The Paradox of Control:
Gelassenheit, Stoicism,
Personal Control and God
Thomas V. Merluzzi
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Indiana USA
tmerluzz@nd.edu
Thanks to
Steve Fredman for discussions on ancient
philosophy and galessenheit
Niels for friendship, colleagueship, and an
invitation to Denmark
Overview
Historical Perspectives
Psychological Perspectives on Control
Development of Control Beliefs
Primary and Secondary Control
Faith and Control
– Types of Religious Problem Solving
Integrating Types and Control Theory
Lao Tsu
Tao Te Ching
– Wei wu wei
“doing not-doing”
“Less and less do you need to force things, until
finally you arrive at non-action.”
Lao Tsu
Can you coax your mind from its wandering and keep to
the original oneness?
Can you let your body become supple as a newborn
child’s?
Can you cleanse your inner vision until you see nothing but
the light?
Can you love people and lead them without imposing your
will?
Can you deal with the most vital matters by letting events
take their course?
Can you step back from your own mind and thus
understand all things?
Stoicism
Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius
Filtered through Pierre Hadot
– Happiness consists in the demands of good
– Happiness is accessible to all within this life
– World view
Fatalism – external causes and fate
– However, “what does depend on us is to will
to do good and act in conformity with reason.”
Referred to as coherence
Stoicism
Coherence sounds paradoxical
– Sets stage for detachment from outcomes
Stoics espouse a process model
– Do good and detach from externals
– Everything outside moral intention is
indifferent
– Helps us navigate in an uncertain world
Stoics
Seneca
– “Disaster is virtue’s opportunity.”
– Not opposed to goals or confidence
Efficacy in moral intention and behavior with no
expectations about the outcomes
Meister Eckhart
Late 13th early 14th century Dominican
– Wrote many sermons, which are now
becoming more popular
– Moral liberation is also intellectual liberation
– Gelassenheit
Detachment, serenity
– from suffering and pain
– Teachings are in line with Christian asceticism
Martin Heidegger
Secular version of Gelassenheit
– A phenomenonological experience that
represents a process by which we arrive at
“releasement”
“Active waiting”
Was interested in translating the TaoTe
Ching but never was able to complete it.
Modern Conceptions of
Gelassenheit
Mindfulness
– Focus on the here and now
– Heightened awareness
– Used with chronic pain patients
Pain becomes intimately intertwined with “self” and
the social context (John Kabat-Zinn)
Transform identity from a “pain patient” to a
“person with pain”
Make peace with their pain
Niebuhr
Serenity Prayer
– God grant me the strength to change the
things I can change, accept the things I
cannot change and the wisdom to know the
difference
12 step programs – first step is to accept
that there is a power greater than mine
Personal Control
Buddism
– Doing not-doing
Stoicim
– Control over our intentions and behavior
– Moral imperative
– Outcomes not controllable
Gelassenheit
– Detachment
– Releasement
Modern “Western” Perspectives on
Psychological Control
Rather pervasive concept in mental and
physical health
– Self-control
– Self-regulation
– Self-reliance
– Self-efficacy
– Agency
All typically associated with positive coping
and adjustment to illness
Control and Western Concepts
of Health
Derived from male sex role characteristics
Definition of health is socially and
culturally informed
Psychological Control
Opposite of control not valued in our
society
– Passivity
– Withdrawal
– Submissiveness
– Helplessness
– Impulsivity
– Behavior Excesses
Control: Psychology versus Faith?
Psychological perspective
– Emphasis on personal control
Positive outcomes related to degree of personal control
Perceived, “illusory” control (S. Taylor)
Faith perspective
– Emphasis on deferring control
Positive outcomes related to the relinquishing of control
–
–
–
–
Trust in God
“Turn it over to God”
Niebuhr’s serenity prayer
“Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”
Approaches to
Psychological Control in the
Context of Illness
Psychological Control:
Self-Regulation
Self-control
– Self-regulation
In children –
– emotional self-regulation
– ADHD
In adults –
– Independence
– Problem solving
– Dysregulation = addictions
Premise is that our behavior affects the world
– ActionsOutcomes (Carver & Scheier, 1998)
– Alternative to self-regulation no relation between our
actions and outcomes
Stoics, Zen
Psychological Control:
Learned Helplessness
Learned Helplessness (Seligman, 1975)
– Motivational, cognitive, and emotional deficits
due to prolonged exposure to non-contingent
events
Actions are uncorrelated with outcomes
– However, we retain the belief that they should be
correlated
Contrast with Stoicism, Gelassenheit
Construct that accounts for depression (Levenson, 1973)
Suspension of means-ends beliefs (E. Skinner et al., 1988)
– Premise that certain actions produce desired or prevent
undesired outcomes is repeatedly disconfirmed
Can we appreciate the complex relation between
actions and outcomes?
