Serendipity as an Example for a New Four-tiered Model of the Study of Intentional Self-regulation

Abstract

This article describes how actions transform chance events into sustained positive development. I argue that serendipity is intentional, and involves the coaction of self-regulatory actions and chance life events. To provide a foundation for research on both serendipity and self-regulation more generally, I introduce a model of self-regulation research organized across the nomothetic-idiographic spectrum. In this model, every self-regulatory action should be simultaneously studied at various levels of generality and specificity. Using the example case of serendipity, I argue that self-regulation research should adopt this model to capture the full richness of goal striving.

Notes

¹ Although we typically associate serendipity with significant life events, note that the below model applies for relatively-mundane daily instances of “minor serendipity.” For example, people could serendipitously choose to read an article lying next to a printer, and that paper could end up a citation in their next manuscript.

² I deliberately focus on goal-related research in the developmental sciences, which is often termed “intentional self-regulation.” Self-regulation, more broadly, is prevalent across many disciplines, and within each discipline, favored definitions and concepts vary. For an overview of self-regulation at this broad level, I direct readers to Karoly’s review (1993) or a chapter by Geldhof and colleagues (Geldhof et al., 2010). Despite the differences in self-regulation research across disciplines, I contend that the four-tiered model presented below could be extended to other instances of self-regulation research.

³ It should be noted that Geldhof, Little, and Colombo’s (2010) excellent heuristic model of action-theoretical self-regulation is similar to the four-tiered model presented here. These two models can be viewed as complimentary attempts to make sense of a complex field. Both are hierarchical, describing self-regulation at various levels of abstraction or specificity. Where they differ somewhat is in their aims. Geldhof and colleagues’ work synthesizes research across existing theoretical perspectives of ISR (e.g., motivational, social-constructivist), harmonizing evidence toward a metamodel for the development of ISR across the life span. The four-tiered model, in contrast, focuses more on ISR actions themselves, rather than their development, arguing that each instance of ISR can be understood as a nested series of more general or more idiosyncratic actions or processes.