Self-regulation from the sociocultural perspective—A literature review

Abstract Children’s self-regulation has been studied from a cognitive-behavioral perspective. However, the vital learning process involves how students absorb, assimilate, and respond to surrounding factors; thus, self-regulation also should be examined from a sociocultural perspective to support children’s autonomous rather than controlled self-regulation. This study reviewed Bandura’s social cognitive theory as the axis of self-regulation from a sociocultural perspective. The elements included in this holistic theory were scrutinized by tracing them to their original ideas and consequent theories: the expectation-value, organismic integration, achievement goal, attribution theories, and the growth mindset. The study suggests including time in self-regulation research because self-regulation is a process. While self-efficacy includes the expectation for outcomes given a current ability, the growth mindset includes growth and a perspective to the future, which changes depending on continuous effort. This study analyzed self-regulatory theories using the trajectory equifinality approach, a methodology from cultural psychology. The theories were then integrated into a model to demonstrate that self-regulation is a sociocultural developmental process that nurtures students’ values and beliefs regarding efforts and goals, leading them to build their mindset, attitudes, and character. The model contributed to discerning the critical point of self-regulation: how students interpret the world and discover attributions.


Introduction
Human learning is organic.It continuously changes its form and is influenced by many environmental factors.Children's learning, in particular, can be influenced by their relationships with family members or teachers, school and community situations, and sociocultural and world directions (Bronfenbrenner, 2005).The vital process of learning involves children absorbing and assimilating all surrounding factors and responding to them or self-regulating in their surroundings to act as truly themselves.Thus, self-regulation is the function of choosing actions based on sociocultural variables that subsequently lead to building character and values.A child's behavior reflects their understanding and beliefs, and their actions and attitudes characterize them (Lapsley & Narvaez, 2006;Schaps et al., 1996).This study investigates children's self-regulation, not as a matter of external factors as teachers or parents controlling their children's behaviors but rather as the child's capacity, reflective sociocultural processes, to autonomously determine their actions.

What is self-regulation?
The word "self-regulation" is often interchangeably used with "self-control"; however, self-control is the effort to resolve inhibitions and conflicts and serves as one form of self-regulation (Fujita, 2011).Previous research indicates that self-regulation is how people optimize their control to gain what they want from their environments (Mithaug, 1993).Self-regulation is also the process of achieving a desired outcome, such as setting goals, taking action, and monitoring progress (Carver & Scheier, 2011).The desired outcome-specifically, goals-can be cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and physiological; genetics are also reciprocally related (Blair & Ku, 2022).The leading expert on self-regulation theory, Roy Baumeister, posited that self-regulation starts with controlling thoughts, impulses, and actions all which eventually lead to managing more complex processes (Baumeister et al., 2018).Hence, self-regulatory development is one of the best predictors of academic outcome, career success, and well-being (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000).Fostering autonomous self-regulatory skills can maximize people's potential to actualize wishes in their lives.To summarize previous research, self-regulation has three aspects: (1) impulse control from a behaviorist perspective, (2) a deliberative process from a cognitive perspective, and (3) valuebased choices from a sociocultural perspective.As previous studies have failed to demonstrate sufficient consideration for this third point, this study fills this gap by not only exploring selfregulation as a series of autonomous decision-making and self-control-related behaviors to achieve goals but also how sociocultural factors influence these processes.

The social nature of self-regulation
As previously mentioned, self-regulation as a cognitive and sociocultural process has evolved beyond merely a behavioral discipline.However, in the childhood education context, many teachers and parents still retain the behavioral perspective that perceives learning as a change in a child's behaviors through stimulus-response-based repetition.Children are recipients of directions, and their learning process is passive with regard to the reward and punishment system that modify behavior (Leeder, 2022).Educating children to be passive followers is not possible when fostering autonomous self-regulation for their future.
The behavioral perspective focuses on how children respond to stimuli or directions, while the cognitive perspective emphasizes internal mental processes that motivate their actions; in contrast, the sociocultural perspective accentuates the child's participation in social and cultural practices (Danish & Gresalfi, 2018).Ample self-regulation research is based on behavior and cognitive views, and some even discuss how physical and mental conditions interact (e.g., Baumeister's ego depletion).However, the sociocultural perspective has not been sufficiently examined, despite it begins an essential resource for children's self-regulation in which they discover and adopt their own set of values or principles in their lives.
This study suggests a way to integrate the cultural psychology view into educational psychology.First, it outlines several important theories and models that describe the crucial parts of selfregulation.As Baumeister's is not the only self-regulatory theory, this study aims to illustrate how other critical theories construct the self-regulation.Subsequently, the author analyzes these theories from a sociocultural perspective throughout the study and integrate them into a cultural psychology model at the end of this study.This procedure will clarify and refine the literature on self-regulation for researchers and practitioners of educational psychology.After introducing Baumeister's self-regulation theory, this study reviews six theories that elucidate sociocultural aspects of self-regulation: the social cognitive, expectancy-value, organismic integration, achievement goal, attribution theories, and the growth mindset.Finally, this study presents an integrated model created by incorporating the trajectory equifinality approach (TEA), a methodology in cultural psychology used to visualize the human process.

