1

Self-Regulation and Incrementalism:

Susan’s Case Study Review

Self-Regulation and Incrementalism: Susan’s Case Study Review

Noah Dillinger

PSYC3520

Self and Self-Control

Capella University

January 29th, 2023

Self-Regulation and Incrementalism: Susan’s Case Study Review

Case Study

Susan was an aspiring, hard-working, single mother who is actively pursuing goals in

which she hopes to provide a better life for both herself and her son, Joe, and is motivated

through realizing that her current job lacks prospective growth. Susan, who is currently a student

at an online university, is duly motivated to achieve an undergraduate degree in the field of

psychology with hopes to one day become an addiction therapist. Susan, who sets high

expectations and standards for herself, also has dreams and aspirations to acquire a Master’s

degree or her PhD in psychology.

Grit and determination are evident in Susan’s early educational journey as diligently

plans out her busy life. She However, Susan struggles with self-control and her initial motivation

and determinations dwindle and, over time, begin to appear nonexistent. We can observe that

Susan begins to experience the social psychology theory of self-regulation, or lack thereof,

which is largely explained through an ethical compromising concept known as incrementalism.

In a broader context, incrementalism may be just one component of the larger concept, self-

deception, which lends to ethical fading (Tenbrunsel and Messick, 2004). We see this theory and

concept affect Susan as she slowly begins to lose her momentum after recognizing her own

social/psychological needs to spend time with family, friends, and personal time. Despite the

situational clarity and understanding of her needs, the slow, step-by-step regression, is what has

been called the “slippery slope phenomenon” (Cicero, 2021, as cited in Moore, 2009, p. 1171).

Self-regulation, that is, an individual’s capacity of fortitude and perseverance towards a

goal or goals despite the required effort, obstacles, and time/resource consuming activities

necessary to the goal’s accomplishment (Critcher and Ferguson, 2016). Malanchini et. al. (2019)
 3

states self-regulation as the efforts which go beyond conflicts, disruptions, impulsivity, and

desires. Early in Susan’s undertaking of higher education, we see the buddings of what could be

strong self-regulation in her approach to setting high standards, planning an appropriate schedule

to meet her school needs, and continual motivation by researching other professions in the field

of psychology. These are all strong ways to attain her goals of one day achieving a Master’s

degree of PhD. However, as we follow along Susan, her implicit self-regulation towards her high

aspirations are not equally met and she begins to slide into end-state only thinking. In turn, this

mentality is only associated and focused on what she must do in order to receive the goal desired,

that is, the means (Critcher and Ferguson, 2016).

The evidence of incrementalism is apparent when Susan begins to cut corners in attempts

to find ways meet both her personal, psychosocial needs, as well as her educational obligations.

In doing so, Susan begins to write her discussion papers without conducting appropriate and

necessary research. In answering questions, Susan realizes that she can still receive an adequate

and passing score by not investing the time to include appropriate citations and supporting

references. These littler moments, assessed individually, may not lead us to believe that Susan is

struggling with self-regulation. It is only when observed over time, do these small chips in

Susan’s self-regulatory faculties reveal an ethical compromise. Susan now subscribes to a

“means to an end” mentality. In doing so, Susan believes that these smaller steps will not affect

her future career. She assumes that her clients will neither be concerned or curious enough to ask

her about her college GPA nor presume that she did previously held aspirations to become one of

the world’s greatest therapists. Now, Susan is only focused only acquiring an undergraduate

degree in order to have a better career, make more money, and in-turn, achieve her ultimate end-

goal, to have a better life.

Research Support

Research Summary

The primary article used for this case study was by Critcher and Ferguson (2016). Their

research in self-regulation assess and analyzes different components that lead to effective self-

regulatory persistence and success. Their research is composed of eight individual studies (which

includes their pilot study) to address self-regulation and analyze what they believe to be the

critical factor of successful self-regulation, the evaluation and importance of means (Critcher and

Ferguson, 2016).

Their pilot study, was used to assess if participates (193 undergraduates at UC Berkeley)

could differentiate key words of a goal’s means or a goal’s pursuit (Critcher and Ferguson,

2016). The pilot also addressed the validity of these words which were additionally used in

Critcher and Ferguson’s subsequent studies with exception of study 5. The pilot study was

successful in that the participants were able to identify all of the key words used as well as the

validity necessary of these key words to achieve a goal.

Study 1 used three-hundred and twelve undergraduates from Cornell University to assess

if the valued importance of a goal’s means would predict effective self-regulatory pursuits of this

goal. Implicit importance and implicit evaluation of schoolwork were analyzed and post

assessment uploading of current GPA via web link were used to draw conclusion. This study

found that prior success may predict a stronger association between academics and means

(Critcher and Ferguson, 2016).

Study 2 was conducted to assess an individual’s measure of self-regulatory effort. This

was done by using ninety participants from UC Berkeley and completing implicit association

tests (IATs) on the importance of positivity and explicit attitude of the means. Study 2 concluded
 5

with critical findings that both the implicit positivity and explicit attitude of means are key

indicators of self-regulatory effort and success (Critcher and Ferguson, 2016).

