The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification.
Abstract
This research examined individual differences in action identification level as measured by the Behavior Identification Form. Action identification theory holds that any action can be identified in many ways, ranging from low-level identities that specify how the action is performed to high-level identities that signify why or with what effect the action is performed. People who identify action at a uniformly lower or higher level across many action domains, then, may be characterized in terms of their standing on a broad personality dimension: level of personal agency. High-level agents think about their acts in encompassing terms that incorporate the motives and larger meanings of the action, whereas low-level agents think about their acts in terms of the details or means of action. Research on the convergent, divergent, and predictive validity of this construct examined its implications for the individual's overall competence in action, for the individual's inclination toward planful versus impulsive action and for the degree to which the individual's actions are organized by and reflected in the self-concept. Some people think they can do big things. They set out to write a book, to make a fortune, or to win an election. There are others, however, who may undertake much the same tasks
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Rotter, J. B. (1966) · Psychological Monographs: General and Applied · doi:10.1037/h0092976 · Cited by 21,937
The measurement of psychological androgyny
Bem, S. L. (1974) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0036215 · Cited by 8,522
What do people think they're doing? Action identification and human behavior.
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.1.3 · Cited by 1,802
Self-citationCategorization of action slips
Norman, D. A. (1981) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.88.1.1 · Cited by 1,736
The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time.
Epstein, S. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.7.1097 · Cited by 1,468
Cited by
Construal-level theory of psychological distance.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0018963 · Cited by 6,618
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.3.403 · Cited by 3,006
Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought
Watkins, E. R. (2008) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.163 · Cited by 2,421
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/s1057-7408(07)70013-x · Cited by 1,772
Solving the puzzle of deliberate self-harm: The experiential avoidance model
Chapman, A. L., Gratz, K. L., & Brown, M. Z. (2006) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.03.005 · Cited by 1,475
Metadata
- Authors
- Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 1989-10
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 660-671
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2051355184
- Cited by
- 978
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 2.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.