Theories of self-regulation
From 1800 to 1850, the term "self-regulation" was mostly used as a method for the government to regulate citizens or employees.In the 1850s, scholars began to use the term to describe the mental process, as noted in one clinical journal: "The principal, the diagnostic feature of this disease that of insane drinking, dipsomania, or oniomania is, on the other hand, the absence or loss of the power of self-control or self-regulation" (Skae, 1858, p.771).
Although "self-regulation" publications increased after 1950, most have involved physiology, engineering, and economics, but not yet psychology or education.For further context, literature has described 1956 as a "commemorative cognitive-counter revolution year," in which many influential psychologists expressed their will to bring the mind back to psychology (Miller, 2003).For example, Bruner et al. (1956) published A Study of Thinking, and Miller (1956) published The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two to describe the human capacity to process information.They questioned behaviorism and experimental psychologists, who redefined psychology as an objective science only based on evidence of publicly observable behavior and excluded the process of the mind.Since 1956 psychology has evolved to become a cognitive science.Kanfer (1970) addressed self-regulation in "Self-Regulation: Research, Issues, and Speculations" in Behavior Modification in Clinical Psychology.Bolstad and Johnson (1972) then published "Self-Regulation in the Modification of Disruptive Classroom Behavior" in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, explaining why the self-regulation process has primarily been referenced as a behaviorcontrol strategy.In 1986, the term "self-regulated learning" first and simultaneously appeared in six paper titles; four were published in Contemporary Educational Psychology, one in American Educational Research, and another in Exceptional Children.Subsequently, the research on selfregulation in educational psychology has increased yearly.In educational psychology, the first handbook of self-regulation was published in 1999.Around the same time, Seligman addressed the concept of positive psychology at the conference at the American Psychological Association, in that psychology should be used for human beings to prosper in the face of adversity (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
The concept of self-regulation in learning has developed toward the same purpose.Four selfregulatory handbooks have been published as of 2022: the Handbook of Self Regulation (Boekaerts et al., 1999); Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research;Theory, and Applications (Vohs & Baumeister, 2011); Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011); and Handbook of Self-Regulatory Processes in Development: New Directions and International Perspectives (Barrett et al., 2013).These handbooks collectively include 87 articles, many of which involve self-regulated learning in a specific subject, such as math, music, or sports, or people, such as those in a particular special needs group or gender.Although abundant articles discuss cognitive and behavioral control as well as self-regulatory strategies, assessments, and motivations, only a few focus on social cognitive perspectives and goals.This study hypothesizes that children construct their values within sociocultural elements and refer to them when making decisions for their actions, a process resulting in self-regulation.Thus, this study highlights and suggests the importance of the sociocultural aspect of self-regulation in childhood education.Moreover, this literature review contributes to integrating the essence of self-regulation and creates a process model to help teachers and parents support children's autonomous selfregulation.
The TEA, a cultural psychology approach that guides drawing the process of human life and magnifies the transformation point in life, enabled the integration of prior theories into one model.This study scrutinizes what signs emerge in children's learning context and how they influence transformations in children's self-regulatory mechanisms.

