- study of motivation. In explicating the complexities of formance relative to that of one’s peers) and personal stand- motivation and strategies derived therefrom, they formulate ards (e.g., considering whether to exercise self-influence to a self-regulatory hierarchy based on an extensive literature cope with the circumstances with reference to one’s princi- review and the collation of empirical evidence. Their article ples). Although these postulations shed light on the influen- is brimful of insights into the motivation literature, particu- ces of self-monitoring, self-evaluation, and self-regulation on larly the widely held belief about the adaptiveness of the given situation, such influences are not determined by approach (vs. avoidance) motivation. In their view, no single the environment. Rather, individuals actively construe their type of motivation-driven strategy is inherently adaptive or