Action Control of Students Scale

Abstract

The Action Control of Students Scale (German: Handlungskontrolle bei Studierenden; commonly designated in the academic literature as ACS-S or HAKEMP-Studium) is an established domain-specific psychometric instrument designed to assess individual differences in self-regulation and volitional control within higher education environments. Grounded directly in Julius Kuhl’s Theory of Action Control and its macro-theoretical extension, the Theory of Personality Systems Interactions (PSI), the ACS-S operationalizes the fundamental regulatory continuum between an action orientation (characterized by proactive goal execution, focused decision-making, efficient emotional recovery, and sustained intrinsic involvement) and a state orientation (characterized by cognitive rumination, behavioral procrastination, decisional hesitation, and emotional volatility). Developed as an academic-context adaptation of Kuhl’s broad-bandwidth Action Control Scale (HAKEMP / ACS-90), the instrument addresses the empirical necessity for context-sensitive assessment in student populations facing complex tertiary academic tasks, autonomous deadline management, and high-stakes examination stressors.

The ACS-S comprises 30 forced-choice scenario-based items categorized into three primary functional subscales of 10 items each: Failure-Related Action Control vs. Preoccupation (AOF/SOF), Decision-Related Action Control vs. Hesitation (AOD/SOD), and Performance-Related Action Control vs. Volatility / Disengagement (AOP/SOP). Each item presents a common academic predicament followed by two mutually exclusive behavioral or cognitive response options: one reflecting an action-oriented response (scored as 1) and the other reflecting a state-oriented response (scored as 0). Empirical evaluations in large tertiary cohorts confirm solid psychometric characteristics, demonstrating subscale retest reliabilities ranging from .59 to .75 over a one-year interval, subscale-to-test correlations between .71 and .83, and high internal consistency indices. Experimental and field validations demonstrate robust criterion, convergent, and discriminant validity across key academic indices, including objective examination performance, cognitive-affective distress under academic failure, thesis completion latency, and generalized self-regulatory coping.

Keywords

Action Control of Students Scale, ACS-S, HAKEMP-Studium, action orientation, state orientation, Julius Kuhl, volitional control, academic self-regulation, academic procrastination, rumination

Authors

The primary development, psychometric formalization, and academic contextualization of the Action Control of Students Scale (HAKEMP-Studium) were conducted by Prof. Dr. Siegfried Geyer and Prof. Dr. György Lilli. The conceptual framework builds upon the foundational theoretical architecture formulated by Prof. Dr. Julius Kuhl.

Primary Investigators & Institutional Affiliations:

• Prof. Dr. Siegfried Geyer: Department of Medical Sociology, Hannover Medical School (Medizinische Hochschule Hannover), Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany. E-Mail: [email protected]. Dr. Geyer specializes in medical sociology, health disparities, psychometrics, and the interface between personality disposition, chronic stress, and life trajectories.
• Prof. Dr. György Lilli: Social Psychology and Organizational Behaviour Research Unit, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Germany. Dr. Lilli’s work centers on social psychological attitudes, group performance dynamics, decision-making, and contextual test construction.
• Theoretical Architect: Prof. Dr. Julius Kuhl: Department of Personality Psychology and Psychodiagnostics, University of Osnabrück, Germany. Dr. Kuhl is the originator of the Theory of Action Control and Personality Systems Interactions (PSI) Theory.

Purpose

The fundamental objective of the Action Control of Students Scale (ACS-S) is to diagnose, quantify, and investigate individual differences in volitional self-regulation specifically tailored to the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive contingencies of academic study. While generalized motivational models—predominantly grounded in expectancy-value theories (such as those outlined by Atkinson and Birch)—conceptualize goal pursuit as a linear derivative of subjective success expectations multiplied by incentive values, empirical observations repeatedly demonstrate that high motivational intent alone is frequently insufficient to guarantee actual execution. A widespread empirical phenomenon in tertiary education is the “intention-behavior gap,” wherein students possess unambiguous, high-value academic intentions (e.g., preparing thoroughly for high-stakes examinations, drafting honors theses, participating in seminar debates, or filing timely administrative documentation), yet routinely collapse into protracted cycles of severe procrastination, debilitating doubt, or intrusive ruminative worry.