Study 3, which was broken into two sub-studies, 3a and 3b, were used to assess one

hundred and twenty-four undergraduate students from Cornell University personal perceived

importance of performance (3a) and the implicit and explicit evaluation IAT of answers received

from 3a and their paralleled measures (3b). The important findings of this study is how self-

regulation can be successful when implicit importance of means acts as an reinforcement to

continued self-regulation (Critcher and Ferguson, 2016).

Study 4, which used seventy-five undergraduates from Cornell University as participates,

had individuals take web-based tests to measure perceptions of hard work is correlated with an

ability of improvement. Among their findings, it was concluded that failure is combatted by

stronger persistence and commitment to achieving a goal. Additionally, evidence that association

between importance of means may also account for and individual’s increased and decreased

effort contingent of the perceived importance of work after experiencing evidence of failure and

success (Critcher and Ferguson, 2016).

Study 5 used fifty-nine students from UC Berkeley to address the benefits of implicit

importance. This was conducted by evaluating how self-regulatory effort effected GRE

performance and concluded that those who found self-regulation difficult were also those who

showed implicit positivity (importance) towards means and subsequently benefitted the most by

these associations and predicts those who will exert more effort for self-regulation (Critcher and

Ferguson, 2016).

Study 6, which builds upon the previous studies, used one hundred and forty-five UC

Berkeley undergraduates and assess predicted persistence, predicted enactment, and the benefit
 6

of individuals who exerted self-control and their association of importance. This study, which

assessed the physical component of self-regulatory control rather than academic or intellectual,

similarly showed that individuals who persisted are those who benefitted most from means, not

necessarily the end-state or end-goal (Critcher and Ferguson, 2016).

Study 7, the final study from Critcher and Ferguson’s 2016 research, showed that the

implicit evaluation of end-goals are not the primary cause of self-regulation but rather the

implicit importance of means. This conclusion was drawn from one hundred and sixty-one

undergraduate students, from varied colleges and universities, who participated in IAT of

physical tasks as well as intellectual/academic tasks which measured implicit importance of

means and studies their self-regulatory behavior (Critcher and Ferguson, 2016).

Research Interpretation

Critcher and Ferguson’s 2016 research concluded that successful and persistent self-

regulation was intrinsically dependent upon an individual’s implicit importance and evaluation

of the end-goal means. They explain four important components that are central to goal pursuit,

engagement, perseverance, and success. First, they that goals are pursued when the end-goal

results are the focus. Second, implicit evaluations (affinity of an end-goal) are the predictors of

goal pursuit, and it is important to evaluate the end-goal being pursued. Third, the means

required in the pursuit of the end-goal are inherently contingent upon the evaluation of the

positive association (positivity) of the means. Lastly, the value of importance, in contrast to

positivity, of the means is a determining factor in persistent, successful self-regulatory goal

pursuit. Thus, the greater value an individual associates with the means that required for attaining

the end-state (goal), the more an individual will be willing to persevere and possess and display

greater levels of self-regulation (Critcher and Ferguson, 2016).

Application of Self-Regulation

Self-regulation in many of the findings from Critcher and Ferguson’s 2016 research

journal are applicable by our observations of Susan’s case study. There are multiple sequences

and progressions of end-goals, accompanied by means to those end-states, which Susan pursues.

Retroactively speaking, Susan’s ultimate end goal is to have a better life, make more money,

have a professional career (which may or may not include a Master’s degree of PhD), and to

acquire an undergraduate degree in psychology. Each of the above-mentioned stages are end-

states followed by the means to reach them.

Susan displays self-regulatory understanding that the what is just as important in order to

successfully acquire the end-state (e.g., in order to have a better quality of life, it is important for

her to make more money through having a better career which can only be achieved by acquiring

degree). However, self-regulation goes beyond understanding of what is required to achieve end-

state goals. Self-regulation, as explained by Malanchini et. al. (2016), encompasses both the

internal and external behaviors that extend beyond internal or external desires, distractions,

impulses, conflicts, etc. For Susan, we can see early evidence of this when she carefully plans

out her school/work/family life early one in her story. And later, we begin to see her lack of self-

regulatory faculties as she backslides into a “means to an end” mentality. While we cannot

assume Susan adhere to the same research findings by Critcher and Ferguson (2016), we can

evaluate the various aspects of the various studies and how these may have played a role into

Susan’s self-regulatory efforts, successes, and failures.

Critcher and Ferguson’s 2016 research showed from study 1 that individuals who may

have had previous academic success may have cause a stronger correlation between their implicit

associations of academics and the importance they play into the desired end-state. For Susan, we
 8

can see evidence of this when she recognizes that her previous academic effort was sufficient to

a point where “sliding by” would still produce the desired end-state, that is, her valuation of her

discussions being written off the top of her head and not including appropriate citations and

references, knowing that she would, at the end of the day, earn her degree.

