Megastudies improve the impact of applied behavioural science.

Policy-makers are increasingly turning to behavioural science for insights about how to improve citizens' decisions and outcomes1. Typically, different scientists test different intervention ideas in different samples using different outcomes over different time intervals2. The lack of comparability of such individual investigations limits their potential to inform policy. Here, to address this limitation and accelerate the pace of discovery, we introduce the megastudy-a massive field experiment in which the effects of many different interventions are compared in the same population on the same objectively measured outcome for the same duration. In a megastudy targeting physical exercise among 61,293 members of an American fitness chain, 30 scientists from 15 different US universities worked in small independent teams to design a total of 54 different four-week digital programmes (or interventions) encouraging exercise. We show that 45% of these interventions significantly increased weekly gym visits by 9% to 27%; the top-performing intervention offered microrewards for returning to the gym after a missed workout. Only 8% of interventions induced behaviour change that was significant and measurable after the four-week intervention. Conditioning on the 45% of interventions that increased exercise during the intervention, we detected carry-over effects that were proportionally similar to those measured in previous research3-6. Forecasts by impartial judges failed to predict which interventions would be most effective, underscoring the value of testing many ideas at once and, therefore, the potential for megastudies to improve the evidentiary value of behavioural science.

Thinking of food: The mental representation of healthy foods as unprepared.

We find that people implicitly and explicitly represent healthy foods they categorize as healthy in their purest, least prepared forms but represent foods they categorize as unhealthy in their most prepared forms (e.g., a veggie patty is represented as frozen while a beef burger is represented in a bun with melted cheese and ready to eat). We find this effect across several studies using both image and word sorting measures in explicit tasks and implicit association tasks. The effect results from the perception of health and taste as two conflicting goals. Preparation (e.g., cooking, adding toppings) makes food more delicious, which creates categorization ambiguity. Hence, healthy food is thought of as unprepared. Indeed, individual differences in perceived health-taste goal conflict moderate the effect. Critically, the representation of healthy foods matters for food decisions. In an experiment that manipulated the descriptive language on a restaurant menu, emphasizing the preparation of foods increased participants' preference for healthy foods (with no improvement for unhealthy foods).

Motivating Personal Growth by Seeking Discomfort.

Achieving personal growth often requires experiencing discomfort. What if instead of tolerating discomfort (e.g., feeling awkward or uncomfortable), people actively sought it out? Because discomfort is usually experienced immediately and is easy to detect, we suggest that seeking discomfort as a signal of growth can increase motivation. Five experiments (total N = 2,163 adults) tested this prediction across various areas of personal growth: taking improvisation classes to increase self-confidence, engaging in expressive writing to process difficult emotions, becoming informed about the COVID-19 health crisis, opening oneself to opposing political viewpoints, and learning about gun violence. Across these areas of personal development, seeking discomfort as a signal of self-growth motivated engagement and increased perceived goal achievement relative to standard instructions. Consistent with our theorizing, results showed that these effects occurred only in areas of personal growth that cause immediate discomfort.

Trade-Offs in Choice.

To explain trade-offs in choice, researchers have proposed myriad phenomena and decision rules, each paired with separate theories and idiosyncratic vocabularies. Yet most choice problems are ultimately resolved with one of just two types of solutions: mixed or extreme. For example, people adopt mixed solutions for resolving trade-offs when they allow exercising to license indulgence afterward (balancing between goals), read different literary genres (variety seeking), and order medium-sized coffees (the compromise effect). By contrast, when people adopt extreme solutions for resolving these exact same trade-offs, they exhibit highlighting, consistency seeking, and compromise avoidance, respectively. Our review of the choice literature first illustrates how many seemingly unrelated phenomena actually share the same underlying psychology. We then identify variables that promote one solution versus the other. These variables, in turn, systematically influence which of opposite choice effects arise (e.g., highlighting versus balancing). Finally, we demonstrate how several mistakes people purport to make can potentially instead be reinterpreted as mixed solutions for resolving trade-offs. We conclude with guidance for distinguishing mistakes from mixed solutions.

Shared Plates, Shared Minds: Consuming From a Shared Plate Promotes Cooperation.