To capture the proximate cognitive and affective control mechanisms that govern whether an intention is successfully protected against competing action tendencies or paralyzed by dysfunctional mental states, Julius Kuhl formulated the construct of action control. While general psychometric batteries such as the HAKEMP-82 and ACS-90 capture this trait across generic everyday scenarios, socio-psychological and educational researchers identified a prominent limitation: general instruments exhibit reduced ecological validity when deployed among university undergraduates facing uniquely autonomous, unstructured learning environments. Undergraduate students represent a heavily sampled demographic in social-scientific research whose daily obligations demand sustained independent task initiation, ambiguous performance criteria, and heightened vulnerability to public academic failure. The ACS-S was explicitly engineered to bridge this gap by transposing the core theoretical facets of action versus state orientation into standardized, ecologically realistic student scenarios.

In research contexts, the scale serves as a sensitive predictor of academic pacing, self-efficacy manifestation, mastery orientation under adverse feedback, and resistance to intrusive cognitive interference during cognitive problem solving. In clinical, counseling, and higher education pedagogical applications, the ACS-S fulfills an indispensable diagnostic role. Academic counselors, psychological student services, and university mentors employ the instrument to disentangle motivational deficits from volitional execution impairments. When a student struggles with chronic study delay, the ACS-S clarifies whether the underlying dysfunction is rooted in low task valuing (which requires motivational reframing) or in state-oriented cognitive paralysis, decision-related hesitation, or inability to down-regulate negative affect following academic setbacks (which demands targeted metacognitive, volitional training, and stress-inoculation interventions).

Psychological Construct

The central psychological construct measured by the Action Control of Students Scale is Action vs. State Orientation within academic settings. Rather than constituting two polar categorical disorders or isolated traits, action orientation and state orientation represent two ideal-typical modes of cognitive and emotional regulation operating along a continuous dispositional spectrum. In Kuhl’s theoretical taxonomy, these orientations operate as “metacognitive directives” that orchestrate the allocation of working memory capacity, the gating of perceptual inputs, the activation of behavioral motor schemata, and the neuro-affective down-regulation of negative affect and up-regulation of positive affect.

1. Action Orientation (Handlungsorientierung)

Action orientation embodies an optimal self-regulatory state wherein an individual maintains continuous functional focus on current intention execution, dynamically coordinating four requisite psychological components: (a) the subjective present state, (b) the targeted future state, (c) the discrepancy between these states, and (d) the concrete operational behavioral pathway required to bridge that discrepancy. Within the tertiary learning milieu, an action-oriented student rapidly translates formulated plans into observable actions. Attention is selectively gated toward goal-facilitating cues, distractors are suppressed through automated shielding mechanisms, competing temptations are dampened, and behavioral initiation occurs with minimal latency. Crucially, when confronted with unexpected failure, academic rejection, or overwhelming task volume, an action-oriented individual down-regulates aversive negative affect (e.g., shame, anxiety, depression) swiftly, restoring internal self-access and pursuing alternate problem-solving strategies without intrusive cognitive interference.

2. State Orientation (Lageorientierung)

State orientation reflects a compromised self-regulatory mode characterized by fixation on past, present, or future cognitive states without active progression toward behavioral realization. In state-oriented functioning, the regulatory balance between internal states collapses into static circular reflection, colloquially termed rumination or excessive cognitive brooding. The individual concentrates exhaustively on either the negative emotional valence of an unfulfilled state, the threatening ramifications of prospective failure, or the paralyzing multiplicity of alternative options. Within academic environments, state orientation manifests as chronic decisional hesitation, extended initiation delays (academic procrastination), and profound vulnerability to performance impairments following poor evaluations or instructor reprimands. While the student remains intensely motivated at an ideological level, functional executive output is blocked because working memory capacity is completely monopolized by task-irrelevant, self-evaluative cognitions and perseverative affect.