Self-regulation creates identity
When reviewing the literature on self-regulation, only one is named self-regulation theory: Baumeister's self-regulation theory.It describes four components that propel self-regulation into action: (1) having standards of desirable behavior, (2) having the motivation to meet those standards, (3) monitoring situations and thoughts, and (4) executing willpower.In following these criteria, one can self-regulate until the resource depletes; in contrast, one can also strengthen self-regulating skills over time, much like a muscle (Baumeister et al., 2007(Baumeister et al., , 2020)).Monitoring and willpower are cognitive mechanisms; specifically, willpower is the ability to resist temptations, and monitoring is one strategy to help individuals in this resistance.Baumeister et al. (2007) connected monitoring and willpower to the executive function, which is the brain mechanism that "enables us to plan, focus attention, remember instructions, and juggle multiple tasks successfully . . .[while] working memory, mental flexibility, and self-control are the three types of executive function" (Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University, 2022, p.1) that bridge the psychology and neuroscience of self-regulation (Hyland-Monks et al., 2018).
Focusing on the sociocultural and cognitive perspectives, this study established boundaries within the neuroscientific biological aspects of self-regulation.However, recent neurobiology research reveals that brain development depends directly on social experience (Immordino-Yang et al., 2019).Thus, identifying the most critical factors influencing self-regulation involves the analysis of sociocultural factors that reflect on goals, values, and cognitive development.This is mainly to benefit educators who support children's self-regulation.Furthermore, Baumeister (1997Baumeister ( , 2007) ) stated that self-regulation creates our identity in contemporary society.In the past, identity was created through the individual's connection to traditional social collectivities; however, it has weakened in a modern individualistic society, and it is now necessary to reinvent oneself through self-regulation (Baumeister et al., 2007).Currently, one's identity is created through an individual's choices in an individualistic society, and although these choices are personal to the individual, they are influenced by the individual's sociocultural background.This study expands the self-regulation process, which creates identity in connection to sociocultural contexts, in the desire the educators can help students find their values and virtues to self-regulate and become the person they want to be.

The sociocultural framework of self-regulation
While Baumeister's self-regulation theory focuses more on the processes involved in self-control, willpower, and the regulation of behavior, such as overcoming temptations and delaying gratification (Baumeister et al., 2007), Albert Bandura's (1991) social cognitive theory primarily focuses on how individuals acquire and modify (self-regulate) behavior through observational learning, modeling, and the development of self-efficacy beliefs which rely on the reciprocal interactions between individuals and their environment.This study is to explore sociocultural aspects of selfregulation; the author captured Bandura's social cognitive theory as the first step of further investigation of self-regulation.
The following section examines theories contributing to a broader understanding of autonomous self-regulation, starting with Albert Bandura's (1991) social cognitive theory as a foundation, J. S. Eccles and Wigfield's (2020) expectancy-value theory, Deci and Ryan's (2002) organismic integration theory, the achievement goal theory developed by Elliot (1999), Weiner's (1974) attribution theory, and Dweck's (1986) growth mindset theory.

Social cognitive theory
Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory describes self-regulation as the process of human behavior by self-influence, which is deeply influenced by one's social cognitive framework.According to Bandura (1991), the self-regulatory mechanism operates through three functions: (1) the selfmonitoring of one's behavior, its determinants, and effects that require observation and metacognition of the self in the sociocultural context; (2) the self-judgment of one's behavior, referring to personal standards their goals or values; and (3) emotional self-reactions, or feelings about an outcome based on self-monitoring and judgment.
Self-regulatory processes produce emotional effects that can undermine performance motivations and psychological well-being.Indeed, much of the distress people inflict upon themselves and others arise from dysfunctions in the self-regulatory system (Bandura, 1991, p.273).Further, Bandura (1991, p.251) suggested that cognition (thinking) affects motivation (emotions), and selfknowledge provides direction for performance (actions) that is, self-regulatory control.Hence, this study will scrutinize the self-regulatory process through one's perceptions and emotions which are impacted by the sociocultural environment.
2.2.1.1.Self-efficacy as a pivot of self-regulation.Bandura elucidated the sociocultural impact on selfregulation and created the concept of self-efficacy, a person's belief in their ability to succeed in particular situations, which serves as the bedrock for self-regulative mechanisms (Bandura, 2008).Self-efficacy is not a trait that some are born with and others are not; it is the belief individuals exercise and strengthen in their social life (Schunk & Ertmer, 2000).Self-efficacy is crucial in individuals' practicing of personal agency on thoughts, emotions, motivations, actions, and eventually selfdevelopment (Bandura, 1999;Schunk & Zimmerman, 2003).The social cognitive theory defines the social factors that affect self-efficacy and the operation of the self-regulatory system: (1) mastery experiences, (2) vicarious experiences (social modeling), ( 3) verbal (social) persuasion, and (4) states of physiology (Caprara et al., 2008).The best way to build self-efficacy is through mastery experiences: setting goals and working through challenges with satisfying results (Bandura, 1977).After enough of these mastery experiences, children will believe that their efforts are fruitful; this will enhance their belief in their ability to succeed (Bandura, 1995), or as Bandura (1991, p.270) explained, validate "personal efficacy and environmental controllability." Second, by modeling-or observing other people displaying their competencies and successesone can reflect their identity in such people and believe they can also exhibit such traits.When individuals find more in common with successful people, such as age, ethics, and gender, their selfefficacy increases (Bandura, 1997).Verbal persuasion or being told by trusted people that one can achieve their goals is not necessarily more effective than mastery experiences or role-modeling but will strengthen one's self-efficacy (Bandura, 2008).The greater the self-efficacy, the more challenging the goals individuals set for themselves (Bandura & Jourden, 1991), and the better one can self-regulate toward these goals.
Finally, moods, emotions, and physical reactions all influence self-efficacy.For example, positive moods, emotions and quality health conditions allow people to perceive themselves as competent and confident, leading to self-efficacy (Bandura, 2008).The crucial factors of self-efficacy, social modeling, and social persuasion directly connect to the socio-culturally affected self-system and powerfully facilitate self-regulation.Eventually, these will bring mastery experiences and positive emotions to accelerate the cycle of self-efficacy that enhances self-regulation.Bandura (1986) precisely linked self-efficacy to one's outcome expectations as a crucial cognitive resource for self-regulation.While self-efficacy is defined as the perceived capability to perform, outcome expectancy is a perceived consequence of performance.When one has high self-efficacy, they feel they can accomplish tasks with elevated expectations of such performance, leading to highly favorable outcomes.Bandura (1986) states that self-efficacy influences outcome expectancy, which influences self-regulation.