Study 2 by Critcher and Ferguson (2016), which determined that implicit importance and

explicit evaluations of the important of the means for an end-state or goal are proven predictors

of an individual’s self-regulatory efforts and persistence. In Susan’s case study, we see how the

explicit evaluations (knowing that a degree is important for her future end-state goals) and

implicit importance of means (becoming an undergraduate student with a strong study schedule,

time management, and the successful student behaviors towards readings and faculty feedback)

played a role in her initial self-regulatory efforts. However, what Susan lacked was the going

beyond impulse control and conflicting situations/desires which are crucial components of self-

regulation (Malanchini et. al., 2019).

Study 3a and 3b, which explained how the implicit importance of means is the superior

predictor of self-regulatory efforts when compared to explicit importance of means (Critcher and

Ferguson, 2016), show us the why behind Susan’s initial motivations and momentum. It can be

implied by Susan’s early efforts towards her end-state goal that implicit importance of means

was evident. However, due to Susan’s early successes, which as study 2 predicts as a stronger

association to implicit importance of means, the fourth study Critcher and Ferguson (2016) notes

the importance of how failure can play a critical role in strengthen a stronger association between

implicit importance of means (Critcher and Ferguson, 2016). Susan, who while having early

academic success evidenced by her recognition of accepting a lower, yet still passing, grade

would still achieve a degree. Because of her early successes, Susan had yet to face surmountable
 9

failure which, in turn, may have led to a lesser association between importance of means and

thereby reducing her overall commitment to her academic self-regulatory efforts.

A complimenting study to the results found within study 4 is study 5. Study 5 helped

explain how an individual who found a component of self-regulation particularly difficult, such

as a specific task or discipline, are those who benefitted the most form the implicit association of

importance of each of the tasks and how they are paramount to the desired end-state goal

(Critcher and Ferguson, 2016). What we find in Susan’s case a combination of both study 4 and

study 5 working in tandem. Susan, who having not faced significant failure surrounding her

overall end-goal of acquiring an undergraduate degree, also supposed that minimal efforts that

will still achieve her end goal would be acceptable. It can be implied that, due to Susan’s self-

recognition of her academic abilities, she did not find academics tasking or difficult and thereby

benefitted less from the implicit association of importance of means for the task of academic

self-regulation. Study 6 also supports study 5 in that it found individuals who an exercise related

to self-regulation to be challenging are also those who benefitted most from the implicit

association to that exercise and its direct importance of means.

The last study by Critcher and Ferguson (2016), study 7, explains how an individual’s

implicit evaluation of the ends-only focus did not increase self-regulatory efforts nor did it

appear to have a direct impact on an individual’s studying behaviors. What did impact self-

regulatory efforts and subsequent behaviors was one’s implicit importance of the means. We can

evidence of this in Susan’s case study by her approach and attitude which shifted from an initial

implicit importance of means to that of an implicit evaluation of means to an end-state goal.

Susan’s behavior essentially turned from one who displayed a high valuation of the importance

of means to behaviors which are parallel to that of Critcher and Ferguson’s findings.
 10

So how can it be that an individual who displays initial evidence of implicit evaluation

and importance of means becomes disinterested and loses or decreases their self-regulatory

efforts? While nearly every example of Critcher and Ferguson’s individual studies could be

applied, Susan’s self-regulatory efforts decreased. As previously explained by Malanichi et. al.’s

(2019), self-regulation must go beyond both behaviors, as well as internal states of motivation or

distractions. Susan’s initial motivation and efforts which subside to minimal efforts displays

evidence of ethical compromises within her self-regulatory faculties, despite reasonable

intentions and clarity of reasoning.

Ethical Reasoning Application

Each case study has at least one ethical issue to consider. Utilizing the elements of

behavioral ethics, apply at least one ethical reasoning concept to your chosen case study.

Incrementalism

Provide a brief description of the ethical concept that is evident in your case study, and

include a citation and reference to the source of your information about the concept. This section

reveals your understanding of the ethical concept.

Supportive Evidence

Describe the relevant details from the case study that support your conclusion that this

ethical issue is applicable in your case. This section reveals your ability to identify the clues or

markers that indicate the presence of the ethical concept.

Critical Thinking Application

Each case study displays at least one critical thinking issue. Utilizing the standards of

critical thinking, identify and apply at least one critical thinking concept in your case study.

Clarity
 11

Provide a brief description of the critical thinking issue that is evident in your case study,

and include a citation and reference to the source of your information about the concept. This

section reveals your understanding of the critical thinking concept.

Supportive Evidence

Describe the relevant details from the case study that support your conclusion that this

critical thinking issue is applicable in your case. This section reveals your ability to identify the

clues or markers that indicate the presence of the critical thinking concept.
 12

References (separate page)

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2021). Social psychology and human nature (5th ed.).

Cengage.