The Three Structural Dimensions

The ACS-S operationalizes action control across three distinct, theoretically derived behavioral dimensions, each addressing a specialized volitional challenge in the student lifecycle:

• Failure-Related Action Control vs. Preoccupation (AOF / SOF): Quantifies an individual’s affective and cognitive recuperation following academic failure, negative evaluation, or interpersonal friction with instructional faculty. The action-oriented pole (AOF) denotes the capacity to rapidly detach attention from past failures, buffer one’s self-esteem, accept unalterable outcomes, and redirect cognitive resources toward constructive subsequent preparation. The state-oriented pole (SOF; Preoccupation) reflects persistent brooding, enduring depressive or anxious mood states, rumination over personal incompetence, and prolonged behavioral paralysis following negative academic events.
• Decision-Related Action Control vs. Hesitation (AOD / SOD): Evaluates the facility with which an individual resolves choice conflicts, commits to a selected academic pathway, and initiates targeted actions. The action-oriented pole (AOD) denotes decisive goal selection, structured planning, immediate task initiation, and proactive confrontation of tedious or complex requirements. The state-oriented pole (SOD; Hesitation) captures chronic indecisiveness, extensive vacillation between study topics, failure to commit to honors themes or examination schedules, and pronounced initiation delays, frequently accompanied by the irrational conviction that one must wait for the “ideal moment” before beginning.
• Performance-Related Action Control vs. Volatility / Disengagement (AOP / SOP): Assesses the ongoing self-regulatory maintenance of an intention during its actual execution, particularly when tasks are prolonged, tedious, ambiguous, or competing against tempting external distractions. The action-oriented pole (AOP) reflects sustained immersion, deep concentration, absorption in the learning process, resistance to environmental interruptions, and behavioral persistence. The state-oriented pole (SOP; Volatility) denotes premature disengagement, fragile attentional shielding, cognitive drifting during study sessions, and an inability to maintain productive learning momentum in the face of trivial obstacles.

Theoretical Framework

The Action Control of Students Scale is anchored in the comprehensive theoretical corpus developed by Julius Kuhl, commencing with his foundational Theory of Action Control (1981, 1983, 1984) and culminating in Personality Systems Interactions (PSI) Theory (Kuhl, 2000, 2001). Historically, cognitive psychology and motivation science conceptualized decision-making and execution via cognitive models wherein actions were presumed to follow automatically once an individual established a positive net expectancy of success coupled with a valuable goal incentive. However, Kuhl challenged this classical paradigm by demonstrating that motivation merely establishes a behavioral intention, whereas the actual execution and shielding of that intention require a dedicated, second-order regulatory architecture: volition.

Volitional Maintenance Mechanisms

Under Kuhl’s framework, once an intention is formed, it must be protected against powerful internal and external disturbances. Kuhl delineated six primary volitional maintenance mechanisms that are effortlessly deployed by action-oriented individuals, but systematically malfunction in state-oriented individuals:

1. Selective Attention Control: The systematic cognitive gating of sensory input that amplifies information relevant to the academic intention while filtering out goal-irrelevant environmental distractions.
2. Encoding Control: The selective processing of stimuli based on their action-facilitating attributes, ensuring that only information directly applicable to the immediate execution phase is prioritized in working memory.
3. Emotion Control: The intentional modulation of internal affective states, enabling the student to mitigate performance anxiety or despair and intentionally generate optimistic, goal-supportive affect.
4. Motivation Control: The active cognitive reinforcement of an intention’s subjective value, particularly when performing dull, repetitive, or frustrating academic obligations, thereby preventing competing desires from overriding the primary goal.
5. Environment Control: The deliberate restructuring of the physical or social surroundings (e.g., isolating oneself in a university library, muting cellular devices) to minimize temptation and pre-commit behavioral outcomes.
6. Parsimony of Information Processing (Efficiency of Decision-Making): The timely termination of cognitive deliberation, preventing “analysis paralysis” by recognizing when sufficient information has been accumulated to execute an action.

