Short-term induction of assimilation and accommodation

Abstract

The dual-process model of developmental regulation distinguishes two processes of self-regulation (assimilation = tenacious goal pursuit, and accommodation = flexible goal adjustment) that depend on differing conditions, but both contribute to successful development. Four experiments were conducted to investigate whether assimilation and accommodation can be induced or at least shifted by sensorimotor and cognitive manipulations. Experiment 1 investigated the relation between body manipulation and self-regulation. It was shown that assimilation could be triggered when participants were asked to hold on to golf balls as compared to being asked to drop them. Experiment 2 showed that a semantic priming of “let go” or “hold on” via instructions influenced the processes of self-regulation. Experiment 3 and Experiment 4 investigated the role of cognitive sets (divergent thinking) and motivational processes (thinking about one's action resources) in enhancing accommodation or assimilation. As expected, accommodation was triggered by an intervention activating divergent thought, and participants were more assimilative when they thought about their action resources. In sum, the results indicate that assimilation and accommodation can be induced experimentally; they were systematically dependent on physical, cognitive, and motivational states. The implications of the findings were discussed in the light of the dual-process model.

Keywords:

• Accommodation
• Assimilation
• Body manipulation
• Divergent thinking
• Mental set

Bernhard Leipold and Christina Bermeitinger contributed equally to the paper.

We wish to thank two anonymous reviewers, Merim Bilalić, and Amy Michele for valuable comments on an earlier version of this article.

Notes

¹ The concepts of assimilation and accommodation in this study refer to personal goals and are used sensu Brandtstädter. Thus, they differ from Piagetian use.

² It should be noted that this framework also addresses unconscious processes (e.g., immunization tendencies, defences; Brandtstädter & Greve, 1994; Greve & Wentura, 2007, 2010) that contribute to a perceived is–ought discrepancy.

³ Methodologically, the F test with one numerator degree of freedom is equivalent to a two-tailed t test (see Maxwell & Delaney, 1990). Thus, given the general prediction of a positive priming effect, a one-tailed test is allowed.

⁴ We modified eight items of the Tenflex-questionnaire (Brandtstädter & Renner, 1990) by asking participants whether each item would be assimilative or accommodative with regard to a fictitious life problem (writing short stories). A factor analysis revealed that items of assimilation and accommodation were highly intercorrelated in this concrete scenario and loaded on the first principal component. We extracted the first principal component indicating that assimilation and accommodation (both modalities) can be differentiated in one bimodal dimension.

⁵ One reviewer wondered whether thinking about creative problem solution, which was part of the instruction in Experiment 3, contradicts the results of divergent thinking of Experiment 2 and should lead to higher degrees of accommodation. We interpret the creative solution as perceived action resource because individuals were asked to think about a problem they had already and successfully solved. Thinking about own competencies results in assimilation. The task of Experiment 2 was to think about several objects and situations with regard to their atypical or typical functions. An alternative explanation is that motivational differences (e.g., trained efficacy) could be stimulated by the instructions too.

⁶ The pattern of effects remained stable across both scenarios and demonstrated that the intervention had the same impact on participants’ reactions. However, the results showed a significant scenario effect. An internship is, on average, possibly more important for students than writing short stories is; this could explain the assimilative reactions.