Expectancy-value theory
Outcome expectancy can be further explored by understanding the expectancy-value theory.The concept has a long history, as it was initially constructed by Tolman (1932) and Lewin (1938), then developed by Atkinson (1957) with Murray's (1938) influence, and expanded in the educational field by J. S. Eccles andWigfield (1995, 2020).The theory posits that the motivation for action is determined by (1) one's expectations for success, or how probable it is that the desired outcome is achieved; and (2) the subjective task value, or how much the individual values the desired outcome.Vroom (1964) describes the motivation for taking action as large when both expectancy and value are high, but such a motivation disappears when one of these factors is zero (Motivation = Expectancy × Value).J. Eccles (1983) characterized four types of value: intrinsic, or for one's own interest and enjoyment; attainment, or that which is done for one's own benefit; and cost, or what to sacrifice to gain value.Further, J. Eccles (1983) also emphasized the sociocultural influences on these values.Self-regulation processes accelerate when students perceive tasks or goals as worth dedicating their efforts toward, but also when the possibility of achievement becomes high enough for them to devote their efforts.Moreover, this Expectancy-Value Model presents how the developmental process of "how gender, cultural stereotypes about different subject areas and occupations, and the broader cultural milieu in which individuals grow up influence their expectancies and values" (Wigfield et al., 2004, p.166).Learning about students' expectancy-value and sociocultural influences is beneficial in inspecting crucial cognitive factors that enhance self-regulation.

2.2.2.1.
Autonomy is the purpose of self-regulation.Bandura (1991Bandura ( , 2001) ) noted that the purpose of self-regulation is for individuals to pursue a sense of agency, autonomy, and the feeling of being in charge of their lives.As students experience a sense of agency through self-regulation, their efficacy increases, and the self-regulating style becomes autonomous.Bandura (1991, p.258) also noted that "people's beliefs in their efficacy influence the choices they make, their aspirations, how much effort they mobilize in a given endeavor, [and] how long they persevere in the face of difficulties."Students' beliefs in their efficacy are the key to their autonomous self-regulation.Bandura (1991) also observed that: People who reward their own attainments usually accomplish more than those who perform the same activities under instruction but without self-incentives, are rewarded noncontingently, or monitor their own behavior and set goals for themselves without rewarding their attainments.(p.256) In other words, children who autonomously self-regulate for their purpose accomplish more than children who self-regulate as a result of external forces.