Integration with Personality Systems Interactions (PSI) Theory

In modern PSI theory, Kuhl formalized the neuro-affective and functional systems that govern action versus state orientation. PSI theory delineates four macro-cognitive systems interconnected via dynamic affective modulating pathways:

• Intention Memory (IM): A high-level, analytical, executive working-memory system located in the prefrontal cortex, responsible for maintaining explicit, declarative representations of difficult, delayed intentions. Activation of IM is sustained by neutral or frustrated positive affect (inhibited drive).
• Intuitive Behavior Control (IBC): An automated, subcortical and somatic motor-execution system that seamlessly orchestrates behavioral routines and environmental navigation. Transition from IM to IBC—facilitating immediate action initiation—requires the release of positive affect (+A). Action-oriented individuals (AOD) readily up-regulate positive affect, effortlessly translating abstract intentions into behavior. State-oriented individuals (SOD) suffer from deficient affect up-regulation, trapping intentions inside IM as unexecuted cognitive plans.
• Object Recognition System (ORS): A sensory system sensitive to discrepancies, errors, and acute danger signals, activated by negative affect (+A-). When a student fails a course or receives severe negative critique, ORS becomes hyper-activated.
• Extension Memory (EM): An expansive, integrated, implicit holistic memory network (associated with right-hemispheric functioning) that synthesizes personal values, autobiographical experiences, deep somatic markers, and self-referential identity schemas. Transition from ORS back to EM requires the active down-regulation of negative affect (-A-). Action-oriented individuals (AOF) possess efficient self-relaxation mechanisms that down-regulate negative affect, restoring access to EM and moving past setbacks. State-oriented individuals (SOF) remain trapped in ORS, yielding perseverative brooding, hyper-vigilance to past errors, and alienation from their broader personal values.

The ACS-S operationalizes these intricate functional dynamics specifically within the contextual demands of academic student life, capturing how individual variation in affective self-regulation dictates performance, psychological well-being, and academic longevity.

Validity

The validity of the Action Control of Students Scale has been substantiated through extensive empirical evaluations encompassing construct, experimental, convergent, criterion-related, and discriminant paradigms across diverse cohorts of university undergraduates.

Construct and Experimental Validation

In a seminal experimental validation study conducted by Fröhlich and Schönborn (1986) utilizing a 48-item preliminary developmental version of the scale, 84 university students across various disciplines were subjected to an insoluble cognitive problem-solving paradigm (complex figure-assembly tasks) designed to induce intense experimental failure and frustration. The theoretical question was whether individuals identified as state-oriented would exhibit the distinct performance deficits and debilitating emotions predicted by Kuhl’s model. Participants were classified into action-oriented and state-oriented cohorts via median-split categorization of their action control scores.

The experimental observations strictly confirmed the theoretical predictions:

• Task Engagement Dynamics: State-oriented students perseverated excessively on insoluble tasks, demonstrating inability to disengage strategically. Conversely, action-oriented students systematically tested plausible solutions and, upon determining their futility, detached rapidly to proceed to subsequent solvable tasks.
• Affective Reactivity: Following the manipulation, state-oriented participants reported statistically significant elevations in experienced frustration (r = .28, p < .01) and cognitive-emotional overwhelm (r = .27, p < .01) compared to action-oriented peers.
• Specific Failure Subscale Sensitivity: The correlation between the Failure-Related Action Control subscale and self-reported emotional frustration reached r = .37 (p < .001), corroborating that this subscale sensitively gauges individual vulnerability to affective dysregulation following performance setbacks.

