Secondary control critiqued: is it secondary? is it control? Comment on Morling and Evered (2006).

In an insightful review on secondary control, B. Morling and S. Evered argued that the seminal article spawning the construct (F. Rothbaum, J. R. Weisz, & S. S. Snyder) contained the roots of two distinct conceptualizations focusing on "fit" and "control" and that distinguishing between them clarifies inconsistent research findings. They concluded that the best definition of secondary control focuses on fit. The author of the current commentary agrees with Morling and Evered's premises but draws the opposite conclusion. Herein, it is argued that (a) current control-focused definitions have more valid claims to the term secondary control, and (b) current incarnations that focus on "fit" are important, but they are not secondary and they are not control. Hence, fit-focused constructs should be liberated from the domain of control and studied in their own right, under their own more appropriate label, such as accommodative processes. Moreover, theoretical clarity and depth regarding the functions of fit-focused processes can be gained by examining these processes in relation to other underlying motives, such as belongingness or autonomy, to which they are more closely allied.