Organismic integration theory
Ryan and Deci's (2000) study offers a comprehensive empirical analysis of self-regulatory styles on a Motivation Continuum, with values ranging from non-regulation to internal regulation (Figure 2).Self-determination theory, which suggests that humans have three basic psychological needs that are at the core of humans' growth and well-being: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.This organismic integration theory, a mini-theory of self-determination theory, specifically explains the levels of autonomy in types of regulation.External regulation is the least autonomous, and actions occur to satisfy external demands or rewards.Introjected regulation is external, and actions occur under feelings of pressure to avoid guilt or disapproval.Identified regulation falls on the spectrum between external and internal, as actions are still influenced externally but individuals identify external reasons for personal importance.Integrated regulation is the most autonomous form of extrinsic motivation, and actions are congruent with one's beliefs and values-individuals fully internalize sociocultural factors, but still perform for an outcome.As Ryan and Deci (2017) note, Internalization is the internal psychological process that corresponds to the externally observable interpersonal and cultural process of socialization.Through socialization, a society transmits behavioral regulations, attitudes, and values to its constituent members.Yet socialization is not truly effective if behaviors or regulations are enacted only when others monitor or enforce them.Rather, to be effective, the individuals must both assimilate and carry out the behaviors on their own, in the absence of immediate contingencies or surveillance.(p.180) In other words, autonomous self-regulation is a cultural process and a habit internalized within the self.The more internalized the sociocultural factors, the more autonomous the person, and the more they will promote individual growth cohesive to their culture.The organismic integration theory highlights the need for relatedness as centrally important for internalization.As Bandura (1991) revealed the "internalization of dysfunctional standards of self-evaluation can serve as a source of chronic misery" (p.273), educators must be deliberate about what children internalize.Hence, investigating ways to support children in internalizing respect for all individuals, including themselves, and prosocial values would be beneficial; in other words, integrating a positive social culture with support is the key to autonomous self-regulation.Bandura (1991) states that perceived selfefficacy impacts self-regulation through its effects on goal-setting behaviors.Further, Bandura and Jourden (1991) noted that an individual would seek satisfaction from fulfilling valued goals and expend more intense effort when recognizing the discrepancy between the standard and the present state; as they specifically stated, "By making self-satisfaction conditional on matching adopted goals, people proactively give direction to their actions and create self-incentives to persist in their efforts until they accomplish what they seek" (p.942).Furthermore, various types of goal-setting behaviors are conducive to certain outcomes."Goals that present a moderate challenge lead to higher performance than do no goals or instructions to do one's best" (Bandura & Jourden, 1991, p. 944), and faulty goal setting leads to feelings of despondency and impedes performance (Bandura, 1991, p. 274).Sourced from "Selfdetermination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being" by Ryan and Deci (2000), American Psychologist, 55(1), p. 72.Copyright 2000 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

Achievement goal theory
Achievement goal theories help us understand the concept of goal quality.In the early 1980s, the classroom settings researched by Nicholls (1984), Nicholls (1989), Dweck (1986), and Ames (1984) provided the early foundation for literature on achievement goals.Elliot (1999) further evolved the theories presented in these studies to promote two major goals: (1) mastery goals, which focus on tasks and the development of competencies by applying effort and hard work; and (2) performance goals, which focus on demonstrating competencies that outperform others (Maehr & Zusho, 2009).Two other dimensions exist in addition to these core goals: (1) approach goals, which promote individual gains; and (2) avoidance goals, which avoid individual loss.
Collectively, these create four achievement goals (Figure 3): (1) mastery-approach goals, which involve the mastering of a task and focusing on processes toward self-improvement, progress, and a deep understanding of the task; (2) mastery-avoidance goals, which involve retaining one's competence and focusing on an appearance of mastery relative to the task; (3) performanceapproach goals, which involve outperforming others and focusing on the best performer in a class; and (4) performance-avoidance goals, which involve avoidance of not only any demonstration of incompetence to others but also the poorest performance in class (Elliot & McGregor, 2001;Pintrich, 2000;Maehr & Zusho, 2009).These suggest that achievement goal theory is similar to expectancy-value theory, which substitutes the concept of goals in place of value (Dweck, 1986).This framework of mastery and performance goals demonstrates students' achievement goals in classrooms and their role in facilitating or constraining their self-regulation.Maehr and Zusho (2009) remind us that achievement goals are influenced by "a sociocultural matrix in which norms, roles, social positions, social identity-subjective culture-defines opportunities and limits what we can do, and when, how, and where we can do it" (p.100).