Convergent and Criterion Validity

Subsequent psychometric investigations by Geyer and Lilli (1992) in a large prospective cohort of N = 369 undergraduate students (257 males, 112 females; mean age 24.0 ± 3.1 years) demonstrated robust convergent associations with established psychological instruments:

• Academic Procrastination and Initiation Latency: The Decision-Related Action Control subscale (AOD/SOD) demonstrated substantial negative correlations with academic procrastination inventories (r values consistently ranging between -.45 and -.58). Students scoring high in state-oriented hesitation delayed exam registration, waited until the final 24 hours to draft term papers, and postponed thesis work significantly more often than action-oriented peers.
• Academic Achievement and Attrition: In longitudinal tracking across four consecutive semesters, action orientation significantly predicted timely completion of intermediate degree certificates (Zwischenprüfung / Vordiplom) and final honors theses, independent of general cognitive ability or high-school grade point average (Abiturnote). State-oriented students exhibited higher rates of unforced course drops and extended degree durations.
• Convergent Trait Associations: The ACS-S correlates moderately to strongly with related constructs: generalized self-efficacy (positive correlation, r = .42), test anxiety (negative correlation with Failure subscale, r = -.49), and neuroticism / negative affectivity (negative correlation with Failure subscale, r = -.52).

Discriminant Validity

Crucially, factor-analytic and correlational investigations confirm that the ACS-S is empirically distinct from general cognitive intelligence (correlations with standardized cognitive aptitude tests hover around zero, r = -.04 to .08, n.s.) and basic generalized motivation (expectancy of success and task valuing correlate with ACS-S subscales only weakly, r = .12 to .18). This demonstrates that the instrument measures a dedicated volitional and self-regulatory executive construct that cannot be reduced to cognitive horsepower or simple enthusiasm.

Reliability

The reliability of the Action Control of Students Scale has been comprehensively established across multiple psychometric criteria, encompassing classical internal consistency indices, inter-subscale correlations, and multi-wave longitudinal stability assessments.

Internal Consistency (Item-Subscale & Item-Test)

Classical item analyses performed on the standardized 30-item scale demonstrate high discriminatory power and coherent internal consistency across all dimensions. As documented in the definitive empirical sample of N = 369 university students (Geyer & Lilli, 1992):

• Item-Subscale Part-Whole Corrected Correlations: Item-subscale correlations exhibit robust homogeneity across the instrument, ranging from .37 to .72. Key items such as Item 25 (reaction to failing an intermediate examination) demonstrated an item-subscale correlation of .72, Item 17 (preparing for a daunting examination) reached .69, and Item 21 (post-submission thoughts) attained .67.
• Item-Total Test Correlations: The corrected item-total correlations across the complete 30-item battery ranged from .29 to .64 (with the vast majority exceeding .45), demonstrating that each scenario contributes meaningfully to the broader action control construct.
• Internal Consistency Estimates (Cronbach’s Alpha): Cronbach’s α coefficients for the three individual 10-item subscales range typically between .76 and .84 across diverse tertiary cohorts, which represents an exemplary standard of internal reliability for forced-choice, scenario-based personality inventories.

Test-Retest Stability

Because action control represents a fundamental, stable dispositional trait modulated by environmental conditions, establishing temporal stability is paramount. In the longitudinal study by Geyer and Lilli (1992), respondents completed the instrument across a rigorous one-year test-retest interval:

• Failure-Related Action Control (AOF): Retest reliability of r_tt = .71 over 12 months.
• Decision-Related Action Control (AOD): Retest reliability of r_tt = .71 over 12 months.
• Performance-Related Action Control (AOP): Retest reliability of r_tt = .59 over 12 months (reflecting slightly greater responsiveness to fluctuating semester course loads and specific seminar topics).
• Composite Action Control Index: The overall composite test score demonstrated a 12-month test-retest stability coefficient of r_tt = .75.

Individual item retest correlations across the one-year interval ranged from .25 to .55 (e.g., Item 6: .55; Item 25: .53; Item 26: .50; Item 8: .50), reflecting high temporal consistency for single dichotomous behavioral indicators over a full academic calendar year.

Inter-Subscale Intercorrelations

The structural relationships between the three subscales were evaluated across two measurement waves (Time 1 and Time 2). Correlations between individual subscales and the total test score demonstrated strong structural cohesion:

• Failure Subscale to Total Test: r = .83 at T1; r = .80 at T2.
• Decision Subscale to Total Test: r = .74 at T1; r = .74 at T2.
• Performance / Success Subscale to Total Test: r = .71 at T1; r = .72 at T2.

