The Get Ready Mindset: - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

The Get Ready Mindset: When Anticipated Future Resource Demands Increase Effort Allocation to Unrelated Current Tasks

Anick Bosmans,Rik Pieters andHans BaumgartnerSlide2

Outline of research ideaallocation of scarce cognitive resources in sequential tasks; specifically, how do expectations of future task demands influence resource allocation to unrelated current tasks?the anticipation of a difficult future task activates a “get ready mindset”;the resources mobilized in anticipation of future task demands may inadvertently transfer to unrelated current tasks;ability to keep tasks separate moderates the hypothesized resource carry-over;Slide3

Getting ready for future performancesimilar to Gollwitzer et al.’s postulate of an implemen-tation mindset, anticipated future task demands may create a get ready mindset;cognitive, affective and motivational states evoked by one context sometimes carry over to other, unrelated contexts:Gollwitzer et al.’s (1990) work on implementation mindsetsDillman’s work on residual arousalmisattribution of mood (Schwarz and Clore 1983; Pham 1998)resources mobilized in anticipation of a difficult future task may carry over to unrelated current tasks;Slide4

Experiment 1A: Mindset activation and product evaluation34 Ps completed two tasks:Initial task: write about an easy or difficult future task (manipulation of Future Task Difficulty)Focal information search task: evaluate a diet drink based on various information linksDependent variables:Number of words and letters used to describe the initial taskProduct evaluation (e.g., like it/dislike it)Number of information links consultedSlide5

Experiment 1A: ResultsEasy Future TaskDifficult Future TaskF(1,32)p# of words/letters

65/27473/343<1n.s.Product evaluation3.74

4.12<1

n.s

.

# of information links consulted

3.6

6.7

9.64

<.01Slide6

Experiment 1B: Mindset activation and baseline effort68 Ps completed several tasks:Different Manipulation of Future Task Difficulty: come up with as many $1 gifts as possible (described as an easy or difficulty task, or no information)Practice gift listing taskFocal information search task: evaluate a diet drink based on various information linksDependent variables:Expectation of having to work hard during the sessionProduct evaluationNumber of information links consultedSlide7

Experiment 1B: ResultsEasy Future TaskControlDifficult Future TaskF(2,65)p

Manipulation check2.913.055.486.50<.01

Performance in practice task5.785.68

4.00

2.28

n.s

.

# of information links consulted

.96

2.41

3.83

8.61

<.001Slide8

Experiment 1C: Mindset activation and idea generation

77 Ps completed several tasks:

Manipulation of Future Task Difficulty: come up with as many $1 gifts as possible (described as an easy or difficulty task)

Different Focal task: generate

ideas about how to lose 6 lbs. of weight in a month

Future task: list 1$ gifts

Dependent variables:

Expected difficulty level of the weight loss and gift listing tasks

Quantitative effort (number

of weight loss ideas) and qualitative effort (high effort-related minus low effort-related thoughts, observer ratings of effort)Slide9

Experiment 1C: Results

Easy Future TaskDifficult Future TaskFpExpected difficulty of the weight loss task3.98

4.381.06

n.s

.

Expected difficulty of the gift listing task

3.40

5.84

44.94

<.001

# of dieting

ideas

3.08

3.97

6.61

<.05

# of effort-related thoughts

-.10

.49

7.65

<.01

Observer-rated effort

1.84

2.36

13.74

<.001Slide10

Keeping things separatetransfer effects occur b/c people have trouble separating experiences associated with one object, event or activity from those associated with others;as the ability to separate experiences increases, carry-over effects should become less likely:Situational: as the distinctiveness of tasks increases, carry-over of resources should decrease;Dispositional: people who are characteristically better able to separate experiences (independent vs. interdependent style of processing) should exhibit less carry-over of resources; Slide11

Experiment 2A: Task similarity as a moderator

59 Ps completed several tasks:

Manipulation of Task Similarity: tasks

are related/unrelated and draw on similar/different psychological processes;

Different Manipulation of Future Task Difficulty: anagram task

that was said to be perceived as easy or difficult by previous Ps;

Practice anagram task

Focal task: generate

ideas about how to lose 6 lbs. of weight in a month

Dependent variable:

number

of weight loss ideasSlide12

Experiment 2A: ResultsNo significant effects in the practice task;# of dieting ideas:Slide13

Experiment 2B: Processing style as a moderator

67 Ps completed several tasks:

Manipulation of Future Task Difficulty: anagram task

that was perceived as easy or difficult by previous Ps;

Practice anagram task

Focal task:

evaluate a diet drink based on various information links (information search)

After several filler tasks, three RT measures to assess independent vs. interdependent style of processing;

Dependent variable:

number

of information links consulted

time

spent reading each piece of information consultedSlide14

Experiment 2B: ResultsSlide15

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Independents

Interdependents

Processing Style

Reading times

(in seconds)

Difficult

Easy

Experiment 2B: ResultsSlide16

Discussionwhen people expected to engage in a difficult future task, they expended more – not less – effort on an unrelated intervening task;this finding was replicated with different manipulations of task difficulty and different focal tasks and effort measures;results are not due to differences in achievement motives, standards of performance, mood, self-esteem, or resource completion;resource carry-over is moderated by people’s ability to separate tasks (task distinctiveness and independent vs. interdependent style of processing);Slide17

Discussion (cont’d)Question whether information about the difficulty of the future task established different performance standards:Manipulation checks and performance on practice tasks argue against this account;No explicit evidence for the processes underlying the standard-of-performance account;Question of when people will conserve and when carry-over will occur:Some evidence of conservation in Experiments 2A and 2BSalience of resource scarcity and extent of self-control required in the future task as relevant factorsImplications of resource carry-over for performance on the future taskSlide18

Manipulation in Experiment 1A We are currently investigating how people experience routine [complex] tasks. Routine tasks are tasks that are relatively simple, require no or little energy, and are relatively effortless. You do not become tired after performing a routine task [Complex tasks are tasks that are difficult, require a substantial amount of energy, and are relatively effortful. You become tired after performing a complex task]. In this task you are asked to describe – in as much detail as possible – a routine [complex] task that you plan to carry out in the near future (i.e., in a few moments or in a couple of hours). Think about a task that you expect to be easy and effortless [difficult and effortful].” In the space below please describe as elaborately and in as much detail as possible an easy, routine task [a difficult, complex task] that you anticipate to carry out in the near future. Also, discuss the reasons why you anticipate this task to be easy [difficult] and why the task will require little or no [a lot of] energy.Slide19

Experiment 2A: Manipulation

checks

Future Task Difficulty:

65 Ps received the same task difficulty instructions as in the main experiment;

Ps in the Difficult Future Task condition

anticipated

having to work harder in the

remainder of the experiment than Ps in the Easy Future Task condition (5.50 vs. 4.39);

no significant differences in mood states, self-esteem, or extent of resource depletion;

Perceived Task Similarity:

34 Ps received the same task similarity instructions as in the main experiment;

Ps who received the similar task instructions rated the two tasks as more similar than Ps who received the dissimilar task instructions (4.90 vs. 3.68);Slide20

Stimuli used to measure processing style