What is control?: A conceptual analysis.

In this chapter, we critically examine what is meant by the term control, and suggest that there are actually two meanings. One meaning of control, as suggested by numerous dual-process and dual-systems theories, refers to whether a process can be characterized by one or more of the features associated with automatic processes (i.e., the absence of conscious intention, the absence of conscious awareness, the inability to disrupt, and/or the efficiency of operation; Bargh, 1994). In short, a controlled process is one that is not automatic. There is, however, a second meaning of control— one that refers instead to the extent to which a process helps to attain a desired goal or end. This sense of control refers not to some specific feature of an isolated process but rather to its relation to other processes from the perspective of the whole. Key to this second meaning of control is the notion of structure—the top-down organization of thoughts, feelings, and behavior to promote a given end. When a process operates in harmony with and sustains the goal-directed structure of the whole, that process can be described as "controlled." When a process, however, is discordant with and undermines the goal-directed structure of the whole, that process can be described as "out-of control" or "lacking control." Our central thesis is that the conflating of these two meanings of control—as something that is not automatic and something that is goal directed— has led many to make erroneous conclusions about the nature of controlled processing and its relationship to automaticity. We review empirical evidence that highlights the conceptual independence of these two meanings of control, and argue that it is time to recognize that "control" is not necessarily the opposite of "automatic." (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)