Factor Analysis

The structural architecture of the Action Control of Students Scale has undergone rigorous empirical examination using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to establish whether the observed item responses mirror the theoretical multidimensionality of Kuhl’s framework.

Historical Evolution of the Dimensional Structure

During early psychometric development, the original HAKEMP batteries (Kuhl, 1982) posited a fine-grained six-dimensional structure comprising 5 items each across cross-classified cognitive and behavioral modalities: (1) Action vs. state orientation in thinking after success, (2) Action vs. state orientation in acting after success, (3) Thinking after failure, (4) Acting after failure, (5) Prospective thinking, and (6) Prospective acting. However, extensive statistical evaluation of both the original instruments and early student versions demonstrated that the theoretical bifurcation between “thinking” (Denken) and “acting” (Handeln) could not be replicated empirically. Inter-correlations between corresponding cognitive and behavioral facets were exceptionally high (frequently exceeding .85), resulting in factor indeterminacy, collinearity, and substantial cross-loadings.

Consequently, in alignment with Kuhl’s revised general architecture (ACS-90 / HAKEMP-90), Geyer and Lilli consolidated the scale into three robust, parsimonious dimensions:

1. Failure-Related Action Control vs. Preoccupation (AOF/SOF)
2. Decision-Related Action Control vs. Hesitation (AOD/SOD)
3. Performance-Related Action Control vs. Volatility / Disengagement (AOP/SOP)

Item Selection and Factorial Screening

The final 30 items were selected through a multi-stage empirical reduction process. An initial pool of 130 forced-choice scenario items was administered across four randomized questionnaire versions to university students (n = 136). Using classical test theory criteria and Lienert’s rational item selection methodology, the pool was refined to 101 items and administered to an independent student validation sample (n = 60). Items were retained strictly if they satisfied three structural benchmarks:

• Item difficulty indices dispersed evenly between .26 and .92 (mean difficulty across items centered near .50-.65) to maximize differentiation along the entire latent continuum of action control.
• Statistically significant item-subscale correlation (p < .05).
• Absence of content overlap or semantic redundancy across situational vignettes.

This empirical winnowing produced the final standardized battery of 30 items, with 10 items mapping cleanly onto each of the three latent factors.

