methods of learning (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2001; Kitsantas & Zimmerman,
2002). Attributions of failure to insufficient effort can have a positive effect
on achievement when learners are already using an effective learning strat-
egy. However, as was noted earlier, when a strategy needs to be changed or
adapted, effort attributions can adversely affect subsequent learning (Ander-
son & Jennings, 1980; Clifford, 1986; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997). In
contrast, proactive self-regulators are primed by their process goals and their
use of strategies to attribute negative outcomes to ineffective strategy use. Be-
cause strategies can be self-controlled, these attributions will sustain motiva-
tion to adapt the strategies further.
Self-evaluation and attribution self-judgments are closely linked to two key
self-reactions: self-satisfaction and adaptive inferences. The former refers to
perceptions of self-satisfaction or dissatisfaction and associated emotional
affect, such as elation or depression, regarding one’s performance, which in-
fluences the courses of action that people pursue (Bandura, 1991). Like other
self-reflective processes, self-satisfaction is not an automatic outcome of per-
formance but rather depends on learners’ self-judgmental criteria, as well as
forethought goals and performance phase strategies. Adaptive or defensive in-
ferences refer to self-reactions by students about how to alter their self-
regulatory approach during subsequent efforts to learn or perform, such as
shifting from a text creation writing strategy to a text revision strategy. Adap-
tive inferences are important because they guide students to new and poten-
tially more effective forms of performance self-regulation whereas defensive in-
ferences serve primarily to protect the person from future dissatisfaction and
aversive affect. Defensive self-reactions, such as helplessness, procrastination,
task avoidance, cognitive disengagement, and apathy, are self-handicapping
because they ultimately limit personal growth (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994).
As we previously noted, proactive learners’ attributions of errors to learn-
ing processes, such as strategies, sustains their self-satisfaction and fosters
variations in strategy use until learners discover an improved version (Cleary
& Zimmerman, 2001). Attributions of unfavorable results to uncontrollable
factors by reactive self-regulators lead to dissatisfaction and undermines fur-
ther adaptive efforts. Because of their preoccupation with outcomes, reactive
self-regulators will often engage in self-protection and may actively avoid fu-
ture learning efforts or create barriers that diminish their perceived responsi-
bility for future adverse outcomes. By contrast, proactive self-regulators sys-
tematically adapt their performance on the basis of their process goals,
learning strategy, process self-monitoring, and self-evaluation judgments. In
this way, the strategic process goals of proactive self-regulators lead to
greater self-satisfaction and more effective forms of adaptation. These out-
comes cyclically influence forethought self-motivational beliefs, goals and
strategy choices for further self-regulatory efforts to learn (Cleary & Zim-
merman, 2001; Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2002).
- SELF-REGULATION 343