A meal naturally brings people together, but does the way a meal is served and consumed further matter for cooperation between people? This research ( N = 1,476) yielded evidence that it does. People eating from shared plates (i.e., a Chinese-style meal) cooperated more in social dilemmas and negotiations than those eating from separate plates. Specifically, sharing food from a single plate increased perceived coordination among diners, which in turn led them to behave more cooperatively and less competitively toward each other, compared with individuals eating the same food from separate plates. The effect of sharing a plate on cooperation occurred among strangers, which suggests that sharing plates can bring together more than just allies.

Not Learning From Failure-the Greatest Failure of All.

Our society celebrates failure as a teachable moment. Yet in five studies (total N = 1,674), failure did the opposite: It undermined learning. Across studies, participants answered binary-choice questions, following which they were told they answered correctly (success feedback) or incorrectly (failure feedback). Both types of feedback conveyed the correct answer, because there were only two answer choices. However, on a follow-up test, participants learned less from failure feedback than from success feedback. This effect was replicated across professional, linguistic, and social domains-even when learning from failure was less cognitively taxing than learning from success and even when learning was incentivized. Participants who received failure feedback also remembered fewer of their answer choices. Why does failure undermine learning? Failure is ego threatening, which causes people to tune out. Participants learned less from personal failure than from personal success, yet they learned just as much from other people's failure as from others' success. Thus, when ego concerns are muted, people tune in and learn from failure.

Dear Abby: Should I Give Advice or Receive It?

Typically, individuals struggling with goal achievement seek advice. However, in the present investigation ( N = 2,274), struggling individuals were more motivated by giving advice than receiving it. In a randomized, controlled, double-blind field experiment, middle-school students who gave motivational advice to younger students spent more time on homework over the following month than students who received motivational advice from expert teachers (Experiment 1). This phenomenon was replicated across self-regulatory domains: Strugglers who gave advice, compared with those who received expert advice, were more motivated to save money, control their tempers, lose weight, and seek employment (Experiments 2 and 3). Nevertheless, across domains, people erroneously predicted the opposite, expecting themselves and others to be less motivated by giving advice than receiving it (Experiments 2 and 3). Why are people blind to the motivational power of giving? Giving advice motivated givers by raising their confidence-a reality that predictors fail to anticipate (Experiment 4).

Mechanisms of motivation-cognition interaction: challenges and opportunities.

Recent years have seen a rejuvenation of interest in studies of motivation-cognition interactions arising from many different areas of psychology and neuroscience. The present issue of Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience provides a sampling of some of the latest research from a number of these different areas. In this introductory article, we provide an overview of the current state of the field, in terms of key research developments and candidate neural mechanisms receiving focused investigation as potential sources of motivation-cognition interaction. However, our primary goal is conceptual: to highlight the distinct perspectives taken by different research areas, in terms of how motivation is defined, the relevant dimensions and dissociations that are emphasized, and the theoretical questions being targeted. Together, these distinctions present both challenges and opportunities for efforts aiming toward a more unified and cross-disciplinary approach. We identify a set of pressing research questions calling for this sort of cross-disciplinary approach, with the explicit goal of encouraging integrative and collaborative investigations directed toward them.

The motivational self is more than the sum of its goals.

I present evidence in favor of an overarching motivational self: a mental function that regulates expression of multiple goals. Goals often conflict with each other, and the role of a motivational self is to consciously or unconsciously prioritize pursuit of these goals. When observing inconsistency in expression of goals, it is therefore useful to consider whether the motivational self is attempting to balance between conflicting goals or if such inconsistency results from temporary self-control weakness.

Intuitive advertisers: Emotionality in communication about unhealthy food.

OBJECTIVE: This research tests whether people use more emotion-based language when communicating with one another about unhealthy foods than healthy foods. This matters because emotion-based language is more persuasive. METHOD: In three observational studies, we analyzed the emotionality in 1,000 online recipe descriptions, 4,403 food reviews, and 1,184 celebrity social media posts. In two experiments (N = 398), we analyzed the emotionality when people are prompted to persuade someone to consume an unhealthy food compared with a healthy food. In one experiment (N = 192), we tested persuasiveness as a function of emotionality. RESULTS: Speakers use more emotionality when communicating about less healthy foods. People's tendency to focus more on long-term benefits when communicating about healthy (vs. unhealthy) foods mediated the effect of food type on emotionality. Emotionality, in turn, increases persuasiveness for healthy foods. CONCLUSIONS: People use emotionality in communicating about unhealthy (vs. healthy) foods. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

What do highly motivated people know? Balancing goals, prioritizing actions.

