Page 42 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 23

emo�onal regula�on capaci�es, and moral development. This systems-ori-
ented view echoes contemporary developmental science, where voli�on is
understood as shaped by an interac�on between person and context over
�me. The emphasis on the developmental and rela�onal forma�on of will
does, to some degree, also aligns with SDT’s claim that suppor�ve interper-
sonal environments foster autonomous func�oning. For example, her dis-
cussion of self-love and Kolberg’s moral scaffolding provided by caregivers
parallels SDT’s recogni�on that early caregiving shapes one’s mo�va�onal
orienta�on, preparing one for a life�me of rela�onships. Autonomy-suppor-
�ve paren�ng is shown to associate with stronger voli�onal regula�on (Be-
nito-Gomez et al. 2020)), while controlling environments impair the interna-
liza�on of self-endorsed values (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989).
While SDT emphasizes psychological needs and the quality of mo�va�on,
other theories such as Expectancy-Value Theories (Eccles & Wigfield, 2000,
2002) focus on the cogni�ve evalua�ons individuals make when deciding
whether to pursue a goal. Two key appraisals drive mo�vated behavior her-
e: (1) expectancy beliefs (i.e., confidence in one’s ability to succeed), and (2)
subjec�ve task values (i.e., how important, interes�ng, or useful the task ap-
pears). In other words, these judgments inform whether a person will mobi-
lize their will to engage in ac�on. Kroll’s no�on of voli�onal paralysis, as ex-
emplified in her case study of Ms. M., illustrates how impaired expectancy
and devalued goals can undermine the exercise of will. Ms. M.’s anxiety,
avoidance, and immobiliza�on reflect diminished efficacy beliefs and possi-
bly low valua�on of the tasks at hand. Expectancy-Value Theory suggests
that interven�ons to rebuild Ms. M.’s will would require recalibra�ng both
her self-efficacy and the perceived value of the life transi�ons confron�ng
her. Importantly, Expectancy-Value frameworks highlight that voli�on is ra-
rely independent of context. Structural opportuni�es, social norms, and cul-
tural expecta�ons directly influence how individuals evaluate their capabili-
�es and life op�ons. Kroll gestures toward these reali�es by emphasizing
how early experiences, cultural-religious narra�ves, and family systems cre-
ate the ‘experien�al space’ within which will develop.

Nonetheless, the treatment of moral development in Kroll’s paper, while
useful, is overly dependent on Kohlberg’s stage model without engaging
more contemporary or culturally sensi�ve accounts of moral forma�on.
Kohlberg’s theory, though founda�onal, has been cri�qued for privileging
Western, individualist concep�ons of morality and for underemphasizing re-
la�onal, jus�ce, and virtue dimensions of ethical development (Cri�enden,
2005; Locle, 1979; Snarey, 1985). While the overemphasis on Kohlberg’s
framework may be posi�oning the paper for a Western audience, Kroll did
a good job in situa�ng the will within a dis�nc�vely Chris�an anthropology,
which emphasizes the imago Dei and the intrinsic dignity of persons. Given
the posi�oning of Kroll’s paper, I seek to answer the following two ques�ons
in response to Kroll’s paper:

1. What happens when our will does not reflect the Missio Dei promise as
the people sent by God in the world?
2. How does Paul’s ‘thorn in the flesh’ in 2 Corinthians 12 enrich and inform
our understanding of the tension between one’s will and the mission of God?
3. How can we regulate our ac�on to par�cipate in the mission of God de-
spite our life’s challenging stories?

42
42