Confirmatory Factor Analytic Fit

Confirmatory factor analyses utilizing weighted least squares (WLSMV) estimation—the psychometric standard for dichotomous indicator variables—confirm that a three-factor oblique model fits the empirical data substantially better than either a unidimensional model or a two-factor alternative. In structural modeling, the three latent factors demonstrate moderate mutual correlations (ranging from .35 to .52), indicating that while they share an overarching second-order self-regulatory core (general action control), each subscale captures an indispensable, non-redundant facet of volitional functioning. Primary factor loadings for target items are robust, with the majority falling between .48 and .76, and negligible cross-loadings across secondary dimensions.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Name: Action Control of Students Scale (ACS-S; German: Handlungskontrolle bei Studierenden / HAKEMP-Studium).
• Construct Measured: Action vs. State Orientation in tertiary education contexts across three domains (Failure/Preoccupation, Decision/Hesitation, and Performance/Volatility).
• Administration Format: Standardized paper-and-pencil self-report inventory or digital computerized assessment.
• Target Population: University students, college attendees, and tertiary academic researchers across all academic disciplines.
• Completion Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes (average completion time ~10 minutes).
• Total Number of Items: 30 forced-choice scenario-based items.
• Response Format: Dichotomous forced-choice (two alternative response options per scenario: Option A vs. Option B, representing action orientation vs. state orientation).
• Subscale Composition:
  • Failure-Related Action Control vs. Preoccupation (AOF/SOF): 10 scenario items evaluating cognitive-affective coping, rumination, and recuperation following academic failures, critical assessments, or negative seminar experiences.
  • Decision-Related Action Control vs. Hesitation (AOD/SOD): 10 scenario items assessing decision latency, planning, task initiation, and avoidance of procrastination when confronting complex or daunting study requirements.
  • Performance-Related Action Control vs. Volatility / Disengagement (AOP/SOP): 10 scenario items evaluating the maintenance of attention, perseverance, resistance to distractions, and deep immersion during ongoing academic performance.
• Scoring Instructions:
  • For every scenario, each response option is pre-classified: one option reflects an action-oriented reaction, while the other reflects a state-oriented reaction.
  • Each action-oriented option selected is assigned 1 point.
  • Each state-oriented option selected is assigned 0 points.
  • Subscale scores are calculated by summing the points of the 10 items belonging to each subscale (subscale score range: 0 to 10 points).
  • A higher score denotes a higher degree of action orientation; a lower score denotes a higher degree of state orientation.
  • A total composite Action Control score can be derived by summing all three subscale scores (total score range: 0 to 30 points). However, psychometric guidelines caution that total scores represent an ordinal summary rather than an absolute interval scale. Subscales should primarily be interpreted individually to preserve diagnostic specificity.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Action Control of Students Scale (HAKEMP-Studium) was developed and standardized between 1986 and 1992, with comprehensive psychometric properties documented by Siegfried Geyer and György Lilli in 1992. The instrument was developed within academic university psychology departments and is placed in the public domain for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical evaluation, and university counseling services. No licensing fees or royalty payments are required for legitimate scientific and educational use.

Researchers intending to employ the instrument in empirical studies, institutional evaluations, or cross-cultural translations are encouraged to contact the primary author for formal notification and baseline normative data:

• Contact: Prof. Dr. Siegfried Geyer, Medical Sociology Unit, Hannover Medical School (Medizinische Hochschule Hannover), Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany. E-Mail: [email protected].

References

• Atkinson, J. W., & Birch, D. (1970). The dynamics of action. John Wiley & Sons.
• Fröhlich, W. D., & Schönborn, S. (1986). Handlungs- und Lageorientierung: Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Validierung eines Fragebogens [Action and state orientation: Experimental investigations on the validation of a questionnaire]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 7(3), 161–173.
• Geyer, S., & Lilli, G. (1992). Die Erfassung von Handlungs- und Lageorientierung bei Studenten: Entwicklung und Validierung des HAKEMP-Studium [The assessment of action and state orientation in students: Development and validation of the HAKEMP-Studium]. Diagnostica, 38(4), 332–348.
• Kuhl, J. (1981). Motivational and functional alternatives to the theory of learned helplessness: Risk taking, action control, and the condition of state orientation. In In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim Jr. (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 243–279). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-431804-5.50012-7
• Kuhl, J. (1982). Handlungskontroll-Skalen (HAKEMP) [Action Control Scales]. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript. Universität Osnabrück.
• Kuhl, J. (1983). Motivation, Konflikt und Handlungskontrolle [Motivation, conflict, and action control]. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69024-2
• Kuhl, J. (1984). Volitional aspects of achievement motivation and learned helplessness: Toward a comprehensive theory of action control. In B. A. Maher & W. B. Maher (Eds.), Progress in experimental personality research (Vol. 13, pp. 99–171). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-541413-5.50007-3
• Kuhl, J. (1990). Manual der Fragebogen HAKEMP 90 [Manual for the Action Control Scale HAKEMP 90]. Universität Osnabrück.
• Kuhl, J. (1994). Action versus state orientation: Psychometric properties of the Action Control Scale (ACS-90). In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation (pp. 47–59). Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
• Kuhl, J. (2000). A functional-design approach to motivation and self-regulation: The dynamics of personality systems interactions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 111–169). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50034-2
• Kuhl, J., & Beckmann, J. (Eds.). (1994). Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation. Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
• Lienert, G. A. (1973). Testaufbau und Testanalyse [Test construction and test analysis] (3rd ed.). Beltz.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)