Highly motivated individuals are healthier, more academically and professionally successful, and have stronger relationships. What sets these individuals apart? We propose that highly motivated individuals know when to balance versus prioritize goals. Specifically, they seek harmony between their multiple goals: they see these goals as advancing or complementing each other (e.g., balancing work and family, finding foods that are both tasty and healthy). They also seek to prioritize pursuing a subset of these goals within a given time and place. They make consistent action choices that highlight more important goals (e.g., prioritize studying over social media while in class). The intuition to balance goals and prioritize actions is acquired through social learning and can be enhanced through mindfulness. In turn, it enables self-regulatory success.

The bigger the problem the littler: When the scope of a problem makes it seem less dangerous.

Across 15 studies (N = 2,636), people who considered the prevalence of a problem (e.g., 4.2 million people drive drunk each month) inferred it caused less harm, a phenomenon we dub the big problem paradox. People believed dire problems-ranging from poverty to drunk driving-were less problematic upon learning the number of people they affect (Studies 1-2). Prevalence information caused medical experts to infer medication nonadherence was less dangerous, just as it led women to underestimate their true risk of contracting cancer. The big problem paradox results from an optimistic view of the world. When people believe the world is good, they assume widespread problems have been addressed and, thus, cause less harm (Studies 3-4). The big problem paradox has key implications for motivation and helping behavior (Studies 5-6). Learning the prevalence of medical conditions (i.e., chest pain, suicidal ideation) led people to think a symptomatic individual was less sick and, as a result, to help less-in violation of clinical guidelines. The finding that scale warps judgments and de-motivates action is of particular relevance in the globalized 21st century. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Features of multifinality.

Diverse facets of the multifinality configuration in goal-directed behavior are identified and empirically explored. The multifinality construct denotes a motivational structure wherein a single means is linked to several ends. A multifinality configuration maximizes value that a given means promises to deliver while sacrificing expectancy of attainment due to a dilution effect. Several phenomena implied by multifinality theory are investigated, including an unconscious quest for multifinal means, the constraints that such quest imposes on means to a focal goal, and structural conditions under which an activity may be experienced as intrinsically motivated. Multifinality phenomena appear in numerous domains of social cognition, and the present theory offers a novel perspective on classic motivational effects.

Can't wait to pay: The desire for goal closure increases impatience for costs.

We explore whether the desire to achieve psychological closure on a goal creates impatience. If so, people should choose an earlier (vs. later) option, even when it does not deliver a reward. For example, they may prefer to pay money or complete work earlier rather than later. A choice to incur earlier costs seems to violate the preference for positive discounting (indeed, it may appear like negative time discounting), unless people value earlier goal closure. Across seven studies, we consistently find that people preferred to pay more money sooner over less money later (Study 1) and complete more work sooner over less work later (Studies 2-5) more when they had a stronger desire for goal closure, such as when the sooner option allowed them to achieve goal closure and when the goal would otherwise linger on their minds (compared to when it would not). The implications of goal closure extend to impatience for gains (Studies 6-7), as people preferred less money sooner (vs. more later) when it allowed them to achieve goal closure. These findings suggest that the desire to achieve goal closure is an important aspect of time preferences. Taking this desire into account can explain marketplace anomalies and inform interventions to reduce impatience. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Instrumentality boosts appreciation: helpers are more appreciated while they are useful.

We propose that in social interactions, appreciation of a helper depends on that helper's instrumentality: The more motivated one is to accomplish a goal, and the more one perceives a helper as able to facilitate that goal, the more appreciation one will feel for that helper. Four experiments supported this instrumentality-boost hypothesis by showing that beneficiaries felt more appreciation of their helpers while they were receiving help toward an ongoing task than after that task was completed or after the helper was deemed no longer instrumental. This finding held for both the positive side of appreciation (gratitude) and the negative side (feelings of indebtedness) and also across a range of relationships (complete strangers, newly acquainted partners, and friends). This pattern of appreciation is counterintuitive for helpers, and so a mismatch arises between the time courses of beneficiaries' experienced appreciation and helpers' expectations of appreciation.