Perceived causes in self-regulation.
Another source that mediates self-efficacy and selfregulation is the perceived causes of one's successes and failures.Bandura observed that people who regard themselves as highly efficacious tend to ascribe their failures to insufficient effort, whereas those who regard themselves as inefficacious view the cause of their failures as stemming from low ability (Collins, 1982, Silver, Mitchell, & Gist, 1989 as cited in;Bandura, 1991, p. 258) Figure 3. Achievement goal theory.
Adapted from "Achievement goal theory: The past, present, and future."by M. L. Maehr and A. Zusho, in K. R. Wentzel and A. Wigfield (Eds.)The essence of attribution theory should be explored to better understand the perceived causes of successes and failures; such an understanding is imperative in scrutinizing autonomous selfregulation.

Attribution theory
Gestalt psychologist Heider (1920) first explained how individuals perceive the causality of events, whether externally or internally.Weiner (1986aWeiner ( , 1986b) ) considered Heider, Rotter, and Rosenbaum's attribution theories to propose three dimensions of causal attribution: the locus of causality, stability, and controllability (Figure 4).The locus of causality refers to the cause of events being either the individual's internal or personal factors, such as their abilities, effort, or health condition, or external or environmental factors, such as context, circumstances, or a task's difficulty.Stability refers to the cause of events being temporal or permanent.Weiner considers personality traits and abilities stable, and effort, mood, or luck, as unstable factors, as these may change over time.Controllability refers to the perceived cause that remains under one's control.Causes for effort, attitude, and behavior are within an individual's control, while luck, genetics, or external circumstances are outside one's control.If students blame their low grades on bad luck, that reflects an external, unstable, and personally uncontrollable attribution.On the other hand, If success at a test is attributed to personal factors, such as ability, rather than task ease, the person might expect to do well in other classes, feel more pride, enroll in more difficult courses, raise [his or her] occupational aspirations.(Weiner, 1986a, p.284)Moreover, On past occasions in which success has been attained, persons high in achievement needs ascribed the outcome to internal factors (ability and effort).Hence, they experienced feelings of competence, which is a "reward" for achievement performance.This attributional predilection increases the probability of subsequent achievement-related behavior . ... (Weiner, 1986a, p.390)The "subsequent achievement-related behavior" manifests as the process of self-regulation, and the psychological process with perceived causes determines the individual's subsequent action.Educators can assist students in fostering autonomous self-regulation by emphasizing the controllable aspects of education, specifically, their level of effort, attitude, and beliefs that may help them overcome their genetic abilities.Sourced from "Attribution Theory, Achievement Motivation, and the Educational Process" by B. Weiner, 1972, Review of Educational Research, 42(2).Copyright 1972 by SAGE Publications, Achievement motivation and attribution theory by Weiner (1974), Morristown, N.J.: General

A growth mindset is the key to self-regulation
Finally, a growth mindset (Dweck, 1986(Dweck, , 2019;;Dweck & Yeager, 2019;Yeager et al., 2019) is the belief that one's basic abilities can be cultivated through effort, which is compatible with attribution theory.The growth mindset is a relatively new term, as Dweck developed this by building upon the previously discussed theories as well as social cognitive theory.Students demonstrate a growth mindset when they believe their abilities can increase through effort.In contrast, students exhibit a fixed mindset when they believe their ability will not change, even after expending effort (Yeager & Dweck, 2020, Yeager et al., 2019).Similarly, self-efficacy refers to one's belief in their ability to act to possibly produce a specific outcome (Bandura, 1997).However, the difference between a growth mindset and self-efficacy involves the flow of time and space to develop ability.The growth mindset includes one's expectations for growth and a forward-looking perspective that changes depending on the individual's continuous effort toward the future.
Self-efficacy only includes one's future expectations based on their current ability.This study must include time continuous human development-to comprehensively analyze self-regulatory mechanisms from a sociocultural perspective.A growth mindset transforms into the quality of effort demonstrated by individuals working diligently to improve their ability (Miele & Molden, 2010;Mrazek et al., 2018); further, a growth mindset "leads to increased effort-rather than the withdrawal of effort-in the face of setbacks (Henderson & Dweck, 1990;Hong et al., 1999;Robins & Pals, 2002 as cited in Mrazek et al., 2018).Increasingly using a growth mindset alters how individuals perceive and dedicate their effort, facilitating hard work and engagement with valued goals (Mrazek et al., 2018).Thus, students with this growth mindset perceive themselves as capable of developing toward the future.This notion of growth mindset as a compelling method for constructing perceptions of positive internal attributes and the effort-ability relationship and eventually enhancing self-regulation.