Psychological Control: Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy
– Beliefs/Expectations about our ability to
execute actions (behaviors, thoughts) (Bandura, 1997)
Two types of expectancies
1. Behavior (Actions) expectancy (self-efficacy)
2. Outcome expectancy
What is the likelihood of Y if I do X at this level of
competence
Self-Efficacy
Choose behaviors that will maximize
outcomes
– Persist in behaviors where the outcome is
valued
Cause-effect relation may be illusory
– May not reflect actual physical relationships in the world
– We “force” correlations between our behavior and
desired outcomes
– Perceived control paradigm
Seneca and self-efficacy
Failures of Control
Type A behavior pattern (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974)
– High risk for MI and repeat MI
– Anger and cynical hostility
Misattributions about others
– antagonistic or threatening
Control to counteract perceived control by others
Unmitigated Agency (Helgeson & Lepore, 1997)
– Agency (excessive control) unmitigated by
communion (connection with others) not an
effective coping strategy
Failures of Control
The Bernie Siegel Effect
– Attributing the cause of recurrence of cancer
to lack of control over negative thoughts
– “The prison of positive thinking” (D. Spiegel)
– High personal control/ High personal
responsibility
– Too much control attributed in the face of
uncertainty
Self-blame ensues
Development of Control Beliefs
Not a static concept
Changes throughout the
lifespan
Early Adulthood (22-35)
Hyper-Control
– “Personal Fable” in adolescence
Belief in complete control
– Perceived invulnerability
– May actually perceive danger but also willing
to take risks
– Low incidence of fatal diseases
– Dominant factors in life satisfaction
Family life (independence from family)
Standard of living
Middle Age (35-44)
Career Control
– Attainment: Success in career and material
world….but also….
– Come to terms with aging (Sheehy, 1995)
– Develop/Revisit/Refine value orientation
– Dominant factors in life satisfaction
Standard of living
Family life (quality of relationships – spouse,
children)
Late Middle Age (45-64)
Control in Transition
– Balance work and relationships
– Moral aspects of work and social responsibility
Reflection on the bigger picture
Generativity – helping the formation of the next generation
– Experiences losses
Deaths as well as physical stamina
Rapid increase in mortality due to heart disease, cancer, etc.
– Caregiving
Men may become more nurturing and accepting of care
Late Middle Age (45-64) Con’t
Transition
– Dominant factors in life satisfaction
Family life
SATISFACTION WITH HEALTH
Standard of living
– Cognitive shift in health consciousness
Attempts to maintain, regain, or grieve loss of
health (Merluzzi & Nairn, 1999)
Late Adulthood (65+)
Limits of Control
– Come to terms with limitations of control
– Much more illness
“Expected” versus “Unexpected” illness
– Come to expect more illness with aging
– Termination of employment
– Loss of independence
– Dominant factors in life satisfaction
Family life
Standard of living
SATISFACTION WITH HEALTH
Developmental Context
of Control Beliefs – Summing Up
Early and middle adulthood
– Emphasis on controllability
– Unexpected illness more devastating
Older adults
– Reconciliation of control beliefs with reality
Does not result in total loss of control
– Compensatory strategy (Freund & Baltes, 2002)
Selection, Optimization, Compensation
– Relative norming – “compared to others…”
“Reality” changes across the lifespan
– “Unexpected” becomes more “expected”
Two Forms of Control
Primary Control
– Change the environment
Secondary Control
– Change ourselves
Primary and Secondary Control
Primary Control
– Bringing the environment in line with our wishes
Imposing control
Oriented to outcomes
Early Adulthood and Middle Age
Higher demand for control in young adulthood
Secondary Control
– Bringing ourselves in line with environmental forces
Coming to terms with the limits of control
Outcomes are not controllable OR
Outcomes are internal
Late adulthood
Secondary Control
Types of Secondary Control
– Attributions of outcomes to
Severe limited ability (negative outcomes)
Luck or chance (positive or negative outcomes)
– Secondary control that may be faith-based
Powerful others – forces beyond our control
(positive or negative outcomes)