Surprised elaboration: When White men get longer sentences.

We present a new consequence of stereotypes: they affect the length of communications. People say more about events that violate common stereotypes than those that confirm them, a phenomenon we dub surprised elaboration. Across two public data sets, government officials wrote longer reports when negative events befell White people (stereotype-inconsistent) than when the same events befell Black or Hispanic people (stereotype-consistent). Officers authored longer missing child reports of White (vs. Black or Hispanic) children (Study 1a), and medical examiners wrote longer reports of unidentified White (vs. Black or Hispanic) bodies (Study 1b). In follow-up experiments, communicators found stereotype-inconsistent events more surprising and this prompted them to elaborate (Study 2). Surprised elaboration occurred for negative events (i.e., crimes, misdemeanors) and also positive ones (i.e., weddings; Study 3). We found that surprised elaboration has policy implications. Observers preferred to funnel government and media resources toward White victims, since their case reports were longer, even when longer reports were not more informative (Studies 4-6). Together, these studies introduce surprised elaboration, a new theoretical phenomenon with implications for public policy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

You Think Failure Is Hard? So Is Learning From It.

Society celebrates failure as a teachable moment. But do people actually learn from failure? Although lay wisdom suggests people should, a review of the research suggests that this is hard. We present a unifying framework that points to emotional and cognitive barriers that make learning from failure difficult. Emotions undermine learning because people find failure ego-threatening. People tend to look away from failure and not pay attention to it to protect their egos. Cognitively, people also struggle because the information in failure is less direct than the information in success and thus harder to extract. Beyond identifying barriers, this framework suggests inroads by which barriers might be addressed. Finally, we explore implications. We outline what, exactly, people miss out on when they overlook the information in failure. We find that the information in failure is often high-quality information that can be used to predict success.

Can't wait or won't wait? The two barriers to patient decisions.

Impatience results from the belief that waiting is either too hard or not worth it. Distinguishing between these barriers informs which intervention will increase patience. Making waiting easier increases patience when people are unable to wait. Increasing the value of waiting increases patience when they lack the desire to wait.

Social exploration: When people deviate from options explored by others.

People often face choices between known options and unknown ones. Our research documents a social-exploration effect: People are more likely to explore unknown options when they learn about known options from other people's experiences. Across four studies (N = 2,333), we used an incentive-compatible paradigm where participants chose between known and unknown options (e.g., cash bonuses). We found higher exploration rates (i.e., choosing of unknown options) when information about known options came from other people, compared with an unidentified source (Study 1a) or a computer (Studies 1b-4). We theorize that the social-exploration effect results from people's tendency to intuitively adopt a group-level perspective with other people: a "we"-perspective. Thus, in social contexts, people explore more to diversify their experience as a group. Supporting this account, we find the effect attenuates in exploration of losses, where people do not wish to adopt a group-level perspective of others' losses (Study 2). Furthermore, the effect is obtained only if others have experienced the outcome; not when they only revealed its content (Study 3). Finally, the social-exploration effect generalizes to everyday choices, such as choosing a movie to watch (Study 4). Taken together, these findings highlight the social aspect of individual exploration decisions and offer practical implications for how to encourage exploration. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Goal Changes and Healthy Aging.

This article discusses ways in which aging individuals respond to physical, social, and environmental changes and constraints by modifying their goals. We review aging-related trends, which we derive from several theoretical approaches, including goal systems theory, the motivational theory of life-span development and its action-phase model, and the Selection, Optimization, and Compensation model. These theories explain how biological and social role changes in later adulthood prompt individuals to make changes to the content, orientation, and composition of their goals, including disengaging from and adjusting previously central goals. They also help identify individual differences in the capacity to do so effectively. We review several motivation-related interventions that address the challenges in goal adjustment and call for more research on identifying processes of goal changes conducive to healthy aging, more interventions, and modifications of societal and institutional (e.g., workplace, nursing home) operations that support adaptive goal change in older adults.