Self-regulation as a cultural process
The TEA is a method in cultural psychology that includes irreversible time and illustrates the human psychological process.The TEA effectively integrates the keys to students' autonomous self-regulation from the previously discussed five theories into one model.This study considers those theories to demonstrate how students can foster efficient perceptions of effort and apply them to their autonomous self-regulation process.The TEA advocates a new system of methodology that incorporates a semiotic approach to cultural psychology (Valsiner, 2014).Derived from Vygotsky's psychology, Cultural psychology is the process individuals create to sustain and fulfill their lives through interactions with their environment (Valsiner, 2007).Individuals' perceptions and idea are both psychological and invisible, which create culture.We can only visualize this culture in action as a result of self-regulation.Thus, the process of self-regulation can be explained as a cultural process, and the perceptions and mindsets that affect self-regulation are signs in cultural psychology.People can pick up on the signs representing culture in their environment and community and internalize the related cultural perceptions and mindsets by using several signs to create meaning."A sign is socially and historically constructed in the 'past,' but it functions in the 'present' toward the 'future'" (Tsuchimoto & Sato, 2022, p 6).Innovating the norm of sampling in psychology, the TEA was created to deeply investigate individual cases over time by handling the psychology of its phenomena.The qualitative methodology of the TEA can be used as both a tool and platform to analyze this process.

The manner of production using the TEA
The TEA consists of three components: (1) historically structured inviting, which is the way to select participants with respect; (2) the trajectory equifinality model, a technique to create a visual model to analyze a participant's life and accumulate several models to create a typology; (3) the threelayer model of genesis (TLMG), which describes "how an individual elaborate the intra-psychological scenarios via the internalization process" (Sato et al., 2016, p.X). Considering that humans are an open system, constructing a model of human development through internalization is beneficial to understand students' perceptions and mindsets embedded in their culture.This study adopts the TLMG-which provides a "hypothetical mechanism of transformation of the individual psyche through sign within irreversible time" (Sato et al., 2016, p.X) to create a model demonstrating students' self-regulation process based on the theories reviewed (Figure 5).The TLMG is helpful in closely depicting how the promotor sign emerges at the bifurcation point (BFP), where plural trajectories diverge and activities are guided to move in one direction.BFP often has a transformational role and delineates growth points.
The equifinality point (EFP) is a research focus point directly connected to the research question in this study.Researchers investigate their preferred experience to understand what, why, and how it is happening as the EFP.In the empirical literature, individuals who have experienced the same point in their lives are invited to participate, and the experience is set as the EFP.Several interviews with the participants explore the paths to reach the EFP.The qualitative data are then analyzed through coding and placing the important actions and thoughts on the first layer at the bottom of the TLMG.The second middle layer is for signs in the context that emerged through the course of participant interviews, and the third top layer denotes beliefs and values.
Self-regulation is an action with an intention that results from cognitive and sociocultural factors, including both social guidance (SG) as support and the social direction (SD) that may impede the participant from proceeding to the EFP (Sato et al., 2016).In the following Figure 3, the SG and SD are illustrated with arrows.Additionally, the TEA uses the polarized-EFP (P-EFP) dimension, which is a hypothetical counterpoint to EFP; in other words, this denotes the field of non-EFP or virtual "dialogical opposite" of the EFP (Sato et al., 2016, p.33).This way, TEA models can provide visualization in two dimensions (Sato & Yasuda, 2017).The participants' paths in the following figure are drawn with full lines, while the paths they did not take are drawn with dotted lines.