– God referenced control
Interpretive control – seek to understand and
derive meaning from uncontrollable events
(transform negative to positive)
– Meaning referenced control
Faith and Control
Faith Perspectives on Control (Pargament, 1997)
– Self-Directing (Primary Control)
God gives people freedom to direct their own lives
I have control
– Collaborative (Primary and Secondary Control)
Problem solving process held jointly by the
individual and God
Shared control with God
– Deferring (Secondary Control)
God is the source of all solutions
God has control
Research on the Structure of
Religious Control
Healthy group of church members
(Hathaway & Pargament, 1990)
– Found 3 distinct control styles
Collaborative, Deferring, Self-directing
Although Collaborative and Deferring somewhat correlated
Persons with cancer (Nairn & Merluzzi, 2003)
– Found that the Collaborative & Deferring styles are
very highly correlated
– Thus, just two control styles found
Collaborative/Deferring and Self-Directing
– highly negatively correlated
Comparison of Collaborative/Deferring
and Self-Directing
Collaborative/
Deferring
Self-Directing (-)
7.52*
Self-Directing (+)
21.70
Attend Religious Services
4.28*
Pray, how often
7.24*
How religious
4.10*
SP Well Being (Faith)
13.21*
SP Coping Efficacy
76.31*
Self-Directing
11.86*
20.64
3.40*
4.25*
3.00*
9.35*
62.28*
Comparing C/D and SD
Collaborative/
Deferring
SP Well Being (Meaning)
34.24
Coping Self-efficacy
97.38
Quality of Life (FACT)
Physical
12.87
Social/Family
28.23
Emotional
11.65
Functional
27.12
Mindfulness
64.79*
Self-Directing
34.27
102.53
12.04
29.00
10.40
29.09
69.32*
Three Types Of People
Collaborative/
30
Collaborative
20
Deferring (CD)
10
Deferring
H
H
L
Self-Directing
30
Self-Directing
(SD)
20
10
L
L
H
H
H
H
30
Paradox-ers
CD + SD
20
10
Differences in the Three Types
Paradox-ers highest on all scales of the Cancer Behavior
Inventory (agentic coping)
– Maintaining Activity and Independence : P>C/D=SD
– Coping with Side Effects
P>C/D=SD
– Positive Attitude
P>CD>SD
– Seeking Medical Information
P>C/D=SD
– Emotional Regulation
P>C/D=SD
– Seeking Support
P>C/D>SD
Religiousness
P = CD > SD
Trends
– Social Support
– Adjustment
CD>SD>P
P=CD>SD
Contextualizing of Control
Optimizing Health
– For a well population in terms of esteem and
adjustment
Self-Directing and Collaborative
– for prevention of illness and promotion of health
– For those coping with serious illness
Self-Directing less effective
Collaborative and Deferring correlated and more
effective
Paradox-ers approach most effective? Most
flexible?
– Able to “live” with the seemingly opposing strategies
Continuum of Control
Primary Control
Secondary Control
Engagement
Detachment
Health/ Acute Illness
Self-Directed
Chronic Illness
Deferring
Prevention
Acceptance
Younger
Older
Paradox-er is able to move
along this continuum depending
upon the context of coping
Integrating Types and
Control Theory
Self-Directing Type
– Control over Behavior and Outcome
expectancy
High correlation of behavior (action) and outcome
expectancies
High expectations for certain outcomes
Works for prevention
Cause – Effect attribution
Rigid perspective of God as uninvolved
Integrating Types and
Control Theory
Collaborative/Deferring Type
– Increasing recognition of the uncertainty of
outcomes
– Secondary control (trust in a powerful God) is
a hedge against hopelessness
– Effective when coping with serious disease
– God as partner or completely in control
Integrating Types and
Control Theory
Paradox-ers
– Most flexible – most adaptable to all situations
High behavior expectancies
– Likely to engage in coping behaviors, BUT…..
– Flexible outcome expectancies based on uncertainty of
the situation
– Flexible perspective on God
– OR – they are merely pragmatists
Questions
Should people who are ill be indifferent to
the outcomes as the Stoics suggest?
When does Gelassenheit have value?
More Questions
– Is illness a “reality” check on the limitations of
personal control?
Does moving from health to illness change our perspective
on control AND our relationship with God?
Does serious illness “cause” a convergence of collaborative
and deferring problem-solving or coping styles?
– Is the Paradox approach the most flexible and most
effective?
Need for qualitative and longitudinal research
How do they live with the paradox of control and deferring?