Motivated Knowledge Acquisition: Implicit Self-Theories and the Preference for Knowledge Breadth or Depth.

Implicit self-theories posit that individuals ascribe to one of two beliefs regarding the self: an incremental theory motivated by learning goals and an entity theory motivated by performance goals. This work proposes that these theories-and their underlying motivations-reflect individuals' preferences for different knowledge types. Specifically, we propose that incremental theorists prefer knowledge that expands their understanding of diverse experiences within a category (i.e., knowledge breadth), whereas entity theorists prefer knowledge that refines their understanding of a preferred experience within a category (i.e., knowledge depth). Five studies show the effect of implicit self-theories on individuals' preferences for knowledge breadth and depth and the role of learning and performance goals in motivating these knowledge preferences. We address alternative explanations related to general openness, risk-seeking, and perceived quality differences, and we demonstrate the role of negative feedback in reversing these knowledge preferences.

The Malleable Efficacy of Willpower Theories.

Emerging research documents the self-control consequences of individuals' theories regarding the limited nature of willpower, such that unlimited theorists consistently demonstrate greater self-control than limited theorists. The purpose of the present research was to build upon prior work on self-validation and perceptions of mental fatigue to demonstrate when self-control is actually impaired by endorsing an unlimited theory and-conversely-enhanced by endorsing a limited theory. Four experiments show that fluency reinforces the documented effects of individuals' willpower theories on self-control, while disfluency reverses the documented effects of individuals' willpower theories on self-control. Moreover, these effects are driven by differential perceptions of mental fatigue-perceptions altered by individuals' level of confidence in their willpower theory-and are bound by conditions that promote effortful thought. Collectively, these findings point to the malleable efficacy of willpower theories and the importance of belief confidence in dictating this malleability and in modulating subsequent self-control behavior.

Decision sidestepping: How the motivation for closure prompts individuals to bypass decision making.

We all too often have to make decisions-from the mundane (e.g., what to eat for breakfast) to the complex (e.g., what to buy a loved one)-and yet there exists a multitude of strategies that allows us to make a decision. This work focuses on a subset of decision strategies that allows individuals to make decisions by bypassing the decision-making process-a phenomenon we term decision sidestepping. Critical to the present manuscript, however, we contend that decision sidestepping stems from the motivation to achieve closure. We link this proposition back to the fundamental nature of closure and how those seeking closure are highly bothered by decision making. As such, we argue that the motivation to achieve closure prompts a reliance on sidestepping strategies (e.g., default bias, choice delegation, status quo bias, inaction inertia, option fixation) to reduce the bothersome nature of decision making. In support of this framework, five experiments demonstrate that (a) those seeking closure are more likely to engage in decision sidestepping, (b) the effect of closure on sidestepping stems from the bothersome nature of decision making, and (c) the reliance on sidestepping results in downstream consequences for subsequent choice. Taken together, these findings offer unique insight into the cognitive motivations stimulating a reliance on decision sidestepping and thus a novel framework by which to understand how individuals make decisions while bypassing the decision-making process. (PsycINFO Database Record

The self-control consequences of political ideology.

Evidence from three studies reveals a critical difference in self-control as a function of political ideology. Specifically, greater endorsement of political conservatism (versus liberalism) was associated with greater attention regulation and task persistence. Moreover, this relationship is shown to stem from varying beliefs in freewill; specifically, the association between political ideology and self-control is mediated by differences in the extent to which belief in freewill is endorsed, is independent of task performance or motivation, and is reversed when freewill is perceived to impede (rather than enhance) self-control. Collectively, these findings offer insight into the self-control consequences of political ideology by detailing conditions under which conservatives and liberals are better suited to engage in self-control and outlining the role of freewill beliefs in determining these conditions.