The process of self-regulation in the TLMG
As this study aims to discern how students foster autonomous self-regulation, the EFP is where students obtain the qualities.This is a map for educators to refer to in the event of an occurrence in the classroom in order to remind them of the students' psychological process of self-regulation.The self-regulatory strategies illuminated in the six theories are referred to analyze the results found in the dissertation on the TLMG to reveal this process (Figure 5).First, when an event occurs, students react with emotions as they perceive the event as a failure, success, or neutral outcome (the action/thought layer).When they perceive it as a success, they experience self-efficacy (the sign layer), in Bandura's vocabulary, as if it were a mastery experience.However, the first reaction is not the most important; the most significant point is their internal interpretation of the results and perceived cause.If they perceive their effort as the cause of results, regardless of whether the experience was a success, they will advance a growth mindset by being responsible for the consequences of their actions or thoughts.
Failure stimulates students with growth mindsets to expend more effort and work harder to perform better, and success encourages them to set higher goals.Observing how individuals interpret the event in a particular context allows a promoter sign of effort to emerge from the culture (the sign layer).With growth mindsets (belief/attitude layer), students can aim to master tasks more than to outperform others.They can imagine and anticipate positive outcomes and these expectations influence their goal-setting.How they see their future in connection to their current ability and continuous effort fluctuates outcome expectancy, which comes back to their goal setting and self-regulatory styles.When individuals integrate mastery goals into the self (internalizing the sign to the belief/attitude layer), they become autonomously self-regulated.
Previous research (Kasser & Ryan, 1996) indicates that the goal type can affect one's long-term well-being difficulty.In particular, individuals with mastery goals gain internal satisfaction and personal significance and eventually increase their positive well-being.In contrast, students who follow performance goals are more anxious about how others judge them, and their well-being becomes lower than those with mastery goals.This is the second EFP of this model.Even if students seemed to have reached the same EFP-autonomous self-regulation by integrating the sign into the self-their long-term well-being could vary depending on the type of values they integrate into themselves.During students' early childhood, educators are socializers whose beliefs and actions are reflected in their social modeling and persuasion.These sociocultural influences can be SG and SD, depending on the implications.When students seem to be working hard, educators should closely observe their drives.If students are working to earn external prizes, gain approval from others, or avoid fear, their achievement goals are not mastery, so it has potential low well-being in the long term.Educators need to intervene and support them by helping those students acquire growth mindsets and set mastery goals for their future wellbeing.In addition to mastery goals, fostering prosocial goals is an excellent way to support autonomous self-regulation and well-being.
Finally, this study used the TEA to integrate the previously discussed six self-regulation related theories (social cognitive theory, expectancy-value theory, organismic integration theory, achievement goal theory, attribution theory, and growth mindset) and the study findings into the new model.This is to suggest how educators can help students develop autonomous self-regulation by recognizing its sociocultural significance.

Conclusion
This study primarily aimed to provide an overview of the theories comprising the concept of selfregulation to create an integrated model with a cultural psychology framework focusing on the sociocultural perspective.The purpose of this study was to investigate how teachers and parents can support the process of children's self-regulation, not by externally controlling their behaviors but by internalizing sociocultural values so children can autonomously determine their actions.
The new model created in this study can guide educators' focus while children absorb and assimilate the surroundings and respond to them.The model suggests that educators should observe five points to foster students' autonomous self-regulation: (1) How much do they trust their ability (self-efficacy)?(2) Where is their locus of causality, and is it in effort (attribution)?(3) How much do they trust their effort (growth mindset)?(4) Why do they make an effort (achievement goals)?(5) Who decides to make an effort, and is it autonomous (organismic integration)?
Ultimately, and in summary, what actions do they take?This process determines students' selfregulation, with the BFP being how they attribute the cause and effect and interpret their world.This model can be applied practically by educators using verbal persuasion and modeling to enhance self-efficacy in children.This will make them believe their effort will bear fruit and encourage them to set goals focusing on their growth rather than competing with others.This theoretical model demonstrates that once this guidance is established in education and internalized in children, children's autonomy gradually develops to guide their actions.
Self-regulation is a multifaceted process operating through several subsidiary cognitive processes.This work explored each process by reviewing classic theories and bridging them in a TEA analysis.The theoretical integration updated Bandura's social cognitive theory by recognizing Dweck's growth mindset as the key to self-regulation.Although past literature considers selfregulation as a cognitive process, this study demonstrated that it is also a sociocultural developmental process that nurturing one's beliefs and values (principle).Effective beliefs and values for self-regulation are grounded in views of efforts and types of goals that influence one's mindsets and attitudes.Teachers, as socializers, facilitate teacher-student interactions, which are essential for nurturing one's beliefs and values, mindset and attitude, and eventually students' selfregulatory development as a part of their character.
This study has potential limitations.The six major motivational theories that encompass the concept of self-regulation were analyzed, and the model was created based on the theories.However, further experimental investigations are required to discern the process of students' autonomous self-regulation in classrooms.Future research should evaluate the real-life theoretical model to contribute to educational psychology.Furthermore, the qualitative method in cultural psychology, TEA, can be applied in more research to evaluate its effectiveness.

Figure
Figure 5. Sociocultural process of self-regulation.